Contrast Media, Liver, Biopsy, Fusion
Conditions
Brief summary
So far, there have been studies showing that the CEUS-grafted technique has added value in biopsy and RFA, but no studies have compared the group using only fusion and the group using CEUS+fusion. Therefore, the additional added value of CEUS will be evaluated by comparing the two groups.
Detailed description
Despite the rapid development of tumor markers and liver imaging, pathological confirmation is still necessary for atypical liver lesions that do not meet imaging criteria. US guided procedures are widely used as a method to identify focal lesions of the liver pathologically, and these US guided procedures have no burden on the operation, can be easily accessed, and have a lower cost than surgery. However, the frequency of pathological confirmation with this US guided procedure remains at around 90%. In order to increase this probability, a technique for fusion of liver CT/MRI and US has been widely used in recent years, and this allows accurate targeting of small lesions through structures seen in CT and MR. Through the fusion technique, the biopsy success rate for focal lesions can be increased to 94.4%. However, there are many cases where lesions deeply located in patients with cirrhosis are invisible, and biopsy is difficult only with fusion due to poor sonic window in patients with high BMI. To this end, a technique called contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), such as the fusion technique, was added, which is a technique that can identify tumor vascularity in real-time using second-generation contrast media. In recent studies, there are studies combining this fusion technique and CEUS technique, and the success rate of these techniques varies from 87.6% to 97.5%. Although CEUS with fusion techniques are theoretically superior to fusion only technique, the use of CEUS adds cost of contrast media and is limited in patients with side effects on contrast media. . Also, there is no study comparing the two so far, and this study intends to compare the technique combining CEUS and fusion and the technique using only fusion.
Interventions
DIAGNOSTIC_TESTSONAZOID
CEUS using SONAZOID with fusion technique
Sponsors
Korean Liver Cancer Association
Seoul National University Hospital
Study design
Allocation
NA
Intervention model
SINGLE_GROUP
Primary purpose
DIAGNOSTIC
Masking
NONE
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to 85 Years
Healthy volunteers
No
Inclusion criteria
* Patients scheduled for ultrasound biopsy to confirm local liver lesions * Adults over 18 * Patients who underwent multi-phasic liver CT or MRI within 6 weeks prior to the procedure * Patients who understand and agree to the explanation and consent form and submit the consent form
Exclusion criteria
* Non-adaptive patients with ultrasound contrast agents (eg acute respiratory failure, heart disease, egg allergy, pregnant women, lactating women) * Those who have difficulty obtaining proper liver ultrasound images A. Patient cooperation is not possible B. If it is difficult to obtain an image that is appropriate for the researcher's judgment (atrophy of the right lobe of the liver, a bowel is located between the liver and the abdominal wall, etc.)
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Biopsy yield rate | about 2weeks | Yield rate |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Complication rate | about 2days | Complication rate |
| Tumor visibility on B-mode US | immediately | Tumor visibility on B-mode US which divided into 1 (no visualization), 2 (poorly visible), 3 (indistinct), and 4 (clearly visible) |
| Evaluation of safety access routes to avoid complication | Time: immediately | Evaluate whether the needle has a safety route that can prevent complication by avoiding vessels or bile ducts in the liver. |
| Tumor vascularity on CEUS | Time: immediately | The tumor vascularity is evaluated by CEUS (hyper, iso, hypo vascularity on arterial phase), and compared to contrast enhancement on the CT or MRI |
| Subjective evaluation on the success of the procedure | immediately | Immediately after the procedure, the reliability of appropriate tissue collection for the viable portion is determined and recorded. A score of 3-4 means that operator is expecting a successful enough tissue harvest, and a score of 1-2 means operator is not expecting proper tissue collection. |
Countries
South Korea
Contacts
Primary ContactSAE JIN PARK, MD
Outcome results
None listed