Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Применение эхоконтрастных препаратов в клинике и перспективы синхронизации УЗИ, КТ- и МРТ-изображений (собственный опыт и обзор литературы)

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Лучевая диагностика играет важную роль в первичной диагностике различных онкологических заболеваний. Постоянное развитие и совершенствование ультразвукового метода заставляет нас уделять все больше внимания появляющимся новым технологиям, чтобы своевременно внедрять их в клиническую практику. В предлагаемой работе мы постарались осветить основные аспекты и возможности применения эхоконтрастных препаратов, а также возможность синхронизации УЗИ, КТ- и МРТ-изображений. Представлены классификация, физические принципы и основные типы эхоконтрастных препаратов, подробно описана методология выполнения УЗИ с контрастированием, приведены наиболее значимые преимущества и недостатки этой методики и собственные клинические наблюдения. Особенно перспективным представляется синхронизация КТ- и МРТ-изображений с контрастными ультразвуковыми изображениями, когда имеется возможность использовать преимущества эхоконтрастирования и избежать неблагоприятного влияния дополнительной лучевой нагрузки, введения йод- и гадолинийсодержащих препаратов. Несомненно, использование эхоконтрастирования открывает новые горизонты в ультразвуковой диагностике, позволяя повысить ее эффективность и информативность, предоставляя во многом уникальную диагностическую информацию.

Ключевые слова:
эхоконтрастные препараты, ультразвуковое исследование, компьютерная и магнитнорезонансная томография, contrast enhancement, ultrasound, CT, MRI

Литература:
1.Фомина С.В., Завадовская В.Д., Юсубов М.С. и др. Контрастные препараты для ультразвукового исследования. Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2011; 6: 137-141.
2.Зубарев А.В. Современная ультразвуковая диагностика: теория и практика. Радиология - практика. 2008; 5: 1-14.
3.Schroder R.J., Bostanjoglo M., Hidajat N. et al. Analysis of vascularity in breast tumors - comparison of high frequency ultrasound and contrast-enhanced color harmonic imaging. Rofo. 2002; 174: 1132-1141.
4.Algul A., Balci P., Segil M. et al. Contrast enhanced power Doppler and color Doppler ultrasound in breast masses: Efficiency in diagnosis and contributions to differential diagnosis. Tani Girisim Radyol. 2003; 9: 199-206.
5.Kook S.H., Kwag H.J. Value of contrast-enhanced power Doppler sonography using a microbubble echo-enhancing agent in evaluation of small breast lesions. J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2003; 31: 227-238.
6.Зубарев А.В., Гажонова В.Е. Диагностический ультразвук. Уронефрология: Практическое руководство. М.: Стром, 2002. 8-22.
7.Gramiak R., Shah P.M. Echocardiography of the aortic root. Invest. Radiol. 1968; 3: 356-366.
8.Kremkau F.W., Gramiak R., Carstens E.L. et al. Ultrasonic detection of cavitation at catheter tips. Am. J. Roentgenol. 1970; 110: 177-183.
9.Kerber R., Kioschos J., Lauer R. Use of ultrasonic contrast method in the diagnosis of valvular regurgitation and intracardiac shunts. Am. J. Cardol. 1974; 34:722-727.
10.Greis C.H., Technology overview: SonoVue (Bracco, Milan). Eur. Radiol. 2004; 14 (8): 11-15.
11.Соновью. Научная монография. Динамическое контрастное усиление в режиме реального времени. 2013: 6-40.
12.Seidel G., Meyer K. Impact of ultrasound contrast agents in cerebrovascular diagnostics. Eur. J. Ultrasound. 2002; 16 (1-2): 81-90.
13.Kamiyama N., Moriyasu F., Mine Y. et al. Analysis of flashecho from contrast agent for designing optimal ultrasound diagnostic systems. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1999; 25: 411-420.
14.Blomley M.J.K., Albrecht T., Cosgrove D.O. et al. Stimulated acoustic emission to image a late liver and spleen- specific phase of Levovist win normal volunteers and patients with and without liver disease. Ultrasound Med. Biol.1999; 25: 1341-1352.
15.Klibanov A.L. Ligand-carrying gas-filled microbubbles: ultrasound contrast agents for targeted molecular imaging. Bioconjug Chem. 2005; 16: 9-17
16.Dalecki D., Raeman C.H., Child S.Z. et al. Hemolysis in vivo from exposure to pulse ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1997; 23 (2): 307-313.
17.Волков В.Н. Основы ультразвуковой диагностики. Учебно-методическое пособие. Минск: ГрГМУ, 2005. 13-15.
18.Claudon M., Cosgrove D., Albrecht T. et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) - update 2008. Ultraschall Med. 2008; 29: 28-44.
19.Morel D.R., Schwieger I., Hohn L. et al. Human pharmacokinetics and safety evaluation of SonoVue, a new contrast agent for ultrasound imaging. Invest. Radiol. 2000; 35 (1): 80-85.
20.SonoVue Periodic Safety Update Report, September 2011: 29-32.
21.Демин И.Ю., Прончатов-Рубцов Н.В. Современные акустические методы исследований в биологии и медицине. Учебно-методические материалы по программе повышения квалификации “Хранение и обработка информации в биологических системах”. Нижний Новгород, 2007. 20-22.
22.Talu E., Powell R.L., Longo M.L. et al. Needle size and injection rate impact microbubble contrast agent population. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2008; 34: 1182-1185.
23.Barrack T., Stride E. Microbubble destruction during intravenous administration: a preliminary study. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2009; 35: 515-522.
24.Browning R.M.H., Wells D.J., Eckersley R.J. Effect of needle gauge on microbubble mediated cell transfection in vivo. British Medical Ultrasound General Scientific Meeting (Conference presentation). 2010: 28-30.
25.Lavisse S. Early quantitative evaluation of a tumor vasculature disruptive agent AVE 8062 using dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Invest. Radiol. 2008; 43: 100-111.
26.Lassau N., Koscielny S., Chami L. et al. Advanced hepatocellular carcinoma: early evaluation of response to therapy at dynamic contrast enhanced US with quantification-preliminary results. Radiology. 2011; 258: 291-300.
27.Garcia A., Etxebarria L., Atilano M. et al. Contrastenhanced ultrasound for assessing focal liver lesions. ECR. 2014; C-1455: 1-30.
28.Xu H.X. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: The evolving applications. Wld J. Radiol. 2009; 1: 15-24.
29.Leen E., Ceccotti P., Kalogeropoulou C. et al. Prospective Multicenter Trial Evaluation of Novel Method of Characterizing Focal Liver Lesions Using Contrast-Enhanced Sonography. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2006; 186 (6): 1551-1559.
30.Tranquart F., Le Gouge A., Correas J.M. et al. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the blinded assessment of focal liver lesions in comparison with MDCT and CEMRI: Results from a multi-centre clinical trial. EJC Supplements. 2008; 6: 9-15.
31.Tranquart F., Correas J.M., Ladam M. et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of focal liver lesions: diagnostic efficacy and economical issues from a French multicentric study. J. Radiol. 2009; 90 (1, Pt 2): 109-122.
32.Trillaud M., Bruel J.M., Valette P.J. et al. Characterization of focal liver lesions with SonoVue-enhanced sonography: international multicenter-study in comparison to CT and MRI. Wld J. Gastroenterol. 2009; 15 (30): 3748-3756.
33.Wang W.P., Wu Y., Luo Y. et al. Clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the characterization of focal liver lesions: a prospective multicenter trial. Mepatobiliary Pancreat Dis. Int 2009; 8 (4): 370-376.
34.Rong-Qin Zheng, Ren Mao, Jie Renеt al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for the Evaluation of Hepatic Artery Stenosis After Liver Transplantation: Potential Role in Changing the Clinical Algorithm. LiverTransplantation. 2010; 16 (6): 729-735.
35.van Esser S., Veldhuis W.B., van Hillegersberg R. et al. Accuracy of contrast-enhanced breast ultrasound for preoperative tumor size assessment in patients diagnosed with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Cancer Imaging. 2007;7: 63-68.
36.Jiang Y.X., Liu H., Liu J.B. et al. Breast tumor size assessment: comparison of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2007; 33: 1873-1881.
37.Kettenbach J., Helbich T.H., Huber S. et al. Computerassisted quantitative assessment of power Doppler US: effects of microbubble contrast agent in the differentiation of breast tumors. Eur. J. Radiol. 2005; 53: 238-244.
38.Xiao X., Ou B., Yang H. et al. Breast Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound: Is a Scoring System Feasible? A Preliminary Study in China. 2014; 9 (8): e105517.
39.Saracco A., Aspelin P., Leifland K. et al. Bolus compared with continuous infusion of microbubble contrast agent using real-time contrast harmonic imaging ultrasound in breast tumors. Acta Radiol. 2009; 50: 854-859.
40.Balleyguier C., Opolon P., Mathieu M.C. et al. New potential and applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the breast: Own investigations and review of the literature. Eur. J. Radiol. 2009; 69: 14-23.
41.Szabo B.K., Aspelin P., Wiberg M.K. et al. Dynamic MR imaging of the breast. Analysis of kinetic and morphologic diagnostic criteria. Acta Radiol. 2003; 44: 379-386.
42.Ricci P., Cantisani V., Ballesio L. et al. Benign and malignant breast lesions: efficacy of real time contrast-enhanced ultrasound vs. magnetic resonance imaging. Ultraschall Med. 2007; 28: 57-62.
43.Caproni N., Marchisio F., Pecchi A. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the characterization of breast masses: utility of quantitative analysis in comparison with MRI. Eur. Radiol. 2010; 20: 1384-1395.
44.Liu H., Jiang Y.X., Liu J.B. et al. Evaluation of breast lesions with contrast-enhanced ultrasound using the microvascular imaging technique: Initial observations. Breast. 2008; 17: 532-539.
45.Zhao H., Xu R., Ouyang Q., Chen L. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is helpful in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast lesions. Eur. J. Radiol. 2010; 73: 288-293.
46.Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver Update 2012. Ultraschall Med. 2013; 34: 11-29.
47.The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhance Ultrasound (CEUS): Update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med. 2012; 33: 33-59.
48.Glockner J.F., Forauer A.R., Solomon H. et al. Three dimensional gadolinium enhanced MR angiography of vascular complications after liver transplantation. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2000;174:1447-1453.
49.Зубарев А.В., Федорова Н.А. Является ли ультразвук конкурентом КТ/МРТ? Вестник МЕДСИ. 2011; 10: 22-27.
50.Real-time Virtual Sonography Unit. Instruction Manual. Hitachi Medical Corporation. 2004-2006; 1-3.
51.Sandulescu L., Saftoiu A., Dumitrescu D. et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced and real-time virtual sonography in the assessment of benign liver lesions. J. Gastrointestin. Liver Dis. 2008; 17: 475-478.
52.Minami Y., Kudo M., Chung H. et al. Percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of sonographically unidentifiable liver tumors. Feasibility and usefulness of a novel guiding technique with an integrated system of computed tomography and sonographic images. Oncology. 2007; 72 (1): 111-116.
53.Kitada T., Murakami T., Kuzushita N. et al. Effectiveness of real-time virtual sonography-guided radiofrequency ablation treatment for patients with hepatocellular carcinomas. Hepatol. Res. 2008; 38: 565-571.
54.Minami Y, Chung H., Kudo M. et al. Radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma: value of virtual CT sonography with magnetic navigation. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008; 190: 335-341.

Application of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (Ceus) in the Clinic and Prospects of Synchronization Ultrasound, CT and MRI Images (Personal Experience and Literature Review)

Radioology plays a primary role in the diagnosis of various cancer diseases. Continuous development and improvement of ultrasound method compels us pay more attention to emerging new technologies, in order to timely implement them in clinical practice. In the present article we have tried to highlight the main aspects and possible applications echo contrast agents, as well as the ability to synchronize ultrasound, CT and MRI images. In the current article are described classification, physical principles and the basic types of echo contrast agents (ECA), the methodology of performing ultrasound study with contrast agents, the most important advantages and disadvantages of this technique and our own clinical observations. Especially promising is the synchronization of CT and MRI images with contrast ultrasound images when there is an opportunity to take advantage of CEUS and avoid the adverse effects of the additional radiation exposure, and introduction of iodine and gadolinium-containing agents. Undoubtedly, the use of ehokontrastirovaniya opens new horizons in ultrasound diagnostics, allowing to increase its effectiveness and informativity, providing a largely unique diagnostic information.

Keywords:
эхоконтрастные препараты, ультразвуковое исследование, компьютерная и магнитнорезонансная томография, contrast enhancement, ultrasound, CT, MRI