Effects of Gray-Scale Ultrasonography Immediate Post-Contrast on Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions
Table 4
Imaging characteristic of US pre-CEUS versus US post-CEUS in 43 hepatic metastases.
Imaging characteristic
Grading
Pre-CEUS
Post-CEUS
P value
Size
Enlarged
—
4
—
Margin definition
Poor
14 (32.6)
3 (7.0)
<0.001
Intermediate
18 (41.9)
11 (25.6)
Good
11 (25.5)
29 (67.4)
“Halo” sign
−
24 (55.8)
18 (41.9)
>0.05
+
19 (44.2)
25 (58.1)
Echogenic rim
−
41 (95.3)
40 (93.0)
>0.05
+
2 (4.7)
3 (7.0)
Echogenicity
Hyperechoic
4 (9.3)
4 (9.3)
>0.05
Iso-echoic
16 (37.2)
13 (30.2)
Hypoechoic
23 (53.5)
26 (60.5)
Internal texture
Homogenous
24 (55.8)
20 (46.5)
>0.05
Heterogeneous
19 (44.2)
23 (53.5)
“Mosaic” or “nodule in nodule”
0
2
>0.05
Inner granular hypoecho#
2
5
>0.05
Posterior acoustic enhancement*
−
21 (58.3)
19 (52.8)
>0.05
+
15 (41.7)
17 (47.2)
Spatial resolution
Poor
8 (18.6)
6 (12.0)
>0.05
Intermediate
13 (30.2)
14 (32.5)
Good
22 (51.2)
23 (53.5)
Contrast resolution
Poor
11 (25.6)
3 (7.0)
0.001
Intermediate
17 (39.5)
8 (18.6)
Good
15 (34.9)
32 (74.4)
Note: the data refers to lesion number if not specified. The data in parentheses were percentages. *Sometimes, it was not feasible to observe the posterior echo of lesions due to undesirable locations. #The presence of multiple small hypoechoic areas in the hyperechoic lesion.
