Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study
Objective This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions. Methods The patients who had untreated focal solid liver lesions confirmed by B‐mode ultrasonography were eligible for the study. The target lesion and whole liver were scanned by gray sc...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2019-09, Vol.38 (9), p.2417-2425 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 2425 |
---|---|
container_issue | 9 |
container_start_page | 2417 |
container_title | Journal of ultrasound in medicine |
container_volume | 38 |
creator | Zhai, Hong‐yan Liang, Ping Yu, Jie Cao, Feng Kuang, Ming Liu, Feng‐yong Liu, Fang‐yi Zhu, Xin‐yuan |
description | Objective
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions.
Methods
The patients who had untreated focal solid liver lesions confirmed by B‐mode ultrasonography were eligible for the study. The target lesion and whole liver were scanned by gray scale ultrasonography; then, contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography was performed, and the results were evaluated blindly. The main end point was accuracy improvement with postcontrast versus precontrast ultrasound examination for diagnosis of the target lesion of interest as malignant or benign against the reference standard.
Results
There were 65 patients with 65 hepatic tumors enrolled in the study. The improvement of diagnostic accuracy was 0.30 in the Sonazoid group and 0.16 in the SonoVue group (95% confidence interval, –0.828–0.168; P = .24). Using 20% as the noninferiority margin, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (0.168) was less than 0.20. The number of lesions detected during the whole‐liver scanning in the Sonazoid group was significantly more than that detected in the SonoVue group (P = .024).
Conclusion
The diagnosis value of Sonazoid is noninferior to SonoVue, and this new contrast agent can improves the whole‐liver image quality. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/jum.14940 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2179429225</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2179429225</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3910-42a432623b72436df3bcc12ca2326b1ffa3444160cf6d968dfaea7f93f795843</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQAC0EoqVw4AeQj3BI61fimFtVKA8VgdTC1XISG1wlcYkbUPl6XFK4cVrtajRaDQCnGA0xQmS0bKshZoKhPdDHcYwikWC6D_qI8DRiRPAeOPJ-GVCEOTsEPYqSFHEu-kBOXLVSjfWuhs7AuavVl7MFVHWxXdxLq6Gt4fpNwyurXmvnrd-CU5erEs7sh27gTHvran8Jx_Cp0aWtbK2aDZyv22JzDA6MKr0-2c0BWEyvF5PbaPZ4czcZz6KcCozCk4pRkhCaccJoUhia5TkmuSLhmmFjFGWM4QTlJilEkhZGacWNoIaLOGV0AM477apx7632a1lZn-uyVLV2rZcEcxFCEBIH9KJD88Z532gjV42twsMSI7nNKUNO-ZMzsGc7bZtVuvgjf_sFYNQBn7bUm_9N8v75oVN-Ayiofi0</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2179429225</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study</title><source>Wiley-Blackwell Journals</source><source>MEDLINE</source><creator>Zhai, Hong‐yan ; Liang, Ping ; Yu, Jie ; Cao, Feng ; Kuang, Ming ; Liu, Feng‐yong ; Liu, Fang‐yi ; Zhu, Xin‐yuan</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhai, Hong‐yan ; Liang, Ping ; Yu, Jie ; Cao, Feng ; Kuang, Ming ; Liu, Feng‐yong ; Liu, Fang‐yi ; Zhu, Xin‐yuan</creatorcontrib><description>Objective
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions.
Methods
The patients who had untreated focal solid liver lesions confirmed by B‐mode ultrasonography were eligible for the study. The target lesion and whole liver were scanned by gray scale ultrasonography; then, contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography was performed, and the results were evaluated blindly. The main end point was accuracy improvement with postcontrast versus precontrast ultrasound examination for diagnosis of the target lesion of interest as malignant or benign against the reference standard.
Results
There were 65 patients with 65 hepatic tumors enrolled in the study. The improvement of diagnostic accuracy was 0.30 in the Sonazoid group and 0.16 in the SonoVue group (95% confidence interval, –0.828–0.168; P = .24). Using 20% as the noninferiority margin, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (0.168) was less than 0.20. The number of lesions detected during the whole‐liver scanning in the Sonazoid group was significantly more than that detected in the SonoVue group (P = .024).
Conclusion
The diagnosis value of Sonazoid is noninferior to SonoVue, and this new contrast agent can improves the whole‐liver image quality.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0278-4297</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1550-9613</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jum.14940</identifier><identifier>PMID: 30680779</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Hoboken, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Contrast Media ; detection efficacy ; diagnostic efficacy ; Female ; Ferric Compounds ; focal liver lesion ; Humans ; Image Enhancement - methods ; Iron ; Liver - diagnostic imaging ; Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Oxides ; Phospholipids ; Reproducibility of Results ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Sonazoid ; SonoVue ; Sulfur Hexafluoride ; Ultrasonography - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2019-09, Vol.38 (9), p.2417-2425</ispartof><rights>2019 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine</rights><rights>2019 by the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3910-42a432623b72436df3bcc12ca2326b1ffa3444160cf6d968dfaea7f93f795843</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3910-42a432623b72436df3bcc12ca2326b1ffa3444160cf6d968dfaea7f93f795843</cites><orcidid>0000-0001-6824-590X</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjum.14940$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjum.14940$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27903,27904,45553,45554</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30680779$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhai, Hong‐yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Jie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuang, Ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Feng‐yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Fang‐yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Xin‐yuan</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study</title><title>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</title><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><description>Objective
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions.
Methods
The patients who had untreated focal solid liver lesions confirmed by B‐mode ultrasonography were eligible for the study. The target lesion and whole liver were scanned by gray scale ultrasonography; then, contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography was performed, and the results were evaluated blindly. The main end point was accuracy improvement with postcontrast versus precontrast ultrasound examination for diagnosis of the target lesion of interest as malignant or benign against the reference standard.
Results
There were 65 patients with 65 hepatic tumors enrolled in the study. The improvement of diagnostic accuracy was 0.30 in the Sonazoid group and 0.16 in the SonoVue group (95% confidence interval, –0.828–0.168; P = .24). Using 20% as the noninferiority margin, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (0.168) was less than 0.20. The number of lesions detected during the whole‐liver scanning in the Sonazoid group was significantly more than that detected in the SonoVue group (P = .024).
Conclusion
The diagnosis value of Sonazoid is noninferior to SonoVue, and this new contrast agent can improves the whole‐liver image quality.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>detection efficacy</subject><subject>diagnostic efficacy</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Ferric Compounds</subject><subject>focal liver lesion</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Image Enhancement - methods</subject><subject>Iron</subject><subject>Liver - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Oxides</subject><subject>Phospholipids</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Sonazoid</subject><subject>SonoVue</subject><subject>Sulfur Hexafluoride</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - methods</subject><issn>0278-4297</issn><issn>1550-9613</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2019</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kMtOwzAQAC0EoqVw4AeQj3BI61fimFtVKA8VgdTC1XISG1wlcYkbUPl6XFK4cVrtajRaDQCnGA0xQmS0bKshZoKhPdDHcYwikWC6D_qI8DRiRPAeOPJ-GVCEOTsEPYqSFHEu-kBOXLVSjfWuhs7AuavVl7MFVHWxXdxLq6Gt4fpNwyurXmvnrd-CU5erEs7sh27gTHvran8Jx_Cp0aWtbK2aDZyv22JzDA6MKr0-2c0BWEyvF5PbaPZ4czcZz6KcCozCk4pRkhCaccJoUhia5TkmuSLhmmFjFGWM4QTlJilEkhZGacWNoIaLOGV0AM477apx7632a1lZn-uyVLV2rZcEcxFCEBIH9KJD88Z532gjV42twsMSI7nNKUNO-ZMzsGc7bZtVuvgjf_sFYNQBn7bUm_9N8v75oVN-Ayiofi0</recordid><startdate>201909</startdate><enddate>201909</enddate><creator>Zhai, Hong‐yan</creator><creator>Liang, Ping</creator><creator>Yu, Jie</creator><creator>Cao, Feng</creator><creator>Kuang, Ming</creator><creator>Liu, Feng‐yong</creator><creator>Liu, Fang‐yi</creator><creator>Zhu, Xin‐yuan</creator><general>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6824-590X</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>201909</creationdate><title>Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study</title><author>Zhai, Hong‐yan ; Liang, Ping ; Yu, Jie ; Cao, Feng ; Kuang, Ming ; Liu, Feng‐yong ; Liu, Fang‐yi ; Zhu, Xin‐yuan</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3910-42a432623b72436df3bcc12ca2326b1ffa3444160cf6d968dfaea7f93f795843</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2019</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>detection efficacy</topic><topic>diagnostic efficacy</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Ferric Compounds</topic><topic>focal liver lesion</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Image Enhancement - methods</topic><topic>Iron</topic><topic>Liver - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Oxides</topic><topic>Phospholipids</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Sonazoid</topic><topic>SonoVue</topic><topic>Sulfur Hexafluoride</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhai, Hong‐yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Jie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cao, Feng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kuang, Ming</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Feng‐yong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Fang‐yi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Zhu, Xin‐yuan</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhai, Hong‐yan</au><au>Liang, Ping</au><au>Yu, Jie</au><au>Cao, Feng</au><au>Kuang, Ming</au><au>Liu, Feng‐yong</au><au>Liu, Fang‐yi</au><au>Zhu, Xin‐yuan</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study</atitle><jtitle>Journal of ultrasound in medicine</jtitle><addtitle>J Ultrasound Med</addtitle><date>2019-09</date><risdate>2019</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>9</issue><spage>2417</spage><epage>2425</epage><pages>2417-2425</pages><issn>0278-4297</issn><eissn>1550-9613</eissn><abstract>Objective
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Sonazoid and SonoVue in subjects with focal liver lesions.
Methods
The patients who had untreated focal solid liver lesions confirmed by B‐mode ultrasonography were eligible for the study. The target lesion and whole liver were scanned by gray scale ultrasonography; then, contrast‐enhanced ultrasonography was performed, and the results were evaluated blindly. The main end point was accuracy improvement with postcontrast versus precontrast ultrasound examination for diagnosis of the target lesion of interest as malignant or benign against the reference standard.
Results
There were 65 patients with 65 hepatic tumors enrolled in the study. The improvement of diagnostic accuracy was 0.30 in the Sonazoid group and 0.16 in the SonoVue group (95% confidence interval, –0.828–0.168; P = .24). Using 20% as the noninferiority margin, the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval (0.168) was less than 0.20. The number of lesions detected during the whole‐liver scanning in the Sonazoid group was significantly more than that detected in the SonoVue group (P = .024).
Conclusion
The diagnosis value of Sonazoid is noninferior to SonoVue, and this new contrast agent can improves the whole‐liver image quality.</abstract><cop>Hoboken, USA</cop><pub>John Wiley & Sons, Inc</pub><pmid>30680779</pmid><doi>10.1002/jum.14940</doi><tpages>9</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6824-590X</orcidid></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0278-4297 |
ispartof | Journal of ultrasound in medicine, 2019-09, Vol.38 (9), p.2417-2425 |
issn | 0278-4297 1550-9613 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2179429225 |
source | Wiley-Blackwell Journals; MEDLINE |
subjects | Adult Aged Contrast Media detection efficacy diagnostic efficacy Female Ferric Compounds focal liver lesion Humans Image Enhancement - methods Iron Liver - diagnostic imaging Liver Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Male Middle Aged Oxides Phospholipids Reproducibility of Results Sensitivity and Specificity Sonazoid SonoVue Sulfur Hexafluoride Ultrasonography - methods |
title | Comparison of Sonazoid and SonoVue in the Diagnosis of Focal Liver Lesions: A Preliminary Study |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T20%3A32%3A19IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20Sonazoid%20and%20SonoVue%20in%20the%20Diagnosis%20of%20Focal%20Liver%20Lesions:%20A%20Preliminary%20Study&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20ultrasound%20in%20medicine&rft.au=Zhai,%20Hong%E2%80%90yan&rft.date=2019-09&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=2417&rft.epage=2425&rft.pages=2417-2425&rft.issn=0278-4297&rft.eissn=1550-9613&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jum.14940&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2179429225%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2179429225&rft_id=info:pmid/30680779&rfr_iscdi=true |