| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 All authors: Department of Medicine and Department of Hepatology, Gastroenterology and Infectious Diseases, University of Düsseldorf, Moorenstr. 5, D-40225 Düsseldorf, Germany.
Received September 13, 2001;
accepted after revision April 26, 2002.
Supported by the Freunde und Förderer der
Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf and by the Deutsche
Krebshilfe.
Abstract
 Top Abstract IntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
SUBJECTS AND METHODS. We examined 67 patients with focal hepatic lesions in a prospective study. The causes of the lesions were confirmed by histology, CT, MR imaging, or scintigraphy. The liver was screened for focal lesions using sonography. Thereafter, 2 g of Levovist (300 mg/mL; 1 mL/sec) was injected IV as a bolus. After a delay of at least 2.5 min without scanning, the liver was examined via three different scans using pulse-inversion sonography.
RESULTS. For the discrimination of malignant versus benign liver
lesions, contrast-enhanced sonography improved sensitivity from 85% to 100%
and specificity from 30% to 63%, as compared with baseline sonography.
Receiver operating characteristic analysis revealed a significant improvement
in this discrimination (Az = 0.692 ± 0.065 at
baseline sonography, Az = 0.947 ± 0.037 with
contrast-enhanced sonography, p < 0.001). Furthermore, a lower
interobserver variability was found for contrast-enhanced sonography (weighted
= 0.947), as compared with baseline sonography (weighted =
0.469). All lesions that had homogeneous enhancement in the late phase of
Levovist enhancement were benign. In distinction, 90% of lesions without
contrast enhancement in the late phase were malignant. All lesions were
malignant that were isoechoic (invisible) on baseline sonography but visible
because of lack of enhancement after injection.
CONCLUSION. Contrast-enhanced sonography has greater specificity and sensitivity than baseline sonography for the differentiation of benign and malignant liver lesions.
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Sonographic contrast agents have been studied to improve imaging of the liver. One of these agents, Levovist (galactose 99.9%, palmitic acid 0.1%; Schering, Berlin, Germany), has a specific late phase with selective enhancement of the parenchyma of the liver and spleen [1]. This postvascular phase becomes dominant 2-3 min after a bolus injection [1,2]. The exact site of Levovist accumulation in the liver parenchyma is still unknown, but it may accumulate in the reticuloendothelial cells [2]. The accumulation of Levovist in the parenchyma of the liver and spleen can be made visible on sonography using the pulse-inversion mode [3].
With pulse-inversion imaging, two separated pulses, 180° out of phase, are transmitted into the tissue, and the resulting echoes are added to form the final sonographic signal [4,5,6,7,8]. The linear echoes reflected from the tissue are canceled, whereas the nonlinear echoes reflected from the contrast medium produce a detectable signal. Other studies in the late phase of Levovist enhancement have shown that metastases have no contrast enhancement, whereas the surrounding liver parenchyma shows a bright and homogeneous Levovist accumulation [3, 9, 10]. The aim of our study was to demonstrate the ability of contrast-enhanced sonography to discriminate between benign and malignant focal lesions of the liver.
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Patients
Our study population was selected from patients who presented for abdominal
sonography. A large number of patients undergo sonography in our institution;
for practical reasons, we could not include every patient with focal hepatic
lesions. We selected patients whose final diagnosis was confirmed by
histology, CT, MR imaging, or scintigraphy and in whom all lesions had a
similar appearance (so as to minimize the possibility of different causes of
lesions in the examined liver). Only patients who agreed to provide oral
informed consent were included.
The final diagnosis for each subject was confirmed by liver biopsy, CT, MR imaging, or scintigraphy (Table 1), performed as part of the clinical workup of the patients. In 40 of the 67 patients, a malignant liver lesion was diagnosed as hepatocellular carcinoma (n = 18); cholangiocellular carcinoma (n = 1); metastatic liver disease (n = 19), or liver infiltration by non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (n = 2). Patients with metastatic liver disease had the following diagnoses: adenocarcinoma of the colon (n = 6), adenocarcinoma of the pancreas (n = 2), adenocarcinoma of the cardia or stomach (n = 2), adenocarcinoma of unknown primary origin (n = 3), small cell carcinoma of the lung (n = 1), carcinoid (n = 2), melanoma (n = 2), and primitive neuroendocrine tumor (n = 1). We found no evidence of malignancy of the lesions in the remaining 27 patients. Their diagnoses included focal nodular hyperplasia (n = 8), hepatic adenoma (n = 1), focal hyposteatosis or hypersteatosis (n = 6), hemangioma (n = 8), and regenerative cirrhotic nodule (n = 4).
|
The interval between the examination used as the confirmation standard and performance of the sonographic examination was 1-8 days for patients who underwent liver biopsy, 1-26 days for patients who underwent CT or MR imaging, and from 5 days to 1 year for patients whose focal nodular hyperplasia was diagnosed by scintigraphy. In all of the patients with focal nodular hyperplasia, the size of the lesion was stable during the interval between scintigraphy and sonography.
Contrast Agent
Levovist is a sonographic contrast agent consisting of galactose
microparticles (99.9%) and palmitic acid (0.1%) with a mean microbubble
diameter of 2-5 µm (97% < 7 µm)
[2,
12]. Originally, Levovist was
developed to enhance the signal of color and power Doppler images during
vascular sonography
[13,14,15,16].
After IV injection, Levovist circulates in the general blood pool for several
minutes.
Study Design
Baseline examinations included gray-scale, color, and power Doppler
sonography. All examinations were performed with a Sonoline Elegra sonography
unit (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) using a 3.5C40-multifrequency transducer
(Siemens). We screened the liver for focal lesions in both native B- and
tissue harmonic imaging modes and documented the number and location of focal
lesions. To ensure that identical areas of the liver were compared, we
performed identical scans in each patient before and after Levovist
injection.
Pulse-inversion sonography was performed using the Ensemble Contrast Harmonic Imaging software (Siemens, Erlangen, Germany). Levovist was administered via bolus injection using an IV catheter having at least a 21-gauge diameter. A bolus of 2 g of Levovist (300 mg/mL; 1 mL/sec) was injected IV followed by 10 mL of a 0.9%-saline bolus. After a scanning delay of 2.5 min, the liver was examined via three distinct scans. Scanning was not performed during the 2.5-min delay to avoid the destruction of the microbubbles before the late phase. The delayed contrast-enhanced pulse-inversion scanning was terminated within 10 min.
The equipment settings for late-phase imaging were set to CHI-mode, frequency of 2.0-2.5 MHz, parallel processing turned on, maximal frame rate (> 10 frames per second), persistence turned off, and high (>0.8) mechanical index (MI). Scanning was performed according to the procedure described by Albrecht et al. [5] (first sweep: right liver lobe, high single-focus zone [4 cm], transmit power 40% [MI > 0.8]; second sweep: right liver lobe, deep single-focus zone [10 cm], transmit power 100% [MI > 1.3]; third sweep: left liver lobe, high single-focus zone [4 cm], transmit power 100% [MI > 1.3]). The patient was asked not to breathe during the scanning procedure. The scan was started at the upper edge of the liver and then a fast sweep lasting approximately 3-4 sec was performed through the entire lobe of the liver. All examinations were stored on magnetic optical disks and on S-VHS videotapes.
Image Analysis
Analysis of the baseline sonograms and of the contrast-enhanced studies was
performed by two independent observers who were unaware of the final diagnosis
of the lesions. Both observers evaluated all of the videotapes and the
digitally stored images. The videotapes were coded by consecutive numbers so
that the observers were unaware of the patient's name and diagnosis at the
time of the retrospective analysis. We used a 5-point grading system for
baseline and for contrast-enhanced images (1 = definitely benign, 2 = probably
benign, 3 = indeterminate, 4 = probably malignant, 5 = definitely malignant).
Analysis of the grading was performed for both baseline B-mode sonography and
contrast-enhanced sonography.
A subjective evaluation of the lesion was used to rate the lesions at baseline sonography. This evaluation included consideration of the echogenicity, shape, and location of the lesions relative to neighboring vessels. Hyperechoic lesions next to veins were suspected to be hemangiomas, and lesions with a central starlike sonographic pattern were suspected to be focal nodular hyperplasia. Lesions with a hypoechoic rim or with polygonal edges were suspected to be malignant.
For imaging performed after contrast agent administration, the lesion's enhancement characteristics were evaluated on a 5-point scale, with 1 being definitely benign and 5 being definitely malignant. On the basis of prior experience, we rated lesions with homogeneous bright enhancement as benign; lesions without enhancement or with inhomogeneous enhancement were given higher ratings for malignancy. Lesions that could not be classified as either benign or malignant were given a score of 3. The sonographer was one of the two physicians experienced in sonography who performed the review of these examinations.
In addition to the 5-point scale, contrast-enhanced images were classified according to the following features: homogeneous bright enhancement, dark nodules without enhancement surrounded by bright enhancement of the liver, and inhomogeneous enhancement. The two observers performed this classification working in consensus after the independent blinded ratings on the 5-point scale were made.
Statistical Analysis
Analysis of our data was made on a "by patient" basis. In
patients with multiple lesions in whom one lesion was diagnosed at biopsy of
the liver (n = 44), that one lesion was chosen for analysis. In the
remaining patients, the observer chose a lesion that was seen without
difficulty on baseline sonography to ensure that the contrast enhancement of
the lesion could be evaluated. Only six of the patients who did not undergo
liver biopsy had multiple lesions. In these patients, the appearance of all of
the various lesions revealed on sonography, CT, or MR imaging was similar in
any given patient. (Patients with multiple lesions of varied appearance had
been excluded from the study.)
A mean rating score was computed for each lesion as the average of the ratings provided by the two independent observers. To calculate sensitivity and specificity, we counted a score of 3 or higher as a positive test result. Our rationale for treating a score of 3 (i.e., indeterminate) as malignant was to avoid missing possibly malignant lesions. In addition, calculations for unweighted and weighted kappa statistics were based on a 5 x 5 table of observer ratings for the comparison between the independently performed reviews of baseline sonography and contrast-enhanced sonography [17, 18]. The kappa analysis was performed using software [8.2/FREQ; SAS Institute, Cary, NC]. The quadratic-weighted kappa was weighted according to the interval between the rating scores (5-point system) of both reviewers. Receiver operating characteristic curves were obtained for baseline and contrast-enhanced sonography according to the 5-point system as described. Comparison of receiver operating characteristic curves was performed with the Dorfman-Berbaum-Metz laboratory algorithm to compare multiple reviewers and multiple cases [19, 20]. This program uses jackknifing and analysis of variance techniques to test the statistical significance of the differences between cases and reviewers. A p value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
The mean rating scores of the observers for the 40 malignant lesions and the 27 benign lesions are summarized in Table 2. Baseline B-mode sonography detected 85% (34/40) of malignant lesions on the basis of a mean score of 3 or higher, with a specificity of 30% (8/27 lesions). Contrast-enhanced sonography detected 100% (40/40) of malignant lesions on the basis of a mean score of 3 or higher, with a specificity of 63% (17/27 lesions). Lesions in 23 patients were rated as indeterminate (mean score, 3) on baseline imaging because classification as benign or malignant was not possible. On contrast-enhanced imaging, lesions in only nine patients were rated as indeterminate.
|
Interobserver agreement during baseline imaging was poor, with a weighted kappa value of 0.469. Interobserver agreement during contrast-enhanced imaging improved markedly, with a weighted kappa of 0.947. Receiver operating characteristic curves are presented in Figure 1. The area under the fitted curve for contrast-enhanced sonography (Az = 0.947) is significantly higher (p < 0.001) than the area under the curve for baseline sonography (Az = 0.692).
|
Table 3 summarizes the two observers' consensus classification of the enhancement patterns in the lesions in our study population. Most lesions (58/67) were classified as clearly demarcated without enhancement (n = 41) or as homogeneously enhancing with the surrounding liver (n = 17). Among the nine patients whose lesions showed inhomogeneous enhancement, three patients with hepatoma and one with a regenerating nodule had underlying cirrhosis. The remaining five patients with inhomogeneous enhancement had hemangiomas. All lesions that showed homogeneous enhancement were benign (p < 0.001, Figs. 2A,2B,3A,3B,4A,4B). Among the lesions that were clearly demarcated by their lack of enhancement, 90% were malignant (p < 0.001, Figs. 5A,5B,6A,6B,7A,7B).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additional lesions that were not visible on baseline imaging were detected during contrast-enhanced sonography in five patients with hepatocellular carcinoma and in eight patients with metastatic disease. These lesions were confirmed on CT, MR imaging, or both in 12 patients and at exploratory laparotomy in one patient. No additional lesions were found during contrast-enhanced imaging of patients with benign disease. Thus, the finding on contrast-enhanced sonography of lesions that were occult on baseline imaging was 100% specific for malignancy (p < 0.001).
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
Homogeneous parenchymal Levovist uptake in the liver-specific late phase appears to be a useful indicator of benignity in focal hepatic lesions. None of the lesions in our study that showed homogeneous Levovist uptake in the liver-specific late phase were proven to be malignant. Homogeneous uptake was found in focal hypersteatosis and hyposteatosis of the liver, in regenerative nodules in patients with liver cirrhosis, in focal nodular hyperplasia, and in benign adenoma. This uptake is a result of the reticuloendothelial cells in these lesions [21]. However, the exact mechanism of Levovist-specific uptake in the parenchyma of the liver and spleen is still being investigated [2]. The fundamental mechanism seems to be comparable to the 99mTc-colloid uptake found on scintigraphy of the liver [21,22,23,24,25] and to the Endorem (ferumoxides; Guerbet, Sulzbach, Germany) or Resovist (ferucarbotran; Schering, Berlin, Germany) uptake in the reticuloendothelial cells found on MR imaging [26, 27].
None of the patients with histologically proven malignant liver lesions had a homogeneous Levovist uptake in the late phase. However, absence of Levovist uptake in the late phase was found in three patients with liver hemangioma and in one patient with a regenerative cirrhotic nodule. Surgical resection was performed because hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was suspected in this particular patient, and dysplasia was found. In this special case, the development to HCC may have been prevented because contrast-enhanced sonography allowed localization of a dysplastic nodule and such nodules have a high incidence of HCC [28].
The fact that hemangiomas are free of liver tissue and reticuloendothelial cells [29] may possibly explain the clear demarcation without Levovist enhancement seen in the three patients with giant hemangiomas (diameters, 8-20 cm). However, an inhomogeneous enhancement in the Levovist late phase was seen in the remaining five patients with hemangiomas. This finding is possibly explained by the vascular architecture in hemangiomas. Hemangiomas contain very small veins surrounded by endothelial cells, which could result in a substantial prolongation of the blood pool phase—thus resulting in Levovist accumulation as long as 2.5-5 min after injection. Normal vessels are already free of Levovist at this time. Our findings in hemangiomas are counter to the results of Bottinelli et al. [30], who found an enhancement similar to liver parenchyma in the late phase. The differences reported in the cited study might be explained by an earlier late phase and smaller diameter of the hemangiomas than in our study.
None of the patients with HCC or metastatic liver disease showed a homogeneous uptake of Levovist in the lesion because of the lack of reticuloendothelial cells in HCC and metastases. The absence of late phase Levovist uptake is comparable to the failure of 99mTc-colloid uptake in hepatocellular carcinoma that was diagnosed on scintigraphy [25] and the failure of Endorem and Resovist uptake found on MR imaging [26, 27]. Calvet et al. [31] found a positive correlation between the uptake of diethylaminodiacetate derivatives on scintigraphy and the grading of HCC. Whether the grading of HCC affects the late phase of Levovist uptake is unknown. In our study, demarcation of HCC without contrast enhancement was found both in patients with highly differentiated HCC and in those with less differentiated HCC.
In 32% of the patients in our study who had malignant liver disease, late-phase imaging depicted lesions that were undetected on sonography without Levovist. These findings correlate well with the findings of Dalla Palma et al. [32], Harvey et al. [3], and Albrecht et al. [33], who performed Levovist late-phase sonography using pulse-inversion harmonic imaging in patients with known malignancies. These investigators found additional lesions in 56%, 40%, and 45% of patients, respectively.
Although it appears to be a powerful tool for improving the sonographic diagnosis of liver lesions, contrast-enhanced late-phase sonography has some problems. So far, only high-end sonography machines are equipped for this procedure. In addition, several important pitfalls need to be considered by the investigator if correct results are to be obtained, including the destruction of Levovist by continuous insonation, putative destruction of Levovist during the bolus injection by using a needle smaller than 21 gauge or the valve of the needle [34], and ineffective adaptation of the focus zone or the mechanical index.
In conclusion, sonography in the late phase of Levovist enhancement can help in making the clinical decision of whether a sonographically detected liver lesion will need further investigation. According to our results, all patients with homogeneous contrast enhancement in the lesion had benign lesions. Therefore, a more conservative approach might be reasonable in following up these patients. This new technique may help to identify patients in whom examinations that are invasive, expensive, or both—such as liver biopsy, CT, or MR imaging—may be unnecessary.
Acknowledgments
We thank Reinhart Willers of the Computer Department of the University of
Düsseldorf, Germany, for the excellent statistical assistance and Philip
May for editorial assistance.
|
TopAbstractIntroductionSubjects and MethodsResultsDiscussionReferences |
|---|
CiteULike 
Complore 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. von Herbay, A.-P. Barreiros, A. Ignee, J. Westendorff, M. Gregor, P. R. Galle, and C. Dietrich Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography With SonoVue: Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Lesions of the Spleen J. Ultrasound Med., April 1, 2009; 28(4): 421 - 434. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. Luo, K. Numata, M. Kondo, M. Morimoto, K. Sugimori, K. Hirasawa, A. Nozaki, X. Zhou, and K. Tanaka Sonazoid-Enhanced Ultrasonography for Evaluation of the Enhancement Patterns of Focal Liver Tumors in the Late Phase by Intermittent Imaging With a High Mechanical Index J. Ultrasound Med., April 1, 2009; 28(4): 439 - 448. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Quaia, A. Palumbo, S. Rossi, F. Degobbis, S. Cernic, G. Tona, and M. Cova Comparison of visual and quantitative analysis for characterization of insonated liver tumors after microbubble contrast injection. Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6): 1560 - 1570. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. Nicolau, R. Vilana, V. Catala, L. Bianchi, R. Gilabert, A. Garcia, and C. Bru Importance of Evaluating All Vascular Phases on Contrast-Enhanced Sonography in the Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Focal Liver Lesions Am. J. Roentgenol., January 1, 2006; 186(1): 158 - 167. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Takeshima, T. Kumada, H. Toyoda, S. Kiriyama, M. Tanikawa, H. Ichikawa, T. Kawachi, and S. Ogawa Comparison of IV Contrast-Enhanced Sonography and Histopathology of Pancreatic Cancer Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2005; 185(5): 1193 - 1200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C F Dietrich, G Schuessler, J Trojan, C Fellbaum, and A Ignee Differentiation of focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatocellular adenoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound Br. J. Radiol., August 1, 2005; 78(932): 704 - 707. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H Maruyama, S Matsutani, H Saisho, Y Mine, N Kamiyama, T Hirata, and M Sasamata Real-time blood-pool images of contrast enhanced ultrasound with Definity in the detection of tumour nodules in the liver Br. J. Radiol., June 1, 2005; 78(930): 512 - 518. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. Kim, J. M. Lee, J. Y. Lee, J. K. Han, S. K. An, C. J. Han, K. H. Lee, S. S. Hwang, and B. I. Choi Value of Contrast-Enhanced Sonography for the Characterization of Focal Hepatic Lesions in Patients with Diffuse Liver Disease: Receiver Operating Characteristic Analysis Am. J. Roentgenol., April 1, 2005; 184(4): 1077 - 1084. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 O. Catalano, A. Nunziata, R. Lobianco, and A. Siani Real-Time Harmonic Contrast Material-specific US of Focal Liver Lesions RadioGraphics, March 1, 2005; 25(2): 333 - 349. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Celik, H. Ozdemir, C. Yucel, S. Gultekin, S. O. Oktar, and M. Arac Characterization of Hyperechoic Focal Liver Lesions: Quantitative Evaluation With Pulse Inversion Harmonic Imaging in the Late Phase of Levovist J. Ultrasound Med., January 1, 2005; 24(1): 39 - 47. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. von Herbay, C. Vogt, R. Willers, and D. Haussinger Real-time Imaging With the Sonographic Contrast Agent SonoVue: Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Hepatic Lesions J. Ultrasound Med., December 1, 2004; 23(12): 1557 - 1568. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. Giorgio, G. Ferraioli, L. Tarantino, G. de Stefano, V. Scala, F. Scarano, C. Coppola, and L. Del Viscovo Contrast-Enhanced Sonographic Appearance of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Patients with Cirrhosis: Comparison with Contrast-Enhanced Helical CT Appearance Am. J. Roentgenol., November 1, 2004; 183(5): 1319 - 1326. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. H. Bryant, M. J. Blomley, T. Albrecht, P. S. Sidhu, E. L. S. Leen, R. Basilico, J. M. Pilcher, L. H. Bushby, C. W. Hoffmann, C. J. Harvey, et al. Improved Characterization of Liver Lesions with Liver-Phase Uptake of Liver-specific Microbubbles: Prospective Multicenter Study Radiology, September 1, 2004; 232(3): 799 - 809. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
V. Migaleddu, G. Virgilio, D. Turilli, M. Conti, G. Campisi, N. Canu, D. Sirigu, and I. Vincentelli Characterization of Focal Liver Lesions in Real Time Using Harmonic Imaging with High Mechanical Index and Contrast Agent Levovist Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2004; 182(6): 1505 - 1512. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C F Dietrich, A Ignee, J Trojan, C Fellbaum, and G Schuessler Improved characterisation of histologically proven liver tumours by contrast enhanced ultrasonography during the portal venous and specific late phase of SHU 508A Gut, March 1, 2004; 53(3): 401 - 405. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Emoto, R. Fujimitsu, H. Iwasaki, and T. Kawarabayashi Diagnostic Challenges in Patients With Tumors: CASE 3. NORMAL-SIZED OVARIAN CANCER DETECTED BY COLOR DOPPLER ULTRASOUND USING A MICROBUBBLE CONTRAST AGENT J. Clin. Oncol., October 1, 2003; 21(19): 3703 - 3705. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. von Herbay, C. Vogt, and D. Haussinger Pulse Inversion Sonography in the Early Phase of the Sonographic Contrast Agent Levovist: Differentiation Between Benign and Malignant Focal Liver Lesions J. Ultrasound Med., November 1, 2002; 21(11): 1191 - 1200. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
