Hepatocellular carcinoma after ablation: The imaging follow-up scheme

Table 1 Diagnostic values of contrast-enhanced imaging in evaluating treatment response after ablation for liver cancer

Ref.	n	Imaging	Accuracy	Sen	Spe	PPV	NPV
1Lu et al[18]	151 patients	CEUS	96.6%	-	98.20%	-	-
Frieser et al[39]	76 patients 118 nodules	CEUS	93.8%	-	-	-	-
		CECT	86.2%	-	-	-	-
		CEUS	100%	-	-	-	-
		CEMRI	88.4%	-	-	-	-
2Ricci et al[40]	100 patients	CEUS	-	92.3%	100%	100%	97.4%
	100 nodules
2Salvaggio et al[41]	148 nodules	CEUS	97%	83.3%	100%	-	-

¹In comparison with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) or contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMRI);

²In comparison with CECT. -: Not applicable. Sen: Sensitivity; Spe: Specificity; PPV: Positive predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; CEUS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound.

Table 2 Comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the follow-up scheme after liver cancer ablation

	CEUS	CECT
Pharmacokinetics of the contrast	Early vascular phase; followed by diffusion into the interstitial space	Pure blood pool tracer; without diffusion into the interstitial space
Strong points	Real-time scanning, easy to perform, no radiation, wide availability, and no allergic reactions	High image quality; operator-independent; panoramic imaging; easy to interpret
Weak points	Image quality is apt to be affected by lesions located near the liver dome, and obscuration by gas from the lung or intestine;	Inferior temporal resolution; allergic reaction to the contrast-medium; unsuitable for patients with kidney function impairment; radiation; inferior availability
	Inability to imaging multiple lesions in one procedure; operator-dependent

CEUS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; CECT: Contrast-enhanced computed tomography.