Purpose: To compare the applicability of fusion imaging between contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (CT/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging) and fusion imaging between CEUS and ultrasound (US-CEUS fusion imaging) in the assessment of treatment response during liver cancer ablation. Methods: From August to December 2015, patients who underwent US-guided thermal ablation of liver tumors at our hospital with available CT/MRI images were enrolled consecutively. Both CT/MRI-CEUS and US-CEUS fusion imaging were performed in all patients to evaluate treatment responses. The applicable rate, success rate of registration and duration time were recorded. Complications were monitored in the follow-up period, and CECT/MRI within three months were taken as the standard reference of technical efficacy. Results: A total of 157 liver tumors (19 ± 8 mm, range 8-55 mm) in 115 patients (54 ± 11 years old, range 2 7$ 84 years old) were enrolled. The applicable rate of US-CEUS fusion imaging was 61.1% (96/ 157) because of inconspicuous lesions in US, lower than that of CT/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging (99.7% (155/157)) (p < .05). However, the success rate of registration in US-CEUS fusion imaging (93.8% (90/ 96)) was superior to that of CT/MRI-US fusion imaging (81.3% (126/155)) (p < .05), especially for cases combined with alternative preablation surgeries or procedures (p < .05). The technical efficacy rate was 99.3% (150/151) according to the CECT/CEMRI. Conclusions: Both CT/MRI-CEUS and US-CEUS fusion imaging are feasible means for intraprocedural immediate evaluation of treatment response for liver thermal ablation. US-CEUS fusion imaging is preferred because of its convenience and higher success rate of registration.

3D US-CEUS fusion imaging is a feasible and valuable technique for the immediate evaluation and guidance of supplementary ablation during the liver cancer thermal ablation procedure.

Objectives: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the clinical application values of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), computed tomography/magnetic resonance-CEUS (CT/MR-CEUS), and three-dimensional ultrasound-CEUS (3DUS-CEUS) Fusion imaging (FI) techniques in the assistance of thermal ablation for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods: A RCT was conducted on 374 patients with 456 HCCs between January 2016 and September 2017. CEUS, CT/MR-CEUS, and 3DUS-CEUS FI techniques were randomly used to assist HCC ablation. All lesions were ablated according to a previously determined plan, and FI groups required a 5-mm ablative margin. The primary endpoints were technical efficacy of thermal ablation and local tumor progression (LTP). Results: According to randomization, 153 (18.8 ± 8.0 cm), 153 (18.3 ± 6.6 cm) and 150 (19.1 ± 6.9 cm) HCCs were assigned to CT/MR-CEUS, 3DUS-CEUS and CEUS groups respectively. Technical efficacy rates (99.3% vs. 100% vs. 100%) were achieved in the three groups, showing no statistical differences (p ¼ 1.000). The median follow-up time was 24 (1-37) months. LTP rates at 1 and 2 years were 3.4%, 12.2% for CT/MR-CEUS FI, 4.8%, 9.0% for 3DUS-CEUS FI, and 8.6%, 19.9% for CEUS, respectively (p ¼ .105). The results of subgroup analysis for LTP were statistically significant when patients with albumin-bilirubin (ALBI) grade 2 and 3 (p ¼ .000), and tumor located at risky positions (p ¼ .042). In addition, the p value in group of multiple tumors was close to .05 (p ¼ .052). Conclusions: All the three techniques are feasible for intraoperative HCC thermal ablation. Compared with CEUS, FI techniques are more suitable in patients with ALBI grade 2 and 3, multiple tumors, and in tumors at risky locations.

Aim To retrospectively compare the treatment effect of intraprocedural computed tomography/magnetic resonance–contrast‐enhanced ultrasound (CT/MR‐CEUS) fusion imaging (FI) with that of conventional ultrasound (US) in the guidance and assessment of thermal ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). Methods The FI group (112 patients with 129 HCC) was treated between April 2010 and December 2012, whereas the US group (83 patients with 90 HCC) was treated between January 2008 and March 2010. Either CT/MR‐CEUS FI or US was used to guide puncture, provide immediate assessment, and guide supplementary ablation. Technical efficacy, cumulative local tumor progression rate (LTP), recurrence‐free survival (RFS), and overall survival (OS) were evaluated and compared during follow‐up. Technical success rate of CT/MR‐CEUS FI was also recorded. Results Technical efficacy was significantly higher in the FI group than in the US group (100% vs. 86.7%, P < 0.001). The 1‐, 2‐, 3‐, 4‐, 5‐, and 6‐year cumulative LTP rates in the FI group were significantly lower than in the US group (3.8%, 4.9%, 6.0%, 6.0%, 7.2%, and 7.2% vs. 16.9%, 20.1%, 25%, 25%, 25%, and 25%, respectively; P < 0.001); RFS and OS were significantly higher in the FI group than in the US group (P = 0.027 and P = 0.049, respectively). The technical success rate of FI was 85.3%. Conclusions Intraprocedural CT/MR‐CEUS FI improved the treatment effect of thermal ablation of HCC by immediately assessing treatment response and guiding supplementary ablation relative to those resulting from the use of conventional US.

BackgroundTo assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-CT/MR image fusion in evaluating the radiofrequency ablative margin (AM) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on a custom-made phantom model and in HCC patients.MethodsTwenty-four phantoms were randomly divided into a complete ablation group (n = 6) and an incomplete ablation group (n = 18). After radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the AM was evaluated using ultrasound (US)-CT image fusion, and the results were compared with the AM results that were directly measured in a gross specimen. CEUS-CT/MR image fusion and CT-CT / MR-MR image fusion were used to evaluate the AM in 37 tumors from 33 HCC patients who underwent RFA.ResultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US-CT image fusion for evaluating AM in the phantom model were 93.8, 85.7 and 91.3%, respectively. The maximal thicknesses of the residual AM were 3.5 ± 2.0 mm and 3.2 ± 2.0 mm in the US-CT image fusion and gross specimen, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the US-CT image fusion and direct measurements of the AM of HCC. In the clinical study, the success rate of the AM evaluation was 100% for both CEUS-CT/MR and CT-CT/MR-MR, and the duration was 8.5 ± 2.8 min (range: 4–12 min) and 13.5 ± 4.5 min (range: 8–16 min) for CEUS-CT/MR and CT-CT/MR-MR, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-CT/MR imaging for evaluating the AM were 100.0, 80.0, and 90.0%, respectively.ConclusionsA phantom model composed of carrageenan gel and additives was suitable for the evaluation of HCC AM. CEUS-CT/MR image fusion can be used to evaluate HCC AM with high accuracy.