Display options
Cite
Lorusso A, Quaia E, Poillucci G, et al. Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation. Insights Imaging. 2015;6(4):499-508doi: 10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4.
Lorusso, A., Quaia, E., Poillucci, G., Stacul, F., Grisi, G., & Cova, M. A. (2015). Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation. Insights into imaging, 6(4), 499-508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4
Lorusso, Arianna, et al. "Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation." Insights into imaging vol. 6,4 (2015): 499-508. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4
Lorusso A, Quaia E, Poillucci G, Stacul F, Grisi G, Cova MA. Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation. Insights Imaging. 2015 Aug;6(4):499-508. doi: 10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4. Epub 2015 May 09. PMID: 25953127; PMCID: PMC4519812.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Insights Imaging. 2015 Aug;6(4):499-508. doi: 10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4. Epub 2015 May 09.

Activity-based cost analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) related to the diagnostic impact in focal liver lesion characterisation.

Insights into imaging

Arianna Lorusso, Emilio Quaia, Gabriele Poillucci, Fulvio Stacul, Guido Grisi, Maria Assunta Cova

Affiliations

  1. U.C.O. di Radiologia, Dipartimento di Scienze Mediche, Chirurgiche e della Salute, Università degli Studi di Trieste, Azienda Ospedaliero - Universitaria AOUTS, Ospedale di Cattinara, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149, Trieste, Italy.

PMID: 25953127 PMCID: PMC4519812 DOI: 10.1007/s13244-015-0402-4

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study was done to assess the clinical-diagnostic impact and cost of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) versus computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the characterisation of focal liver lesions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: CEUS with sulphur hexafluoride-filled microbubbles (SonoVue bolus 2.4 ml) was performed in 157 patients with 160 focal liver lesions identified by other diagnostic techniques. CEUS images were obtained during the arterial (15 to 35 s from contrast injection), portal venous (40 to 70 s) and late phase (up to 300 s from microbubble injection). Contrast-enhanced CT was performed with a 64-row multidetector CT. MRI was performed before and after administration of the liver-specific contrast agent gadobenate dimeglumine (Gd-BOPTA). A patient-by-patient activity-based cost analysis was performed.

RESULTS: CEUS led to a change in the diagnostic workup in 131/157 patients (83.4 %) and in the therapeutic workup in 93/157 patients (59.2 %). CEUS allowed for the final diagnosis to be established in 133/157 patients (84.7 %). The full cost of CEUS was lower than that of contrast-enhanced CT and MR imaging.

CONCLUSIONS: CEUS determined a change in the diagnostic and therapeutic workup in the characterisation of focal liver lesions and reduced the full costs of the diagnostic process.

MAIN MESSAGES: • CEUS allows a correct diagnosis in more than 80 % of focal liver lesions. • CEUS has a significant impact on the diagnosis of focal liver lesions. • CEUS examination of focal liver lesions reduces total costs. • Dynamic MR with hepato-specific contrast medium remains the reference standard for lesion characterisation. • CEUS is low-cost, versatile and accurate in the characterisation of focal liver lesions.

References

  1. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(9):1578-93 - PubMed
  2. Eur Radiol. 2011 Mar;21(3):457-62 - PubMed
  3. Semin Roentgenol. 2009 Oct;44(4):266-82 - PubMed
  4. Radiology. 2000 Jun;215(3):708-16 - PubMed
  5. J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2008 Oct;23 (10 ):1511-9 - PubMed
  6. Radiol Med. 2010 Aug;115(5):714-31 - PubMed
  7. Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):420-30 - PubMed
  8. Eur Radiol. 2007 Dec;17 Suppl 6:F99-106 - PubMed
  9. Radiol Med. 2007 Jun;112(4):473-90 - PubMed
  10. Ultraschall Med. 2008 Feb;29(1):28-44 - PubMed
  11. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44(7):733-41 - PubMed
  12. Abdom Imaging. 2012 Aug;37(4):580-90 - PubMed
  13. Intervirology. 2008;51 Suppl 1:61-9 - PubMed
  14. Acad Radiol. 2004 Feb;11(2):141-8 - PubMed
  15. Radiol Med. 2009 Mar;114(2):239-52 - PubMed
  16. Med Ultrason. 2010 Dec;12 (4):280-5 - PubMed
  17. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2013 Feb;39(2):187-210 - PubMed
  18. Med Ultrason. 2011 Mar;13(1):38-44 - PubMed
  19. Radiol Med. 2007 Sep;112(6):810-20 - PubMed
  20. Radiology. 2001 Jun;219(3):611-20 - PubMed
  21. Eur Radiol. 2007 Aug;17 (8):1995-2008 - PubMed
  22. World J Gastroenterol. 2009 Aug 14;15(30):3748-56 - PubMed
  23. J Radiol. 2009 Jan;90(1 Pt 2):109-22 - PubMed
  24. Cancer Imaging. 2011 Oct 03;11 Spec No A:S167-73 - PubMed
  25. World J Radiol. 2010 Dec 28;2(12):455-62 - PubMed
  26. World J Hepatol. 2010 Jan 27;2(1):8-15 - PubMed
  27. Invest Radiol. 2011 Feb;46(2):106-15 - PubMed
  28. Eur Radiol. 2007 Apr;17 (4):1066-73 - PubMed
  29. Radiology. 2005 May;235(2):361-70 - PubMed
  30. Radiol Med. 2004 Mar;107(3):155-65 - PubMed
  31. Ultraschall Med. 2004 Aug;25(4):249-56 - PubMed
  32. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2010 Dec;19(4):393-8 - PubMed

Publication Types