Background and objectives: Native ultrasound is the most common imaging modality in obstetrics. The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) during pregnancy has not been officially approved by leading societies for obstetrics and ultrasound. The present study aims to monitor the safety and diagnostic performance of CEUS for assessing abdominal issues in five pregnant women. Materials and Methods: Five pregnant patients who underwent a total of 11 CEUS examinations between June 2020 and October 2020 were included (mean age: 34 years; mean time of pregnancy: 21 weeks). All CEUS scans were interpreted by one experienced consultant radiologist (EFSUMB Level 3). Results: Upon contrast application, no maternal nor fetal adverse effects were observed. Moreover, no fetal contrast enhancement was observed in any patient. CEUS helped to diagnose renal angiomyolipoma, pyelonephritis, necrotic uterine fibroid, gallbladder polyp, and superior mesenteric vein thrombosis. Conclusions: In our study, off-label use of CEUS showed an excellent safety profile allowing the avoidance of ionizing radiation exposure as well as contrast agents in case of CT or use of gadolinium-based contrast agents in case of MRI. CEUS is a promising diagnostic instrument for facilitating clinical decision-making and improving the management of pregnant women.

Purpose To compare the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of unclear renal lesions to the histopathological outcome. Materials and methods A total of 255 patients with a single unclear renal mass with initial imaging studies between 2005 and 2015 were included. Patient ages ranged from 18 to 86 with (mean age 62 years; SD ± 13). CEUS (255 patients), CT (88 out of 255 patients; 34.5 %) and MRI (36 out of 255 patients; 14.1 %) were used for determining malignancy or benignancy and initial findings were correlated with the histopathological outcome. Results CEUS showed a sensitivity of 99.1 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 96.7 %, 99.9 %), a specificity of 80.5 % (95 % CI: 65.1 %, 91.2 %), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.4 % (95 % CI: 93.0 %, 98.4 %) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.3 % (95 % CI: 80.8 %, 99.3 %). CT showed a sensitivity of 97.1 % (95 % CI: 89.9 %, 99.6 %), a specificity of 47.4 % (95 % CI: 24.4 %, 71.1 %), a PPV of 87.0 % (95 % CI: 77.4 %, 93.6 %) and a NPV of 81.8 % (95 % CI: 48.2 %, 97.7 %). MRI showed a sensitivity of 96.4 % (95 % CI: 81.7 %, 99.9 %), a specificity of 75.0 % (95 % CI: 34.9 %, 96.8 %), a PPV of 93.1 % (95 % CI: 77.2 %, 99.2 %) and a NPV of 85.7 % (95 % CI: 42.1 %, 99.6 %). Out of the 212 malignant lesions a total of 130 clear cell renal carcinomas, 59 papillary renal cell carcinomas, 7 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas, 4 combined clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas and 12 other malignant lesions, e. g. metastases, were diagnosed. Out of the 43 benign lesions a total 10 angiomyolipomas, 3 oncocytomas, 8 benign renal cysts and 22 other benign lesions, e. g. renal adenomas were diagnosed. Using CEUS, 10 lesions were falsely identified as malignant or benign, whereas 8 lesions were false positive and 2 lesions false negative. Conclusion CEUS is an useful method which can be additionally used to clinically differentiate between malignant and benign renal lesions. CEUS shows a comparable sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV to CT and MRI. In daily clinical routine, patients with contraindications for other imaging modalities can particularly benefit using this method. Key Points: Citation Format

Fusion imaging depicts an innovative technique that facilitates combining assets and reducing restrictions of advanced ultrasound and cross-sectional imaging. The purpose of the present retrospective study was to evaluate the role of fusion imaging for assessing hepatic and renal lesions. Between 02/2011–08/2020, 92 patients in total were included in the study, of which 32 patients had hepatic lesions, 60 patients had renal lesions. Fusion imaging was technically successful in all patients. No adverse side effects upon intravenous (i.v.) application of SonoVue^® (Bracco, Milan, Italy) were registered. Fusion imaging could clarify all 11 (100%) initially as indeterminate described hepatic lesions by computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI). Moreover, 5/14 (36%) initially suspicious hepatic lesions could be validated by fusion imaging, whereas in 8/14 (57%), malignant morphology was disproved. Moreover, fusion imaging allowed for the clarification of 29/30 (97%) renal lesions initially characterized as suspicious by CT/MRI, of which 19/30 (63%) underwent renal surgery, histopathology revealed malignancy in 16/19 (84%), and benignity in 3/19 (16%). Indeterminate findings could be elucidated by fusion imaging in 20/20 (100%) renal lesions. Its accessibility and repeatability, even during pregnancy and in childhood, its cost-effectiveness, and its excellent safety profile, make fusion imaging a promising instrument for the thorough evaluation of hepatic and renal lesions in the future.

Background: The present study aims to evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for discriminating between benign and malignant solid renal masses. Methods: 18 patients with histopathologically confirmed benign solid renal masses (11 oncocytomas, seven angiomyolipomas) as well as 96 patients with confirmed renal cell carcinoma (RCC) who underwent CEUS followed by radical or partial nephrectomy were included in this single-center study. CEUS examinations were performed by an experienced radiologist (EFSUMB Level 3) and included the application of a second-generation contrast agent. Results: Renal angiomyolipomas, oncocytomas, and renal cell carcinomas showed varying sonomorphological characteristics in CEUS. Angiomyolipomas showed heterogeneous echogenicity (57% hypo-, 43% hyperechoic), while all lesions showed rapid contrast-enhancement with two lesions also showing venous wash-out (29%). Notably, 9/11 oncocytomas could be detected in conventional ultrasound (64% hypo-, 9% hyper-, 9% isoechoic) and 2/11 only demarcated upon intravenous application of contrast agent (18%). All oncocytomas showed hyperenhancement in CEUS, venous wash-out was registered in 7/11 lesions (64%). Conclusions: In line with the current state of knowledge, no specific sonomorphological characteristics allowing for accurate distinction between benign and malignant solid renal masses in CEUS could be detected in our study.

For evaluating unclear tumorous lesions, contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) is an important imaging modality in addition to contrast-enhanced computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging, and may provide valuable insights into the microvascularization of tumors in dynamic examinations. In interventional procedures, CEUS can make a valuable contribution in pre-, peri-, and post-interventional settings, reduce radiation exposure and, under certain circumstances, decrease the number of interventions needed for patients.

Background: Our retrospective single-center study aims to evaluate the impact of structured reporting (SR) using a CEUS LI-RADS template on report quality compared to conventional free-text reporting (FTR) in contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: We included 50 patients who underwent CEUS for HCC staging. FTR created after these examinations were compared to SR retrospectively generated by using template-based online software with clickable decision trees. The reports were evaluated regarding report completeness, information extraction, linguistic quality and overall report quality by two readers specialized in internal medicine and visceral surgery. Results: SR significantly increased report completeness with at least one key feature missing in 31% of FTR vs. 2% of SR (p < 0.001). Information extraction was considered easy in 98% of SR vs. 86% of FTR (p = 0.004). The trust of referring physicians in the report was significantly increased by SR with a mean of 5.68 for SR vs. 4.96 for FTR (p < 0.001). SR received significantly higher ratings regarding linguistic quality (5.79 for SR vs. 4.83 for FTR (p < 0.001)) and overall report quality (5.75 for SR vs. 5.01 for FTR (p < 0.001)). Conclusions: Using SR instead of conventional FTR increases the overall quality of reports in CEUS examinations of HCC patients and may represent a valuable tool to facilitate clinical decision-making and improve interdisciplinary communication in the future.