Effects of Gray-Scale Ultrasonography Immediate Post-Contrast on Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions
Table 3
Imaging characteristic of US pre-CEUS versus US post-CEUS in 74 hepatocellular carcinomas.
Imaging characteristic
Grading
Pre-CEUS
Post-CEUS
P value
Size
Enlarged
—
23
—
Margin definition
Poor
28 (37.8)
6 (8.1)
<0.001
Intermediate
22 (29.8)
14 (18.9)
Good
24 (32.4)
54 (73.0)
“Halo” sign
−
42 (56.8)
28 (37.8)
0.021
+
32 (43.2)
46 (62.2)
Echogenic rim
−
71 (95.9)
72 (97.3)
>0.05
+
3 (4.1)
2 (2.7)
Echogenicity
Hyperechoic
23 (31.1)
16 (21.6)
>0.05
Iso-echoic
13 (17.6)
14 (18.9)
Hypoechoic
38 (51.3)
44 (59.5)
Internal texture
Homogenous
35 (47.3)
18 (24.3)
0.004
Heterogeneous
39 (52.7)
56 (75.7)
“Mosaic” or “nodule in nodule”
19
34
0.001
Inner granular hypoecho#
2
3
>0.05
Posterior acoustic enhancement*
−
31 (56.4)
22 (40.0)
>0.05
+
24 (43.6)
33 (60.0)
Spatial resolution
Poor
12 (16.2)
9 (12.2)
>0.05
Intermediate
21 (28.4)
19 (25.7)
Good
41 (55.4)
46 (62.1)
Contrast resolution
Poor
28 (37.8)
10 (13.5)
<0.001
Intermediate
26 (35.1)
18 (24.3)
Good
20 (27.1)
46 (62.2)
Note: the data refers to lesion number if not specified. *Sometimes, it was not feasible to observe the posterior echo of lesions due to undesirable locations. The data in parentheses were percentages. #The presence of multiple small hypoechoic areas in the hyperechoic lesion.
