Hepatocellular carcinoma: Power Doppler US with a contrast agent - Preliminary results

Radiology

Volumn 209, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 135-140

  Kim, Ah Young ^a   Choi, Byung Ihn ^a,b   Kim, Tae Kyoung ^a   Han, Joon Koo ^a   Yun, Eun Joo ^a   Lee, Ki Yeol ^a   Han, Man Chung ^a  

^a Seoul National University College of Medicine   (South Korea)

^b Seoul National University Hospital   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Contrast media; Galactose; Liver neoplasms, blood supply; Ultrasound (US), contrast media; Ultrasound (US), power Doppler studies

Indexed keywords

SHU 508;

ADULT; AGED; ANGIOGRAPHY; ARTICLE; CLINICAL ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DOPPLER FLOWMETRY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LIVER CELL CARCINOMA; MALE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; TUMOR LOCALIZATION; TUMOR VASCULARIZATION;

EID: 0012117843     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiology.209.1.9769824     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Goldberg BB, Merton DA, Forsberg F, Liu JB, Rawool NM. Color amplitude imaging: preliminary results using vascular sonographic contrast agents. J Ultrasound Med 1996; 15:127-134.
2. Burns PN. Harmonic imaging with ultrasound contrast agents. Clin Radiol 1996; 51:50-55.
3. Downey DB, Fenster A. Vascular imaging with a three-dimensional power Doppler system. AJR 1995; 165:665-673.
4. Lencioni R, Pinto F, Armillotta N, Bartolozzi C. Assessment of tumor vascularity in hepatocellular carcinoma: comparison of power Doppler US and color Doppler US. Radiology 1996; 201:353-358.
5. Bude RO, Rubin JM, Adler RS. Power versus conventional color Doppler sonography: comparison in the depiction of normal intrarenal vasculature. Radiology 1994; 192:777-780.
6. Choi BI, Kim TK, Han JK, Chung JW, Park JH, Han MC. Power versus conventional color Doppler sonography: comparison in the depiction of vasculature in liver tumors. Radiology 1996; 200:55-58.
7. Fujimoto M, Moriyasu F, Nishikawa K, Nada T, Okuma M. Color Doppler sonography of hepatic tumors with a galactose-based contrast agent: correlation with angiographic findings. AJR 1994; 163:1099-1104.
8. Angeli E, Carpanelli R, Crespi G, Zanello A, Sironi S, Del Maschio A. Efficacy of SH U 508 A (Levovist®) in color Doppler ultrasonography of hepatocellular carcinoma vascularization. Radiol Diagn 1994; 87(suppl):24-31.
9. Leen E, McArdle CS. Ultrasound contrast agents in liver imaging. Clin Radiol 1996; 51:35-39.
10. Tanaka S, Kitamura T, Fujita M, Nakanishi K, Okuda S. Color Doppler flow imaging of liver tumors. AJR 1990; 154:509-514.
11. Numata K, Tanaka S, Mitsui K, Morimoto M, Inoue S, Yonezawa H. Flow characteristics of hepatic tumors at color Doppler sonography: correlation with arteriographic findings. AJR 1993; 160:515-521.
12. Lin ZY, Wang LY, Wang JH, et al. Clinical utility of color Doppler sonography in the differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma from metastases and hemangiomas. J Ultrasound Med 1997; 16:51-58.
13. Numata K, Tanaka K, Kiba T, et al. Use of hepatic tumor index on color Doppler sonography for differentiating large hepatic tumors. AJR 1997; 168:991-995.
14. Reinhold C, Hammers L, Taylor CR, et al. Characterization of focal hepatic lesions with duplex sonography: findings in 198 patients. AJR 1995; 164:1131-1135.
15. Becker D, Gunter E, Hahn EG, Heyder N. Imaging tumor vascularization of hepatocellular carcinoma with ultrasound angiography. Ultraschall Med 1995; 16:109-112.
16. Murphy KJ, Rubin JM. Power Doppler: it's a good thing. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18:13-21.
17. Shimamoto K, Sakuma S, Ishigaki T, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma: evaluation with color Doppler US and MR imaging. Radiology 1992; 182:149-153.
18. Melany ML, Grant EG. Clinical experience with sonographic contrast agents. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 1997; 18:3-12.
19. Forsberg F. Physics of ultrasound contrast agents. In: Goldberg BB, ed. Ultrasound contrast agents. United Kingdom, Pa: Martin Dunitz, 1997; 9-20.
20. Forsberg F, Liu JB, Burns PN, Merton DA, Goldberg BB. Artifacts in ultrasonic contrast agent studies. J Ultrasound Med 1994; 13:357-365.