nach oben

Erschienen in:

01.07.2012 | Original Article

Contrast-enhanced sonography of malignant pediatric abdominal and pelvic solid tumors: preliminary safety and feasibility data

verfasst von: M. Beth McCarville, Sue C. Kaste, Fredric A. Hoffer, Raja B. Khan, R. Christopher Walton, Bruce S. Alpert, Wayne L. Furman, Chenghong Li, Xiaoping Xiong

Erschienen in: Pediatric Radiology | Ausgabe 7/2012

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Background

Little information exists regarding pediatric contrast-enhanced US.

Objective

To assess the safety and feasibility of contrast-enhanced US of pediatric abdominal and pelvic tumors.

Materials and methods

This prospective study included eight boys and five girls (mean age, 10.8 years) with abdominal or pelvic tumors. Cohorts of three subjects underwent US with perflutren contrast agent at escalating dose levels. Neurological and funduscopic examination, electrocardiography and continuous pulse oximetry were performed before and after contrast administration. Three radiologists independently scored six imaging parameters on pre- and postcontrast sonography. Inter-reviewer agreement was measured by the Kappa statistic.

Results

No neurological, retinal, electrocardiographical or pulse oximetry changes were attributable to the contrast agent. Two subjects reported minor, transient symptoms. Postcontrast US parameter scores improved slightly in 8 of 12 subjects. Postcontrast ultrasound inter-reviewer agreement improved slightly for detection of tumor margins (precontrast = 0.20, postcontrast = 0.26), local tumor invasion (precontrast = -0.01, postcontrast = 0.10) and adenopathy (precontrast = 0.35, postcontrast = 0.44).

Conclusions

Although our sample size is small, perflutren contrast agents appear to be safe and well tolerated in children. Contrast-enhanced sonography of pediatric abdominal and pelvic tumors is feasible, but larger studies are needed to define their safety and efficacy in children.

Brody AS, Frush DP, Huda W et al (2007) Radiation risk to children from computed tomography. Pediatrics 120:677–682PubMedCrossRef

Brenner DJ, Hall EJ (2007) Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure. N Engl J Med 357:2277–2284PubMedCrossRef

Cohen JL, Cheirif J, Segar DS et al (1998) Improved left ventricular endocardial border delineation and opacification with Optison (FS069), a new echocardiographic contrast agent. Results of a phase III Multicenter Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 32:746–752PubMedCrossRef

Sakakura K, Tone K, Kakimoto H et al (2003) Improvement of endocardial border delineation during dobutamine stress echocardiography with Levovist. J Cardiol 41:277–283PubMed

Mulvagh SL, Rakowski H, Vannan MA et al (2008) American Society of Echocardiography consensus statement on the clinical applications of ultrasonic contrast agents in echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 21:1179–1201PubMedCrossRef

Chen L, Colonna P, Corda M et al (2001) Contrast-enhanced harmonic color Doppler for left ventricular opacification: improved endocardial border definition compared to tissue harmonic imaging and optimization of methodology in patients with suboptimal echocardiograms. Echocardiography 18:639–649PubMedCrossRef

Nanda NC, Wistran DC, Karlsberg RP et al (2002) Multicenter evaluation of SonoVue for improved endocardial border delineation. Echocardiography 19:27–36PubMedCrossRef

Yoshitani H, Takeuchi M, Hirose M et al (2002) Head-to-head comparison of fundamental, tissue harmonic and contrast harmonic imaging with or without an air-filled contrast agent, levovist, for endocardial border delineation in patients with poor quality images. Circ J 66:494–498PubMedCrossRef

Kitzman DW, Goldman ME, Gillam LD et al (2000) Efficacy and safety of the novel ultrasound contrast agent perflutren (definity) in patients with suboptimal baseline left ventricular echocardiographic images. Am J Cardiol 86:669–674PubMedCrossRef

10.

Ophir J, Parker KJ (1990) Contrast agents in diagnostic ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 16:209PubMedCrossRef

11.

Optison [package insert] (2005) GE Healthcare, Oslo, Norway, October

12.

von Herbay A, Westendorff J, Gregor M (2010) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound with SonoVue: differentiation between benign and malignant focal liver lesions in 317 patients. J Clin Ultrasound 38:1–9

13.

Piscaglia F, Lencioni R, Sagrini E et al (2010) Characterization of focal liver lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 36:531–550PubMedCrossRef

14.

Burns PN, Wilson SR (2006) Microbubble contrast for radiological imaging: 1. Principles. Ultrasound Q 22:5–13PubMed

15.

Bhayana D, Kim TK, Jang HJ et al (2010) Hypervascular liver masses on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the importance of washout. AJR 194:977–983PubMedCrossRef

16.

Wilson SR, Jang HJ, Kim TK et al (2008) Real-time temporal maximum-intensity-projection imaging of hepatic lesions with contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR 190:691–695PubMedCrossRef

17.

Kim TK, Jang HJ, Burns PN et al (2008) Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: differentiation with low-mechanical-index contrast-enhanced sonography. AJR 190:58–66PubMedCrossRef

18.

Jang HJ, Kim TK, Burns PN et al (2007) Enhancement patterns of hepatocellular carcinoma at contrast-enhanced US: comparison with histologic differentiation. Radiology 244:898–906PubMedCrossRef

19.

Wilson SR, Jang HJ, Kim TK et al (2007) Diagnosis of focal liver masses on ultrasonography: comparison of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced scans. J Ultrasound Med 26:775–787PubMed

20.

Lassau N, Lamuraglia M, Vanel D et al (2005) Doppler US with perfusion software and contrast medium injection in the early evaluation of isolated limb perfusion of limb sarcomas: prospective study of 49 cases. Ann Oncol 16:1054–1060PubMedCrossRef

21.

Lassau N, Koscielny S, Chami L et al (2011) Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: early evaluation of response to bevacizumab therapy at dynamic contrast-enhanced US with quantification–preliminary results. Radiology 258:291–300PubMedCrossRef

22.

Sims TL, McGee M, Williams RF et al (2010) IFN-beta restricts tumor growth and sensitizes alveolar rhabdomyosarcoma to ionizing radiation. Mol Cancer Ther 9:761–771PubMedCrossRef

23.

Dickson PV, Hamner JB, Sims TL et al (2007) Bevacizumab-induced transient remodeling of the vasculature in neuroblastoma xenografts results in improved delivery and efficacy of systemically administered chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 13:3942–3950PubMedCrossRef

24.

McCarville MB, Streck CJ, Dickson PV et al (2006) Angiogenesis inhibitors in a murine neuroblastoma model: quantitative assessment of intratumoral blood flow with contrast-enhanced gray-scale US. Radiology 240:73–81PubMedCrossRef

25.

Wei K (2010) Contrast echocardiography: what have we learned from the new guidelines? Curr Cardiol Rep 12:237–242PubMedCrossRef

26.

Abdelmoneim SS, Bernier M, Scott CG et al (2009) Safety of contrast agent use during stress echocardiography: a 4-year experience from a single-center cohort study of 26,774 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 2:1048–1056PubMedCrossRef

27.

Main ML, Goldman JH, Grayburn PA (2009) Ultrasound contrast agents: balancing safety versus efficacy. Expert Opin Drug Saf 8:49–56PubMedCrossRef

28.

Aggeli C, Giannopoulos G, Lampropoulos K et al (2009) Adverse bioeffects of ultrasound contrast agents used in echocardiography: true safety issue or “much ado about nothing”? Curr Vasc Pharmacol 7:338–346PubMedCrossRef

29.

McMahon CJ, Ayres NA, Bezold LI et al (2005) Safety and efficacy of intravenous contrast imaging in pediatric echocardiography. Pediatr Cardiol 26:413–417PubMedCrossRef

30.

Zilberman MV, Witt SA, Kimball TR (2003) Is there a role for intravenous transpulmonary contrast imaging in pediatric stress echocardiography? J Am Soc Echocardiogr 16:9–14PubMedCrossRef

31.

Incesu L, Yazicioglu AK, Selcuk MB et al (2004) Contrast-enhanced power Doppler US in the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. Eur J Radiol 50:201–209PubMedCrossRef

32.

Oldenburg A, Hohmann J, Skrok J et al (2004) Imaging of paediatric splenic injury with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Pediatr Radiol 34:351–354PubMedCrossRef

33.

Common Terminology Criteria (CTC) version 2.0. Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program 1999 April 30. Available via http://ctep.cancer.gov/protocolDevelopment/electronic_applications/docs/ctcmanual_v4_10-4-99.pdf#search="commontoxicity. Accessed 10 Dec 2011

34.

Lamuraglia M, Bridal SL, Santin M et al (2010) Clinical relevance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in monitoring anti-angiogenic therapy of cancer: current status and perspectives. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 73:202–212PubMedCrossRef

35.

Wilson SR, Burns PN (2010) Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: what role? Radiology 257:24–39PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Contrast-enhanced sonography of malignant pediatric abdominal and pelvic solid tumors: preliminary safety and feasibility data
verfasst von: M. Beth McCarville
Sue C. Kaste
Fredric A. Hoffer
Raja B. Khan
R. Christopher Walton
Bruce S. Alpert
Wayne L. Furman
Chenghong Li
Xiaoping Xiong
Publikationsdatum: 01.07.2012
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Pediatric Radiology / Ausgabe 7/2012
Print ISSN: 0301-0449
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1998
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00247-011-2338-2

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Die Highlights vom Kongress des American College of Cardiology 2024

Springer Medizin

Contrast-enhanced sonography of malignant pediatric abdominal and pelvic solid tumors: preliminary safety and feasibility data