PDF herunterladen
Ultraschall Med 2015; 36(06): 590-593
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-107833
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Benefit of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Follow-Up Care of Patients with Colon Cancer: A Prospective Multicenter Study

Nutzen der Kontrastmittelsonografie in der Nachsorge von Patienten mit Kolonkarzinom: prospektive Multizenterstudie
T. Bernatik
1   Dept. of Internal Medicine, Kreisklinik Ebersberg, Germany
,
A. Schuler
2   Dept. of Internal Medicine, Helfenstein Klinik, Geislingen, Germany
,
G. Kunze
3   Dept. of Internal Medicine, KH Villingen-Schwenningen, Villingen-Schwenningen, Germany
,
M. Mauch
4   Dept. of Internal Medicine, Kreisklinik Sigmaringen, Germany
,
C. F. Dietrich
5   Dept. of Internal Medicine2, Caritas-Krankenhaus, Bad Mergentheim, Germany
,
K. Dirks
6   Dept. of Internal Medicine, Rems-Murr-Klinik, Winnenden, Germany
,
C. Pachmann
7   Dept. of Internal Medicine, Israelisches Krankenhaus, Hamburg, Germany
,
N. Börner
8   MED Facharztzentrum, Gastroenterologische Praxis, Mainz, Germany
,
K. Fellermann
9   Dept. of Internal Medicine1, university, Lübeck, Germany
,
J. Menzel
10   Dept. of Internal Medicine2, Klinikum Ingolstadt, Germany
,
D. Strobel
11   Dept. of Medicine 1, University of Erlangen, Germany
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

18. November 2014

14. Oktober 2015

Publikationsdatum:
06. November 2015 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Purpose: According to the German guidelines on colorectal cancer, unenhanced ultrasound is recommended for follow-up. On the other hand, ultrasound and radiology societies specify the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for ruling out liver metastases. Studies focusing on the follow-up of cancer patients are lacking. The goal of this multicenter study initiated by the German Ultrasound Society (DEGUM) was to determine the potential benefit of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the follow-up of patients with colon cancer.

Materials and Methods: Follow-up patients with colon cancer (UICC > IIa) were investigated. As scheduled according to the German guidelines, unenhanced ultrasound was performed followed by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. All liver lesions were recorded. In case of additional metastases detected on contrast-enhanced ultrasound, contrast-enhanced CT, MRI or biopsy was performed to confirm additional liver metastases.

Results: A total of 45 liver metastases were detected in 26/290 patients (= 9 %) using unenhanced ultrasound. A further 28 metastases were detected on contrast-enhanced ultrasound in these 26 patients. In 18 patients showing no liver metastases, 40 additional metastases were detected on unenhanced ultrasound. This means that 44 patients with a total of 113 liver metastases were detected on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (p = 0.0006).

Conclusion: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound should be recommended in the follow-up of patients with colon cancer in addition to unenhanced ultrasound – the up-to-date standard.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel: Die aktuellen Empfehlungen der DGVS sehen regelmäßige sonografische Untersuchungen der Leber zum etwaigen Nachweis metachroner Lebermetastasen in der Nachsorge von Patienten mit kolorektalem Karzinom vor. Andererseits wird von Ultraschallfachgesellschaften und von radiologischer Seite grundsätzlich zum Ausschluss von Lebermetastasen eine kontrastmittelverstärkte Sonografie der Leber gefordert. Klinische Studien zu diesem Thema gibt es bis dato nicht. Ziel der DEGUM-Multizenterstudie war es den Zusatznutzen der Kontrastmittel-Sonografie in der Nachsorge von Patienten mit Kolonkarzinom zu ermitteln.

Material und Methoden: Es wurden Patienten mit Kolonkarzinom (UICC > IIa) in der Nachsorge in die Studie aufgenommen. Zu den von der DGVS-Leitlinie empfohlenen Zeitpunkten wurde eine native Sonografie der Leber durchgeführt. Zusätzlich wurde eine Kontrastmittel-Sonografie durchgeführt und die jeweilige Metastasenanzahl dokumentiert. Bei Nachweis von zusätzlichen Lebermetastasen erfolgte eine weitere Sicherung mittels CT, NMR bzw. Leberpunktion.

Ergebnisse: 290 Patienten wurden untersucht. Bei 26 Patienten wurden nativ insgesamt 45 Lebermetastasen detektiert. In der KM-Sonografie ergaben sich bei diesen 26 Patienten insgesamt 73 Lebermetastasen. Zusätzlich wurden bei weiteren 18 Patienten nur im KM-Sono Lebermetastasen (40) gefunden. D.h. nach KM-Sono ergaben sich insgesamt 44 Patienten mit 113 Leberfiliae. Bei 11 % der Patienten ergab sich folglich ein diagnostischer Zugewinn im Hinblick auf das Vorliegen von Lebermetastasen.

Schlussfolgerung: Ein signifikanter Zusatznutzen erlaubt die Empfehlung Patienten mit Kolonkarzinom in der Nachsorge nicht nur mit nativem Ultraschall sondern mit kontrastmittelverstärktem Ultraschall zu untersuchen.

Key words

ultrasound - metastases - CEUS - liver
 

  • References

  • 1 Robinson PJ. Imaging liver metastases: current limitations and future prospects. Br J Radiol 2000; 73: 234-241
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Hagspiel KD, Neidl KF, Eichenberger AC et al. Detection of liver metastases: comparison of superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced and unenhanced MR imaging at 1.5 T with dynamic CT, intraoperative US and percutaneous US. Radiology 2000; 196: 471-478
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Seemann MD, Bonel H, Wintersperger B et al. Comparison of a high-end ultrasound system with a spiral CT scanner in screening for liver metastases. Ultraschall in Med 1998; 19: 164-167
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Glover C, Douse P, Kane P et al. Accuracy of investigations for asymptomatic colorectal liver metastases. Dis Colon Rextum 2002; 45: 476-484
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Bernatik T, Strobel D, Hahn EG et al. Detection of liver metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced wide band harmonic imaging with conventional ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 2001; 20: 509-515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Blomley MJ, Albrecht T, Cosgrove DO et al. Improved imaging of liver metastases with stimulated acoustic emission in the late phase of enhancement with the US contrast agent SH U 508A: early experience. Radiology 1999; 210: 409-416
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Forsberg F, Merton DA, Liu JB et al. Clinical applications of ultrasound contrast agents. Ultrasonics 1998; 36: 695-701
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Bauer A, Blomley M, Leen E et al. Liver-specific imaging with SHU 563A: diagnostic potential of a new class of ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol 1999; 9: 349-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Blomley M, Albrecht T, Cosgrove D et al. Stimulated acoustic emission imaging ("sono-scintigraphy") with the ultrasound contrast agent Levovist: a reproducible Doppler ultrasound effect with potential clinical utility. Acad Radiol 1998; 5: 236-239
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Becker D, Strobel D, Hahn EG. Tissue harmonic imaging and contrast harmonic imaging. Improving the diagnosis of liver metastasis?. Internist 2000; 41: 17-23
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Skjoldbye B, Pedersen MH, Struckmann J et al. Improved detection and biopsy of solid liver lesions using pulse-inversion ultrasound scanning and contrast agent infusion. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28: 439-444
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Albrecht T, Blomley MJ, Burns PN et al. Improved detection of hepatic metastases with pulse-inversion US during the liver-specific phase of SHU 508A: multicenter study. Radiology  2003; 227: 361-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Quaia E, Bertolotto M, Forgács B et al. Detection of liver metastases by pulse inversion harmonic imaging during Levovist late phase: comparison with conventional ultrasound and helical CT in 160 patients. Eur Radiol  2003; 13: 475-483
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bernatik T, Becker D, Neureiter D et al. Lebermetastasendetektion – Vergleich Kontrastmittel – Ultraschall mit Echosignalverstärkern der ersten versus zweiten Generation. Ultraschall in Med 2003; 24: 175-179
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Oldenburg A, Hohmann J, Foert E et al. Detection of hepatic metastases with low MI real time contrast enhanced sonography and SonoVue. Ultraschall in Med 2005; 26: 277-284
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Konopke R, Kersting S, Bergert H et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound to detect liver metastases. Int J Colorectal Dis 2007; 22: 201-207
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 van Vliet EP, Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ et al. Detection of distant metastases. Br J Cancer 2007; 97: 868-876
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Piscaglia F, Corradi F, Mancini M et al. Real time contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer. BMC Cancer 2007; 7: 171
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Yarmenitis SD, Karantanas A, Bakantaki A et al. Detection of colorectal cancer hepatic metastases with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Dig Dis 2007; 25: 86-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Larsen LP, Rosenkilde M, Christensen H et al. The value of contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from colorectal cancer. Eur J Radiol 2007; 62: 302-307
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Muhi A, Ichikawa T, Motosugi U et al. Diagnosis of colorectal hepatic metastases: comparison of contrast-enhanced CT, contrast-enhanced US, superparamagnetic iron oxide-enhanced MRI, and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. J Magn Reson Imaging  2011; 34: 326-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Rafaelsen SR, Jakobsen A. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound vs multidetector-computed tomography for detecting liver metastases in colorectal cancer: a prospective, blinded, patient-by-patient analysis. Colorectal Dis 2011; 13: 420-425
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Pox C, Aretz S, Bischoff SC et al. S3-Leitlinie Kolorektales Karzinom Version 1.0. Z Gastroenterol 2013; 51: 753-854
    Google Scholar
  • 24 Seitz K, Strobel D, Bernatik T et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions – prospective comparison in clinical practice: CEUS vs. CT (DEGUM multicenter trial). Ultraschall in Med  2009; 30: 383-389
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Seitz K, Bernatik T, Strobel D et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI – a prospective comparison in 269 patients. Ultraschall in Med  2010; 31: 492-499
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Albrecht T, Blomley M, Bolondi L et al.  EFSUMB Study Group Guidelines for the use of contrast agents in ultrasound. Ultraschall in Med 2004; 25: 249-256
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF et al. The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall in Med 2012; 33: 33-59
    Artikel in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Westwood M, Joore M, Grutters J et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using SonoVue® (sulphur hexafluoride microbubbles) compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the characterisation of focal liver lesions and detection of liver metastases: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis. Health Technol Assess  2013; 17: 1-243
    PubMedGoogle Scholar