Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: strengths and shortcomings

Sung Won Lee; Min Kyu Kang; Xiang Zhang

doi:10.17998/jlc.2023.09.12

Articles

Page Path: HOME > J Liver Cancer > Volume 23(2); 2023 > Article

Editorial Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: strengths and shortcomings: Sung Won Lee^1,2, Min Kyu Kang³, Xiang Zhang⁴; Journal of Liver Cancer 2023;23(2):238-240.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.17998/jlc.2023.09.12
Published online: September 20, 2023

¹Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

²The Catholic University Liver Research Center, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Internal Medicine, Yeungnam University College of Medicine, Daegu, Korea

⁴State Key Laboratory of Digestive Disease, Institute of Digestive Disease, The Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Li Ka Shing Institute of Health Sciences, CUHK Shenzhen Research Institute, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China

Corresponding author: Sung Won Lee, Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, 222 Banpo-daero, Seocho-gu, Seoul 06591, Korea
Tel. +82-32-340-7244, Fax. +82-32-340-2255 E-mail: swleehepa@gmail.com

• Received: September 12, 2023 • Accepted: September 12, 2023

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

902 Views
64 Downloads

Full Article

Download PDF

Article information
References

See the article "Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using Sonazoid: a comprehensive review" on page 272.

Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), since its first approval in 2007 in Japan, has been subsequently approved in 2012 in Korea, 2017 in Taiwan, and 2018 in China for the imaging of focal liver lesions. Following its approval and accumulation of evidence that reported increased sensitivity for the detection of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), CEUS is now incorporated into several practice guidelines as a second-line diagnostic test for HCC.^1-⁴In this issue of Journal of Liver Cancer, Jeong⁵comprehensively reviewed Sonazoid CEUS from its development, characteristics, method of examination, standardization, imaging diagnosis of benign and malignant hepatic lesions, to introduction of current guidelines for HCC diagnosis using Sonazoid.

The advantages of CEUS compared to conventional bmode ultrasound (US) are the improved detection of smaller HCCs, and reduction of false-referral rates.^6,⁷Also, one of the major advantage of CEUS is the increase in probability to differentiate HCCs from inconclusive nodules following computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination.^8,⁹In addition, unlike CT or MRI which uses static images, the real-time evaluation by CEUS minimizes misdiagnosis due to mistiming, especially in lesions that lack arterial phase hyperenhancement, or with late arterial wash-in appearances.^10,¹¹Furthermore, as arterioportal shunts or vascular pseudolesions are seldom visible in CEUS, the combination of conventional grayscale US and CEUS has shown to effectively differentiate shunts or pseudolesions from true HCCs when MRI findings were inconclusive with a negligible number of false negatives.¹²Moreover, for ill-defined nodules, defect reperfusion US imaging technique may be used to improve HCC diagnosis, which is based on an additional injection of Sonazoid at the Kupffer phase, and a fast wash-in of arterial flow in the Kupffer defect area confirms the diagnosis of HCC.¹³In therapeutic perspectives, it has been shown that CEUS may increase the success rates of tumor ablation and biopsy.¹⁴Another major advantage of CEUS is its safety, as most of the adverse events reported were minor.¹⁵CEUS does not use any radiation, and it may be particularly useful in patients with renal function impairments as it does not involve the injection of potentially nephrotoxic contrast agents.

However, CEUS also has several limitations. First, the inherent limitations of US such as restricted sonic window in patients with obesity or advanced cirrhosis, and when the bowel gas is present, or the fatty tissue is abundant. Also, there may possibly be blind spots at the hepatic dome, caudate lobe, or the left lateral segment of the liver. Second, CEUS is operator-dependent and therefore diagnostic accuracy may largely depend on the skills and experience of the operator which demands sufficient training and standardization of CEUS to maintain the required standards.^16,¹⁷Third, unlike CT or MRI, a single examination of CEUS may not be able to fully detect targeted lesions or the extent of the tumor which limits its use as a staging tool.¹⁸Indeed, this is one of the main reasons why CEUS is not yet recommended as a first-line imaging study in major guidelines. Fourth, although Sonazoid CEUS may be a useful tool to monitor treatment response following locoregional therapies such as radiofrequency ablation or transarterial chemoembolization of a limited number of lesions, there are insufficient evidence for CEUS to be utilized as a monitoring tool during systemic therapy.¹⁹Fifth, there is still controversy regarding the cost-effectiveness of CEUS for its use in HCC surveillance. Indeed, there are discrepancies between academic societies on the recommendation of CEUS for HCC surveillance, and therefore further studies are required to clarify its cost-effectiveness.^19,²⁰

Despite all these considerations, this review has extended our knowledge and insight on the characteristics, efficacy, and important questions that need to be addressed regarding Sonazoid CEUS. It is without doubt a promising diagnostic tool with advantages of real-time diagnosis and enhanced safety. However, further studies are required to overcome the potential disadvantages of Sonazoid CEUS such as restricted sonic window, maintaining inter-observer diagnostic accuracy, shortcomings in monitoring treatment response especially in cases with extensive tumors and during systemic therapy, and partially validated cost-effectiveness as a surveillance tool for HCC.

Article information

Conflict of Interest

The authors have no conflict of interest to disclose.

Ethics Statement

This editorial is fully based on the articles which were already published and did not involve additional patient participants. Therefore, IRB approval was not necessary.

Funding Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Author Contribution

Conceptualization: SWL, MKK, XZ

Writing-original draft: SWL

Writing-review & editing: SWL, MKK, XZ

References

1. Singal AG, Llovet JM, Yarchoan M, Mehta N, Heimbach JK, Dawson LA, et al. AASLD practice guidance on prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma. Hepatology 2023;May 22 doi: 10.1097/HEP.0000000000000466. [Epub ahead of print].Article
2. European Association for the Study of the Liver. EASL clinical practice guidelines: management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Hepatol 2018;69:182−236.Article PubMed
3. Omata M, Cheng AL, Kokudo N, Kudo M, Lee JM, Jia J, et al. Asia-Pacific clinical practice guidelines on the management of hepatocellular carcinoma: a 2017 update. Hepatol Int 2017;11:317−370.Article PubMed PMC PDF
4. Korean Liver Cancer Association (KLCA), National Cancer Center (NCC) Korea. 2022 KLCA-NCC Korea practice guidelines for the management of hepatocellular carcinoma. J Liver Cancer 2023;23:1−120.Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Jeong WK. Diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma using Sonazoid: a comprehensive review. J Liver Cancer 2023;Sep 19 doi: 10.17998/jlc.2023.08.25. [Epub ahead of print].Article
6. Park JH, Park MS, Lee SJ, Jeong WK, Lee JY, Park MJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced US with perfluorobutane for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance: a multicenter diagnostic trial (SCAN). Radiology 2019;292:638−646.Article PubMed
7. Kudo M, Ueshima K, Osaki Y, Hirooka M, Imai Y, Aso K, et al. Bmode ultrasonography versus contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for surveillance of hepatocellular carcinoma: a prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial. Liver Cancer 2019;8:271−280.Article PubMed PMC PDF
8. Kang HJ, Kim JH, Joo I, Han JK. Additional value of contrastenhanced ultrasound (CEUS) on arterial phase non-hyperenhancement observations (≥2 cm) of CT/MRI for high-risk patients: focusing on the CT/MRI LI-RADS categories LR-3 and LR-4. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:55−63.Article PubMed PDF
9. Tan Z, Teoh WC, Wong KM, Wansaicheong GK, Sandrasegaran K. Analysis of comparative performance of CEUS and CECT/MR LI-RADS classification: can CEUS dichotomize LI-RADS indeterminate lesions on CT or MRI? Clin Imaging 2020;62:63−68.Article PubMed
10. Wang F, Numata K, Ruan L. Accurate assessment of vascularity of focal hepatic lesions in arterial phase imaging. Radiology 2020;297:E339−E340.Article PubMed
11. Kim TK, Noh SY, Wilson SR, Kono Y, Piscaglia F, Jang HJ, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) 2017 - a review of important differences compared to the CT/MRI system. Clin Mol Hepatol 2017;23:280−289.Article PubMed PMC PDF
12. Hu J, Bhayana D, Burak KW, Wilson SR. Resolution of indeterminate MRI with CEUS in patients at high risk for hepatocellular carcinoma. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2020;45:123−133.Article PubMed PDF
13. Kudo M. Defect reperfusion imaging with Sonazoid®: a breakthrough in hepatocellular carcinoma. Liver Cancer 2016;5:1−7.Article PubMed PMC PDF
14. Bansal S, Gui J, Merrill C, Wong JK, Burak KW, Wilson SR. Contrast-enhanced US in local ablative therapy and secondary surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma. Radiographics 2019;39:1302−1322.Article PubMed
15. Lv K, Zhai H, Jiang Y, Liang P, Xu HX, Du L, et al. Prospective assessment of diagnostic efficacy and safety of SonazoidTM and SonoVue® ultrasound contrast agents in patients with focal liver lesions. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2021;46:4647−4659.Article PubMed PMC PDF
16. Li W, Li L, Zhuang BW, Ruan SM, Hu HT, Huang Y, et al. Interreader agreement of CEUS LI-RADS among radiologists with different levels of experience. Eur Radiol 2021;31:6758−6767.Article PubMed PDF
17. Zhou H, Zhang C, Du L, Jiang J, Zhao Q, Sun J, et al. Contrastenhanced ultrasound liver imaging reporting and data system in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement. Ultraschall Med 2022;43:64−71.Article PubMed
18. Park J, Lee JM, Kim TH, Yoon JH. Imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Clin Mol Hepatol 2022;28:362−379.Article PubMed PMC PDF
19. Lee JY, Minami Y, Choi BI, Lee WJ, Chou YH, Jeong WK, et al. The AFSUMB consensus statements and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound using Sonazoid. Ultrasonography 2020;39:191−220.Article PubMed PMC PDF
20. Dietrich CF, Nolsøe CP, Barr RG, Berzigotti A, Burns PN, Cantisani V, et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2020 - WFUMB in cooperation with EFSUMB, AFSUMB, AIUM, and FLAUS. Ultraschall Med 2020;41:562−585.Article PubMed

Figure & Data

References

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

PubReader
ePub Link

Download Citation

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format: