This study Hepatic Echinococcosis aimed to improve the differential diagnosis between hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (HAE) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) using conventional ultrasound (US) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). HAE is a parasitic infection caused by Echinococcus multilocularis, and it often presents similarly to malignancies such as ICC. Due to the infiltrative growth pattern of HAE, it can closely resemble ICC, leading to potential misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment decisions, which could adversely affect patient outcomes. As a result, differentiating between these two conditions is crucial for ensuring accurate treatment strategies.
Researchers Retrospectively Analyzed
The researchers retrospectively analyzed a total of 120 liver lesions, comprising 60 HAE lesions and 60 ICC lesions. These lesions were identified from patients at two hospitals in the major endemic region of Qinghai Province, China. The analysis included both conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging techniques. In the process, the team identified several key differences in imaging features that helped differentiate the two conditions. Notably, HAE lesions often exhibited mixed echogenicity, a pseudocystic appearance, and focal calcifications, which were not seen in ICC lesions.
HAE lesions were mostly found in the right lobe of the liver. In contrast, ICC lesions were more evenly spread between the left and right lobes. On contrast-enhanced ultrasound, HAE lesions showed a regular rim-like enhancement with a longer duration. ICC lesions had irregular rim enhancement and rapid washout.
Based on these distinguishing features, a simplified ultrasound scoring system was developed to aid in the diagnosis of HAE. The score took into account echogenicity, the presence of pseudocystic features and calcifications, bile duct dilation, enhancement pattern, enhancement duration, and washout characteristics.
This scoring system was validated in both a training set and a testing set, its diagnostic performance was assessed. In the testing set, the scoring system demonstrated excellent diagnostic accuracy, achieving 80% sensitivity, 81.3% specificity, and an area under