Ces radiol. 2009, 63(1):48-55

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of lymphadenopathy - first experiencesOriginal article

Radka Jakubcová1, Jakub Foukal1, Eva Budinská2, Lenka Šmardová3
1 Radiologická klinika LF MU a FN, Brno
2 Institut biostatistiky a analýz MU, Brno
3 Interní hematoonkologická klinika FN, Brno

Aim: The aim of our study was to evaluate the benefit of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in distinction between benign and malignant lymphadenopathy in patients with cervical, axillary and inguinal lymphadenopathy.

Method: From January to September 2008 total number of 48 patients (14 women, 34 men) between the ages of 22-86 years with suspicion of peripheral lymphadenopathy underwent ultrasound examination. All patients were examined with Philips iU22 ultrasound machine, using 17 MHz probe for native exam and 9 MHz probe with intravenous bolus of 1,5 ml sulphur hexafluoride contrast agent. After lymph nodes' exstirpation ultrasound and histological findings were corelated.

Results: According to results of ROC analysis contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has high total accuracy (88,9%). Sensitivity in comparison with native ultrasound examination increased from 67,7 to 100% and specificity increased from 66,7 to 77,8%. In case of malignant lymphadenopathy we could distinguish primary tumour affection of lymph node, i.e. lymphoproliferative disease, and secondary tumour affection of lymph node, i.e. metastasis.

Conclusion: Ultrasonography has important role in evaluation of peripheral lymph nodes. Our results imply that using contrast agents increases accuracy in comparison with native examination (evaluation of vascular pattern and LT ratio of lymph node). It is yet necessary to verify our results on larger group of patients.

Keywords: sulphur hexafluoride, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, lymphadenopathy

Accepted: December 15, 2008; Published: March 1, 2009  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago Chicago Notes IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Jakubcová R, Foukal J, Budinská E, Šmardová L. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of lymphadenopathy - first experiences. Ces radiol. 2009;63(1):48-55.
Download citation

References

  1. Vassallo P, Wernecke K, Roos N, Peters PE. Differentiation of benign from malignant superficial lymphadenopathy: the role of high-resolution US. Radiology 1992; 183(1): 215-220. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  2. Tschammler A, Wirkner H, Ott G, Hahn D. Vascular patterns in reactive and malignant lymphadenopathy. Eur Radiol 1996; 6(4): 473-480. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  3. Tschammler A, Ott G, Schlang T, Seelbach-Goebel B, Schwager K, Hahn D. Lymphadenopathy: differentiation of benign from malignant disease - solor Doppler US assessment of intranodal angioarchitecture. Radiology 1998; 208(1): 117-123. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  4. Mäurer J, William C, Schroeder R, Hidajad N, Hell B, Bier J, Weber S, Felix R. Evaluation of metastases and reactive lymph nodes in Doppler sonography using an ultrasound contrast enhancer. Invest Radiol 1997; 32(8): 441-446. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  5. Schade G. Experiences with using the ultrasound contrast medium levovist in differentiation of cervical lymphomas with color-coded duplex ultrasound. Laryngorhinootologie 2001; 80(4): 209-213. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  6. Moritz JD, Ludwig A, Oestmann JW. Contrast-enhanced color Doppler sonography for evaluation of enlarged cervical lymph nodes in head and neck tumours. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000; 175(5): 1279-1284. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  7. Calliada F, Campani R, Bottinelli O, Bozzini A, Sommaruga MG. Ultrasound contrast agents: basic principles. Eur J Radiol 1998; 27(Suppl 2): S157-S160. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  8. Kollmann C, Putzer M. Ultrasound contrast agents-physical basics. Radiologe 2005; 45(6): 503-512. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  9. Mechl M. Ultrazvukové vyšetření - současnost a budoucnost. Česká Radiologie 2004; 58(5): 338-343.
  10. Bednář B, et al. Patologie. Praha: Avicenum 1983; 769-788.
  11. Döme B, Hendrix MJ, Paku S, Tóvári J, Tímár J. Alternative vascularization mechanisms in cancer: Pathology and therapeutic implications. Am J Pathol 2007; 170(1): 1-15. Go to original source... Go to PubMed...
  12. Robbins SL, Angel M, Kumar V. Basic pathology, 3. London: W. B. Saunders Company 1981; 338-349.
  13. Adam Z, Krejčí M, Vorlíček J, et al. Hematologie, přehled maligních hematologických nemocí. Praha: Grada Publishing 2008; 169-176.
  14. Kolektiv autorů. Speciální patologie I. díl. Praha: Karolinum 2001; 66.

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.