超声造影评价肝脏转移瘤血供的价值:增强CT的对比研究

摘要

Objective To compare the capability of contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and contrast-en hanced computed tomography (CECT) in evaluating the vascularity of liver metastases.Methods Both CEUS and CECT were performed on 61 patients with liver metastases.Results The peak enhancement level of the 61 lesions at arterial phase on CEUSwas hyper , iso-, hypo- and non-enhancement in 54 patients (88.5％), 6(9.8％), 1(1.7％)and 0, respectively.Bycomparison, the peak enhancement level on CECT were hyper-, iso-, hypo and non-enhancement in 47(77.0％), 6(9.8％), 7(11.5％) and 1(1.7％), respectively.The enhancement pattern at arterial phase on CEUS was homogeneous, inhomogeneous and rim like enhancement in 26 patients (42.6％), 13 (21.3％), 22 (36.1 ％), respectively.By contrast, the enhancement pattern on CECT was homogeneous, inhomogeneous and rimlike enhancement in 8(13.1％), 8(13.1％), 45(73.8％), respectively.On the other hand, CEUS identified feeding vessels in 29 patients (47.5％) during arterial phase, while CECT revealed the feeding vessels in 21 patients (34.4 ％ ).CEUS dentified 68.9 ％ hypervasular metastases, while CECT only revealed 16.4 ％ hypervasular metastases (P＜0.05).Conclusions CEUS could sensitively assess the vascularity of liver metastases and it appeared to be supe rior to CECT in assessing the vascularity of liver metastases.CEUS could afford more information about the flow of liver metastases for therapeutic plan.%目的 CEUS和CECT评价肝脏转移瘤血供情况了解CEUS在评价肝脏转移瘤血供方面有无优势.方法 61例患者入组研究,同时行CEUS和CECT检查.结果 CEUS动脉期61个病灶最高增强水平表现为高、等、低、无增强的例数分别为54(88.5%)、6(9.8%)、1(1.7%)和0,而CECT的例数分别为47(77.0%)、6(9.8%)、7(1 1.5%)和1(1.7%).CEUS动脉期表现为全瘤均匀、不均匀及环状增强的例数分别为26(42.6%)、13(21.3%)、22(36.1%).而CECT的例数分别为8(13.1%)、8(13.1%)、45(73.8%).CEUS检}{|供瘤血管29例(47.5%),CECT有21例(34.4%)可观察到瘤周血管.CEUS检出富血供肿瘤68.9%,乏血供肿瘤31.1%;CECT检出富血供肿瘤16.4%,乏血供肿瘤83.6%,两者之间的差异有统计学意义(P