Differential diagnosis between hepatic alveolar echinococcosis and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with conventional ult
- PDF / 4,930,517 Bytes
- 10 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 61 Downloads / 183 Views
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Differential diagnosis between hepatic alveolar echinococcosis and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound Zeng-Cheng Wa1†, Ting Du1†, Xian-Feng Li1, Hui-Qing Xu1, Qiu-Cuo Suo-Ang2, Li-Da Chen3, Hang-Tong Hu3, Wei Wang3 and Ming-De Lu3,4*
Abstract Background: Misclassifications of hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (HAE) as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) may lead to inappropriate treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to explore the differential diagnosis with conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Methods: Sixty HAE lesions with 60 propensity score-matched ICC lesions were retrospectively collected. The 120 lesions were randomly divided into a training set (n = 80) and a testing set (n = 40). In the training set, the most useful independent conventional ultrasound and CEUS features was selected for differentiating between HAE and ICC. Then, a simplified US scoring system for diagnosing HAE was constructed based on selected features with weighted coefficients. The constructed US score for HAE was validated in both the training set and the testing set, and diagnostic performance was evaluated. Results: Compared with ICC lesions, HAE lesions were mostly located in the right lobe and had mixed echogenicity, a pseudocystic appearance and foci calcifications on conventional ultrasound. On CEUS, HAE lesions showed more regular rim-like enhancement than ICC lesions and had late washout with a long enhancement duration. The simplified US score consisted of echogenicity, pseudocystic/calcification, bile duct dilatation, enhancement pattern, enhancement duration, and marked washout. In the testing set, the sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR- and the area under the ROC curve for the score to differentiate HAE from ICC were 80.0, 81.3%, 4.27, 0.25 and 0.905, respectively. (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] † Zeng-Cheng Wa and Ting Du contributed equally to this work. 3 Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Ultrasomics Artificial Intelligence X-Lab, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, 58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou 510080, People’s Republic of China 4 Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the ar
Data Loading...
