Contrast‐enhanced power Doppler sonography and helical computed tomography for assessment of vascularity of small hepatocellular carcinomas before and after percutaneous ablation

Purpose We compared the usefulness of Levovist‐enhanced power Doppler imaging (PDI) and helical CT in the depiction of tumor vascularity before and after percutaneous ablation of small hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs). Methods Thirty‐one cirrhotic patients with solitary unresectable HCCs smaller than 5 cm (mean size, 2.7 ± 0.8 cm; range, 1.5–5.0 cm) recruited over a 15‐month period were treated with percutaneous ethanol injection ( n = 9) or radiofrequency ablation ( n = 22). PDI, contrast‐enhanced PDI (using Levovist), and multiphase contrast‐enhanced helical CT were performed before and after percutaneous ablation, and vascularity findings were compared. Results Levovist significantly increased baseline intratumoral Doppler signals on PDI compared to non‐contrast PDI. The most frequent tumor vascularity pattern was heterogeneous (45%). Vascularity was identified in all tumors by both contrast‐enhanced PDI and helical CT before ablation. After percutaneous ablation, intratumoral vascularity was detected in 11 tumors by contrast‐enhanced PDI and in 15 tumors by CT. The sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic accuracy of contrast‐enhanced PDI in demonstrating intratumoral vascularity, with CT being the gold standard, were 66%, 93%, and 81%, respectively. There was significant agreement between the 2 modalities in the depiction of tumor vascularity after ablation (κ = 0.6, p = 0.001). However, there were 5 false negatives and 1 false positive with contrast‐enhanced PDI. Complete tumor necrosis was achieved in 21 patients (68%). Conclusions There was a good concordance between contrast‐enhanced PDI and helical CT in the depiction of HCC vascularity before and after percutaneous ablation. However, although contrast‐enhanced PDI may be useful for real‐time guidance of treatment, its low sensitivity makes it inadequate to accurately assess the completeness of ablation. © 2003 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 31:119–128, 2003