Review of dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound guidance in ablation therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Table 1 Treatment sessions of percutaneous ablation guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound for hepatocellular carcinoma

Author[Ref.]	Year	Procedure	n	Contrast agent	Tumor size (mean, cm)	Treatment sessions (mean)
Numata et al[45]	2003	PEI, RFA	9	Levovist	1.4	ND
Minami et al[12]	2004	RFA	21	Levovist	1.7	1.05
Solbiati et al[46]	2004	RFA	51	SonoVue	ND	ND
Numata et al[47]	2008	RFA	15	Sonazoid	ND	1.04
Maruyama et al[48]	2009	PEI, RFA	42	Sonazoid	1.3	ND
Miyamoto et al[49]	2009	RFA	52	Sonazoid	ND	1.04
Minami et al[50]	2010	RFA	108	Sonazoid	1.7	1.1
Masuzaki et al[36]	2010	RFA	291	Sonazoid	1.6	1.33

HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; ND: Not described; PEI: Percutaneous ethanol injection; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation.

Table 2 Local tumor progression rates of percutaneous ablation guided by contrast-enhanced ultrasound for hepatocellular carcinoma

Author[Ref.]	Year	Procedure	n	Tumor size (mean, cm)	Follow-up (mean, mo)	Local tumor progression (%)
Maruyama et al[48]	2009	PEI, RFA	42	1.3	8.6	0
Minami et al[50]	2010	RFA	108	1.7	4.3	0
Masuzaki et al[36]	2010	RFA	291	1.6	ND	2.1
Miyamoto et al[51]	2010	RFA	17	1.6	11	12

HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; ND: Not described; PEI: Percutaneous ethanol injection; RFA: Radiofrequency ablation.

Table 3 Treatment sessions of radiofrequency ablation: Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound guidance vs conventional B-mode ultrasound guidance

Author[Ref.]	Year	Study type	n (CEUS/B-mode)	Tumor size, (mean, cm)(CEUS/B-mode)	Mean treatment sessions (CEUS vs B-mode)	P value
Minami et al[12]	2004	Case control study	21/25	1.7/1.7	1.05 vs 2.0	0.002
Minami et al[53]	2007	RCT	19/20	1.2/1.3	1.1 vs 1.4	0.043
Masuzaki et al[36]	2010	Case control study	291/291	1.9/1.9	1.33 vs 1.49	0.0019

CEUS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; RCT: Randomized controlled trial.