Source: http://vidar.ru/Article.asp?fid=USFD_2016_5_22
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 00:54:04+00:00

Document:
Феоктистова Е. В., Белякова Л.А., Варфоломеева С.Р.
Приведен обзор литературы о применении ультразвукового исследования с контрастным усилением в педиатрии, в том числе в детской онкологии, который показывает все преимущества данного метода обследования. Изложены общепризнанные на сегодняшний день показания и противопоказания к ультразвуковому исследованию с контрастным усилением. Представлены основные ультразвуковые контрастные препараты и их официально разрешенные области применения. Проанализированы данные клинических исследований, указывающие на безопасность применения ультразвуковых контрастных препаратов в детском возрасте. Приведены результаты применения ультразвукового исследования с контрастным усилением для дифференциальной диагностики очаговых поражений печени и динамической оценки кровоснабжения опухоли при проведении таргетной терапии, направленной на подавление ангиогенеза.
1.Tranquart F., Correas J.M., Ladam Marcus V. et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation fo cal liver lesions: diagnostic efficacy and economic issues from a French multicentric study // J. Radiol. 2009. V. 90. No. 1. P. 109-122.
2.Darge K. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in children: ready for the prime time in the United States // Pediatr. Radiol. 2011. V. 41. No. 11. P. 1486-1488.
3.Bartolotta T.V., Taibbi A., Midiri M. et al. Indeterminate focal liver lesions incidentally discovered at grey-scale US. Role of contrast-enhanced sonography // Invest. Radiol. 2011. V. 46. No. 2. P. 106-115.
4.Dezsofi A., McLin V., Hadzic N. Hepatic neoplasms in children: a focus on differential diagnosis // Clin. Res. Hepatol. Gastroenterol. 2014. V. 38. No. 4. P. 399-402.
5.Bernatik T., Sertz K., Blank W. et al. Unclear focal liver lesions in contrast-enhanced ultrasonography - lessons to be learned from the DEGUM multicenter study for the characterization of liver tumors // Ultraschall Med. 2010. V. 31. No. 6. P. 577-581.
6.Chami L., Lassau N., Malka D. et al. Benefits of contrast-enhanced sonography for the detection of liver lesions: comparison with histologic findings // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008. V. 190. No. 3. P. 683-690.
7.Claudon M., Dietrich C., Choi B.I. et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012. A WFUMB-EFSUMB initiative in cooperation with representatives of AFSUMB, AIUM, ASUM, FLAUS and ICUS // Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2013. V. 39. No. 2. P. 187-210.
8.Piscaglia F., Nolsoe C., Dietrich C. et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications // Ultraschall Med. 2012. V. 33. No. 1. P. 33-59.
9.CEUS around the world: where, which agents and how they are used // International Contrast Ultrasound Society. Режим доступа: // http://www.icus-society.org/attachments/article/103/ICUS%20-%20CEUS%20Around%20the%20World.pdf, свободный. Загл. с экрана. 20.08.2016.
10.Dietrich C., Braden B., Hocke M. et al. Improved characterization of solitary solid pancreatic tumors using contrast enhanced transabdominal ultrasound // J. Cancer Res. Clin. Oncol. 2008. V. 134. No. 6. P. 635-643.
11.Minimum training requirements for the practice of medical ultrasound in Europe // Ultraschall Med. 2010. V. 31. No. 4. P. 426-427.
12.ESUR guidelines on contrast media // Eur. Radiol. 2001. V. 21. No. 12. P. 2527-2541.
13.Wilson S.R., Burns P.N. Microbubble enhanced US in body imaging: what role? // Radiology. 2010. V. 257. No. 1. P. 24-39.
14.Cosgrove D., Eckersly R. Contrast enhanced ultrasound: basic physics and technology overview // Enhancing the Role of Ultrasound with Contrast Agents / Ed. by R. Lencioni. Milan: Springer-Verlag, 2006. P. 3-14.
15.Dawson P., Cosgrove D., Grainger R. Textbook of Contrast Media. Oxford: ISIS Medical Media, 1999. P. 239-247.
16.Burns P.N. Basics // Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound / Ed. by H.P. Weskott. Bremen: UNI-MED Verlag AG, 2011. P. 13-21.
17.Weskott H.P. Examination strategies, tips and techniques // Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound / Ed. by H.P. Weskott. Bremen: UNI-MED Verlag AG, 2011. P. 31-43.
18.Schief R. Ultrasound contrast agents // Curr. Opin. Radiol. 1991. V. 3. No. 2. P. 198-207.
19.Coley B.D. Future of pediatric US // Pediatr. Radiol. 2011. V. 41. No. 1. P. 220-227.
20.Kis E., Nyitrai A., Varkoniy I. et al. Voiding ultrasonography with second-generation contrast agent versus voiding cystourethrography // Pediatr. Nephrol. 2010. V. 25. No. 11. P. 2289-2293.
21.Wozniak M.M., Wieczorek A.P., Pawelec A. et al. Two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional (3D) and real-time (4D) contrast enhanced voiding urosonography (ce-VUS) versus voiding cystourethrography (VCUG) in children with vesicouretheral reflux // Eur. J. Radiol. 2016. V. 85. No. 6. P. 1238-1245.
22.Zimbaro G., Ascenti G., Visalli C. et al. Contrastenhanced ultrasonography (voiding urosonography) of vesicoureteral reflux: state of the art // Radiol. Med. 2007. V. 112. No. 8. P. 1211-1224.
23.Papadopoulou F., Ntoulia A., Siornou E. et al. Safety of intravesical use of second generation US contrast agent in children for vesicouretheral reflux detection // ECR 2011 Book of Abstracts. S. B736.
24.Conroy S., Choonara I., Impiccaitore P. et al. Survey of unlicensed and off label drug use in paediatric wards in European countries // BMJ. 2000. V. 320. No. 7227. P. 79-82.
25.Piskunowicz M., Kosiak W., Irga N. Primum non nocere? Why can’t we use second generation ultrasound contrast agents for the examinations in children? // Ultraschall Med. 2011. V. 32. No. 1. P. 83-86.
26.Riccabona M. Contrast media use in pediatrics: safety issues // Contrast Media: Safety Issues and ESUR Guidelines / Ed. by H.S. Thompson, J.A.W. Webb. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer, 2014. P. 245-251.
27.Sidhu P.S., Cantisani V., Deganello A. et al. A role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in paediatric practice: an EFSUMB position statement // Ultraschall Med. 2016. Epub ahead of print.
28.Fernandez E., Perez R., Hernandez A. et al. Factors and mechanisms for pharmacokinetic differences between pediatric population and adults // Pharmaceutics. 2011. V. 3. No. 1. P. 53-72.
29.Pandolfini C., Bonati M. A literature review on off label drug use in children // Eur. J. Pediatr. 2005. V. 164. No. 9. P. 552-558.
30.Prandstetter C., Tamesberger M., Wagner O. et al. Medical prescriptions to premature and newborn infants in an Austrian neonatal intensive care unit // Klin. Padiatr. 2009. V. 221. No. 5. P. 321-317.
31.Brenner D.J., Hall E.J. Computed tomography - an increasing source of radiation exposure // N. Engl. J. Med. 2007. V. 357. No. 22. P. 2277-2284.
32.Lucignani G., DePalma D. PET/CT in pediatric oncology: clinical usefulness and domestic concerns // Eur. J. Nucl. Med. Mol. Imaging. 2011. V. 38. No. 1. P. 179-184.
33.Brody A.S., Frush D.P., Huda W. et al. Radiation risk to children from computed tomography // Pediatrics. 2007. V. 120. No. 3. P. 677-682.
34.Approved drug product list 2016 // Food and Drug Administration. Режим доступа: // http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/developmentapprovalprocess/ucm071118.pdf, свободный. Загл. с экрана. 25.07.2016.
35.Riccabona M. Application of a second-generation US contrast agent in infants and children - a European questionnaire-based survey // Pediatr. Radiol. 2012. V. 42. No. 12. P. 1471-1480.
36.Rasado E., Riccabona M. Off-label use of ultrasound contrast-agents for intravenous applications in children // J. Ultrasound Med. 2016. V. 35. No. 3. P. 487-496.
37.Piscaglia F., Bolondi L. Italian society for ultrasound in medicine and biology (SIUMB) study group on ultrasound contrast agents. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23 188 investigations // Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2006. V. 32. No. 9. P. 1369-1375.
38.Prince M.R., Zhang H., Zou Z. et al. Incidence of immediate gadolinium contrast media reactions // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011. V. 196. No. 2. P. 138-143.
39.Wang C.L., Cohan R.H., Ellis J.H. et al. Frequency, outcome and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008. V. 191. No. 2. P. 409-415.
40.McCarville M.B., Kaste S.C., Hoffer F.A. et al. Contrast enhanced sonography of malignant pediatric abdominal and pelvic solid tumors: preliminary safety and feasibility data // Pediatr. Radiol. 2012. V. 42. No. 7. P. 824-833.
41.Coleman J.L., Navid F., Furman W.L. et al. Safety of ultrasound contrast agents in pediatric oncologic population: a single-institutional experience // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2014. V. 202. No. 5. P. 966-970.
42.Harkanyi Z. Potential applications of contrastenhanced ultrasound in pediatric patients // Ultrasound Clin. North Am. 2013. V. 8. P. 403-422.
43.Strobel D., Seitz K., Blank W. et al. Contrastenhanced ultrasound for the characterization of focal liver lesions - diagnostic accuracy in clinical practice (DEGUM multicenter trial) // Ultraschall Med. 2008. V. 29. No. 5. P. 499-505.
44.Rozell J.M., Catanzano T., Polansky S.M. et al. Primary liver tumors in pediatric patients: proper imaging technique for diagnosis and staging // Semin. Ultrasound CT MRI. 2014. V. 35. No. 4. P. 382-393.
45.Meyers R. Tumors of the liver in children // Surg. Oncol. 2007. V. 16. No. 3. P. 195-203.
46.Roebuck D. Focal liver lesions in children // Pediatr. Radiol. 2008. V. 38. No. 3. P. 518-522.
47.Dietrich C.F., Kratzer W., Strobe D. et al. Assessment of metastatic liver disease in patients with primary extrahepatic tumors by contrast-enhanced sonography versus CN and MRI // World J. Gastroenterol. 2006. V. 12. No. 11. P. 1699-1705.
48.Ding H., Wang W.P., Huang B.J. et al. Imaging of focal liver lesion: low-mechanical-index real-time ultrasonography with Sonovue // J. Ultrasound Med. 2005. V. 24. No. 3. P. 285-297.
49.Claudon M., Dietrich C.F., Choi B.I. et al. Guidelines and good clinical practice recommendations for contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the liver - update 2012 // Ultraschall Med. 2013. V. 34. No. 1. P. 11-29.
50.Dai Y., Chen M.H., Yin S.S. et al. Focal liver lesions: can Sonovue-enhanced ultrasound be used to differentiate malignant from benign lesions? // Invest. Radiol. 2007. V. 42. No. 8. P. 596-603.
51.Bhayana D., Kim T.K., Jang H.J. et al. Hypervascular liver masses on contrast-enhanced ultrasound: the importance of wash-out // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2010. V. 194. No. 4. P. 977-983.
52.Dietrich C.F., Mertens J.C., Braden B. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of histologically proven liver hemangiomas // Hepatology. 2007. V. 45. No. 5. P. 1139-1145.
53.Kim T.K., Jang H.J., Burns P.N. et al. Focal nodular hyperplasia and hepatic adenoma: differentiation with low-mechanical index contrast-enhanced sonography // Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008. V. 190. No. 1. P. 58-66.
54.Von Herbay A., Westendorff J., Gregor M. Contrastenhanced ultrasound with Sonovue: differentiation between benign and malignant focal liver lesions in 317 patients // J. Clin. Ultrasound. 2010. V. 38. No. 1. P. 1-9.
55.Fan Z.H., Chen M.H., Dai Y. et al. Evaluation of primary malignancies of the liver using contrastenhanced sonography: correlation with pathology // Am. J. Roengenol. 2006. V. 186. No. 6. P. 1512-1519.
56.Ooi C.C., Low S.C., Schneider-Kolsky M. et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enchanced ultrasound in differentiating benign and malignant liver lesions: a retrospective study // J. Med. Imaging Radiat. Oncol. 2010. V. 54. No. 5. P. 421-430.
57.Frank D. Intravenous-contrast enhanced sonography (CEUS) in children: single center experience // Ultraschall Med. 2013. V. 34. Suppl. P. S32.
58.Stenzel M. Intravenous contrast-enhanced sonography in children and adolescents: single center experience // J. Ultrason. 2013. V. 13. No. 53. P. 133-144.
59.Jacob J., Deganello A., Sellars M.E. et al. Contrastenhanced ultrasound (CEUS) characterization of grey-scale sonographic indeterminate focal liver lesions in pediatric practice // Ultraschall Med. 2013. V. 34. No. 6. P. 529-540.
60.Piskunowicz M., Kosiak W., Batko T. et al. Safety of intravenous application of second-generation ultrasound contrast agent in children: prospective analysis // Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2015. V. 41. No. 4. P. 1095-1099.
61.Lassau N., Chebil M., Chami L. et al. Dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (DCE-US): a new tool for the evaluation of antiangiogenic treatment // Target. Oncol. 2010. V. 5. No. 1. P. 53-58.
62.Greis C. Quantitative evaluation of microvascular blood flow by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) // Clin. Hemorheol. Microcirc. 2011. V. 49. No. 1-4. P. 137-149.
63.Rehman S., Jayson G.C. Molecular imaging of antiangiogenic agents // Oncologist. 2005. V. 10. No. 2. P. 92-103.
64.McCarville M.B., Coleman J.L., Guo J. et al. Use of quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced ultrasound to assess response to angiogenic therapy in children and adolescents with solid malignancies: a pilot study // Am. J. Roengenol. 2016. V. 206. No. 5. P. 933-939.
65.Patient Study Data Registry // EFSUMB. Режим доступа: // http://www.efsumb-data.org/v1/login.asp, свободный. Загл. с экрана. 25.07.2016.
Feoktistova E.V., Belyakova L.A., Varfolomeeva S.R.
Literature review shows the advantages of contrast enhanced ultrasound application in pediatrics, including pediatric oncology. It outlines the current indications and contraindications to contrast enhanced ultrasound. Main ultrasound contrast agents and their officially approved applications are described. The clinical trials data indicating the ultrasound contrast agents application safety in children are presented. The results of contrast enhanced ultrasound application for focal liver lesions differential diagnosis and antiangiogenic treatment response assessment are shown.

References: V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V. 
 V.