Clinical Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1112-1120 , October 2008

Ultrasound imaging of liver metastases in the delayed parenchymal phase following administration of Sonazoid™ using a destructive mode technique (Agent Detection Imaging™)

  • A.J. Edey

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • S.M. Ryan

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • R.C. Beese

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
    • ,
  • P. Gordon

      Affiliations

    • GE Healthcare,Nydalen, Oslo, Norway
    • ,
  • P.S. Sidhu

      Affiliations

    • Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, London, UK
    • Corresponding Author InformationGuarantor and correspondent: P. S. Sidhu, Department of Radiology, King's College Hospital, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9RS, UK. Tel.: +44 3299 4164; fax: +44 3299 3157.

Received 13 January 2008 ,Revised 29 February 2008 ,Accepted 5 March 2008.

References 

  1. Robinson PJA. Imaging liver metastases: current limitations and future prospects. Br J Radiol. 2000;73:234–241
  2. Albrecht T, Oldenburg A, Hohmann J, et al. Imaging of liver metastases with contrast-specific low-MI real-time ultrasound and SonoVue. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:N79–N86
  3. Quaia E, D'Onofrio M, Palumbo A, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography versus baseline ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in metastatic disease of the liver: diagnostic performance and confidence. Eur Radiol. 2006;16:1599–1609
  4. Albrecht T, Hohmann J, Oldenburg A, et al. Detection and characterization of liver metastases. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:P25–P33
  5. Blomley MJK, Albrecht T, Cosgrove DO, et al. Improved imaging of liver metastases with stimulated acoustic emission in the late phase of enhancement with the US contrast agent SH U 508A: early experience. Radiology. 1999;210:409–416
  6. Leen E, Moug S, Horgan P. Potential impact and utilization of ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol. 2004;14:P16–P24
  7. Albrecht T, Blomley MJK, Bolondi L, et al. Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall Med. 2004 Aug;25(4):249–256
  8. Quaia E. Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents; an update. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:1995–2008
  9. Forsberg F, Goldberg BB, Liu JB, et al. Tissue-specific US contrast agent for evaluation of hepatic and splenic parenchyma. Radiology. 1999;210:125–132
  10. Hauff P, Fritzsch T, Reinhardt M, et al. Delineation of experimental liver tumors in rabbits by a new ultrasound contrast agent and stimulated acoustic emission. Invest Radiol. 1997;32:95–99
  11. Blomley MJK, Sidhu PS, Cosgrove DO, et al. Do different types of liver lesions differ in their uptake of the microbubble contrast agent SH U 508A in the late liver phase? Early experience. Radiology. 2001;220:661–667
  12. Bryant TH, Blomley MJK, Albrecht T, et al. Liver phase uptake of a liver specific microbubble improves characterization of liver lesions: a prospective multi-center study. Radiology. 2004;232:392–399
  13. Marelli C. Preliminary experience with NC100100, a new ultrasound contrast agent for intravenous injection. Eur Radiol. 1999;9:S343–S346
  14. Sontum PC. Physicochemical characteristics of Sonazoid™, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging. Ultrasound Med Biol 2008;34:824–33.
  15. Leen E, Correas JM, Needleman L, et al. Multicentre study of Sonazoid enhanced ultrasound of patients with known primary cancer: improved detection of liver metastases. Radiology. 2002;225(Suppl. P):247
  16. Berry JD, Sidhu PS. Microbubble contrast enhanced ultrasound features of common focal liver lesions: a guide for the novice. Ultrasound. 2006;14:190–201
  17. Lim AKP, Patel N, Eckersley RJ, et al. Evidence for spleen-specific uptake of a microbubble contrast agent: a quantitative study in healthy volunteers. Radiology. 2004;231:785–788
  18. Sontum P, Ostensen J, Dyrstad K, et al. Acoustic properties of NC100100 and their relation with the microbubble size distribution. Invest Radiol. 1999;34:268–275
  19. Garden OJ, Rees M, Poston GJ, et al. Guidelines for resection of colorectal cancer liver metastases. Gut. 2006;55:iii1–iii8
  20. Americian College of Radiology . ACR Appropriateness criteria. Gastrointestinal imaging. Suspected liver metastasis. Available from: http://www.acr.org/SecondaryMainMenuCategories/quality_safety/app_criteria/pdf/ExpertPanelonGastrointestinalImaging/SuspectedLiverMetastasesDoc14.aspx2007;[accessed June 2007]
  21. Ohlsson B, Tranberg KG, Lundstedt C, et al. Detection of hepatic metastases in colorectal cancer: a prospective study of laboratory and imaging findings. Eur J Surg. 1993;159:275–281
  22. Quaia E, Bertolotto M, Forgacs B, et al. Detection of liver metastases by pulse inversion harmonic imaging during Levovist late phase: comparison with conventional ultrasound and helical CT in 160 patients. Eur Radiol. 2003;13:475–483
  23. van Erkel AR, Pijl MEJ, van den Berg-Huysmans A, et al. Hepatic metastases in patients with colorectal cancer: relationship between size of metastases, standard of reference, and detection rates. Radiology. 2002;224:404–409
  24. Burns PN, Wilson SR. Focal liver masses: enhancement patterns on contrast-enhanced images—concordance of US scans with CT scans and MR images. Radiology. 2006;242:162–174
  25. Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. The safety of SonoVue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32:1369–1375
  26. Forsberg F, Piccoli CW, Liu JB, et al. Hepatic tumor detection: MR imaging and conventional US versus pulse-inversion harmonic US of NC100100 during its reticuloendothelial system-specfic phase. Radiology. 2002;222:824–829
  27. Jakobsen JA. Ultrasound contrast agents: clinical applications. Eur Radiol. 2001;11:1329–1337
  28. Brannigan M, Burns PN, Wilson SR. Blood flow patterns in focal liver lesions at microbubble-enhanced US. Radiographics. 2004;24:921–935
  29. Blomley MJK, Albrecht T, Wilson SR, et al. Improved detection of metastatic liver lesions using pulse inversion harmonic imaging with Levovist: a multicentre study. Radiology. 1999;213:491

PII: S0009-9260(08)00176-1

doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2008.03.008

Clinical Radiology
Volume 63, Issue 10 , Pages 1112-1120 , October 2008

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution