Dataset Information

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue^® for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine whether Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasound (SZUS) was noninferior to SonoVue-enhanced ultrasound (SVUS) in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using the same diagnostic criteria.

Materials and methods

This prospective, single-center, noninferiority study (NCT04847726) enrolled 105 at-risk participants (71 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 63 ± 11 years; range, 26-86 years) with treatment-naïve solid hepatic nodules (≥ 1 cm). All participants underwent same-day SZUS (experimental method) and SVUS (control method) for one representative nodule per participant. Images were interpreted by three readers (the operator and two independent readers). All malignancies were diagnosed histopathologically, while the benignity of other lesions was confirmed by follow-up stability or pathology. The primary endpoint was per-lesion diagnostic accuracy for HCC pooled across three readers using the conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnostic criteria, including arterial phase hyperenhancement followed by mild (assessed within 2 minutes after contrast injection) and late (≥ 60 seconds with a delay of 5 minutes) washout. The noninferiority delta was -10%p. Furthermore, different time delays were compared as washout criteria in SZUS, including delays of 2, 5, and > 10 minutes.

Results

A total of 105 lesions (HCCs [n = 61], non-HCC malignancies [n = 19], and benign [n = 25]) were evaluated. Using the 5-minutes washout criterion, per-lesion accuracy of SZUS pooled across the three readers (72.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 64.1%-79.3%) was noninferior to that of SVUS (71.4%; 95% CI, 63.1%-78.6%), meeting the statistical criterion for non-inferiority (difference of 0.95%p; 95% CI, -3.8%p-5.7%p). The arterial phase hyperenhancement combined with the 5-minutes washout criterion showed the same sensitivity as that of the > 10-minutes criterion (59.0% vs. 59.0%, p = 0.989), and the specificities were not significantly different (90.9% vs. 86.4%, p = 0.072).

Conclusion

SZUS was noninferior to SVUS for diagnosing HCC in at-risk patients using the same diagnostic criteria. No significant improvement in HCC diagnosis was observed by extending the washout time delay from 5 to 10 minutes.

SUBMITTER: Kang HJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9614293 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue<sup>®</sup> for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.

Kang Hyo-Jin HJ Lee Jeong Min JM Yoon Jeong Hee JH Yoo Jeongin J Choi Yunhee Y Joo Ijin I Han Joon Koo JK

Korean journal of radiology 20220930 11

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasound (SZUS) was noninferior to SonoVue-enhanced ultrasound (SVUS) in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using the same diagnostic criteria.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>This prospective, single-center, noninferiority study (NCT04847726) enrolled 105 at-risk participants (71 male; mean age ± standard deviation, 63 ± 11 years; range, 26-86 years) with treatment-naïve solid hepatic nodules (≥ 1 cm). All participants underwent sam ...[more]

PMID: 36196767

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) liver imaging reporting and data system (LI-RADS) is a standardized system for reporting liver nodules in patients at risk of developing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and is only recommended for pure blood pool agents such as SonoVue®. A modified LI-RADS was proposed for Sonazoid®, a Kupffer cell-specific contrast agent. This meta-analysis was conducted to compare the diagnostic efficiency of the CEUS LI-RADS for SonoVue® and the modified LI-RADS for Sonazoid®.MethodsThe PubMed, Medline, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched to retrieve studies on the diagnostic efficiency of the CEUS LI-RADS algorithms in diagnosing HCC using SonoVue® and/or Sonazoid® from January 2016 to June 2023. Histopathology or imaging follow-up served as the reference standards. Only articles published in English on retrospective or prospective studies with full reports were included in the meta-analysis. A bivariate random-effects model was used. Data pooling, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis were performed for the meta-analysis. Deeks' funnel plot asymmetry test was used to evaluate publication bias, and the QUADAS-2 tool was used to assess the methodological quality of eligible studies.ResultsIn total, 26 studies comprising 8,495 patients with 9,244 lesions were included in the meta-analysis. The pooled data results for SonoVue® LI-RADS category 5 (LR-5) and Sonazoid® modified LR-5 were as follows: pooled sensitivity: 0.68 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.64-0.73, I2=89.20%; P<0.01] and 0.82 (95% CI: 0.74-0.87, I2=85.39%; P<0.01) (P<0.05); pooled specificity: 0.93 (95% CI: 0.90-0.96, I2=86.52%; P<0.01) and 0.86 (95% CI: 0.79-0.91, I2=59.91%; P=0.01) (P<0.05); pooled area under the curve (AUC): 0.86 (95% CI: 0.82-0.89) and 0.91 (95% CI: 0.88-0.93) (P<0.05), respectively. The meta-regression analysis revealed that the study design, subject enrollment method, and reference standard contributed to the heterogeneity of SonoVue® LR-5, and the number of lesions was a source of heterogeneity for Sonazoid® modified LR-5. The diagnostic performance of the LI-RADS category M (LR-M) algorithms of SonoVue® and Sonazoid® was comparable.ConclusionsThe Sonazoid® modified LR-5 algorithm had a higher diagnostic sensitivity, lower specificity, and higher AUC than SonoVue® LR-5.

Project description:ObjectiveTo introduce a novel technology currently under final development before regulatory approvals for the furtherment of cataract surgery, using the FemtoMatrix® laser system, and to demonstrate its safety and efficacy as compared to standard ultrasound phacoemulsification.MethodsThirty-three patients with bilateral cataracts were operated on with one eye undergoing PhotoEmulsification® treatment on the FemtoMatrix® device and the contralateral eye receiving the control procedure, i.e., standard ultrasound phacoemulsification treatment. The number of "zero-phaco" procedures (denoting that I/A alone was sufficient to aspirate the lens fragments and that no ultrasound energy was needed) was recorded and Effective Phaco Time (EPT) values were compared. The patient follow-up was 3 months.ResultsThirty-three eyes from a population with a mean cataract grade of 2.6 were treated on the FemtoMatrix®, of which 29 were "zero-phaco" (88%). All patients were operated on by a single surgeon who was a relative novice to the technology (63 patients treated prior to this study). Conversely, of the 33 fellow eyes who underwent standard ultrasound phacoemulsification, none were zero-phaco (0%) - all required varying degrees of ultrasound energy to make lens aspiration possible. The mean EPT was significantly lower in the PhotoEmulsification® laser group (0.2 ± 0.8 s) than in the phaco group (1.3 ± 1.2 s) (p < 0.0001). The safety profiles of the two procedures were comparable, with no device-related adverse events noted.ConclusionFemtoMatrix® is a promising femtosecond laser platform that, when compared to phacoemulsification, significantly decreases or eliminates EPT altogether. The system is used to perform PhotoEmulsification®, making zero-phaco cataract procedures feasible including in high-grade cataracts (>3). It enables personalized treatment by automatically measuring and adapting the laser energy required to obtain the most efficient cutting of the crystalline lens. This new technology appears to be safe and effective in cataract surgery.

Project description:ObjectiveThis prospective study assessed the efficacy of the Cochlear™ Osia® 2 System compared to the previous Baha® Attract System in patients with mixed or conductive hearing loss (MHL/CHL).MethodsIn this prospective case-control study, 10 patients (2 men and 8 women) with MHL/CHL were implanted with the Osia® 2 System. Their audiological outcomes were compared with 13 patients (2 men and 11 women) who had previously been implanted with the transcutaneous Baha® Attract system. We compared the complications and compliance of the two groups. Also, in the Osia 2 System group, subjective satisfaction was assessed using the Korean version of the International Outcome Inventory for Hearing Aids (K-IOI-HA) questionnaire and the Abbreviated Profile of Hearing Aid Benefit (APHAB) questionnaire.ResultsComplications such as poor magnetization, pain & infection, and abnormal noise were more common in the Baha Attract group, although not statistically significant. Also, the Osia 2 group exhibited better compliance. Subjective satisfaction was assessed using the K-IOI-HA and APHAB questionnaires with the Osia 2 group, revealing significantly improved scores in ease of communication, reverberation, background noise, and higher K-IOI-HA scores post-implantation. Postoperative-aided thresholds with both systems were significantly lower than preoperative-unaided thresholds, with the Osia 2 System demonstrating notably high satisfaction levels. Although both systems showed similar preoperative and postoperative word-recognition scores, the Osia 2 System provided greater audiological gain, especially at 2 kHz and 4 kHz frequencies. Additionally, the functional gain of both systems was comparable across all frequencies.ConclusionsThe Osia 2 System demonstrated high subjective satisfaction and improved audiological outcomes compared to the Baha Attract system in patients with conductive or mixed hearing loss. Its superior audiological gain, particularly at critical frequencies, along with better compliance, suggests it as a favorable option for this patient population.

Dataset Information

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue^® for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue<sup>®</sup> for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Dataset Information

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue® for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue<sup>®</sup> for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets

Sonazoid™ versus SonoVue^® for Diagnosing Hepatocellular Carcinoma Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in At-Risk Individuals: A Prospective, Single-Center, Intraindividual, Noninferiority Study.