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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of ultrasound in medicine 2019-09, Vol.38 (9), p.2417-2425
Hauptverfasser: Zhai, Hong‐yan, Liang, Ping, Yu, Jie, Cao, Feng, Kuang, Ming, Liu, Feng‐yong, Liu, Fang‐yi, Zhu, Xin‐yuan
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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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 &amp; 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