Systematic review and meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing hepatic echinococcosis

doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2025.03.001

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective To systematically evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in diagnosing hepatic echinococcosis. Methods By searching keywords combined with free words, articles reporting CEUS in diagnosing hepatic echinococcosis published before June 2023 were searched in the databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI, Wanfang and CQVIP. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, eligible articles were screened. Data of general information, true positive, false positive, false negative, and true negative were extracted from the included articles. Using the QUADAS-2 tools to assess the included studies. Meta-disc1.4 and RevMan5.4 software were used for meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, and negative likelihood ratio were calculated. The diagnostic odds ratio(OR) and area under the SROC curve (AUC) were calculated. Stata14.0 software was used to draw the Galbraith plot to perform heterogeneity analysis on the research data. Results According the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 7 articles were included with 348 patients. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, diagnostic OR and AUC of CEUS in diagnosing hepatic echinococcosis was 0.96 (95%CI 0.92-0.98), 0.88(95%CI 0.79-0.93), 5.73 (95%CI 1.24-26.58), 0.07 (95%CI 0.03-0.18), 95.32(95%CI 22.02-412.60), and 0.9767, respectively. According to the pooled sensitivity, specificity and AUC, CEUS had a high diagnostic efficacy in diagnosing hepatic echinococcosis. The Galbraith plot showed that all articles were distributed on both sides of the solid red effect line and within the green confidence interval range, indicating no overall heterogeneity in this study. Conclusion CEUS has a high efficacy in the diagnosis of hepatic echinococcosis and can serve as a new method for clinical diagnosis of hepatic echinococcosis.

Key words: echinococcosis, hepatic, contrast-enhanced ultrasound, sensitivity, diagnostic accuracy

CLC Number:

R532.32

Pu Wutao, Xiao Yixin, Tuo Li, Kailibinuer·Muti , Fan Xueting, Chong Le. Systematic review and meta-analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing hepatic echinococcosis[J]. Clinical Focus, 2025, 40(3): 197-204.

Add to citation manager EndNote|Ris|BibTeX

URL: http://www.lchc.cn/EN/10.3969/j.issn.1004-583X.2025.03.001

http://www.lchc.cn/EN/Y2025/V40/I3/197

Figures/Tables 9

References 33

[1]	Ma T, Wang Q, Hao M, et al. Epidemiological characteristics and risk factors for cystic and alveolar echinococcosis in China: An analysis of a national population-based field survey[J]. Parasit Vectors, 2023, 16(1):181. doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05788-z pmid: 37270512
[2]	Wen H, Vuitton L, Tuxun T, et al. Echinococcosis: Advances in the 21st century[J]. Clin Microbiol Rev, 2019, 32(2):e00075-18.
[3]	阮成, 廖伟, 卢天任, 等. 多区域层面棘球蚴病流行特征研究进展[J]. 现代预防医学, 2023, 50(21):3995-3998.
[4]	马国祥, 严传波, 杨凌菲, 等. 基于深度学习的肝包虫病超声影像诊断方法研究[J]. 现代电子技术, 2023, 46(8):66-72.
[5]	Wa ZC, Du T, Li XF, et al. Differential diagnosis between hepatic alveolar echinococcosis and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound[J]. BMC Med Imaging, 2020, 20(1):101.
[6]	刘亚莉, 许国宇, 李志艳, 等. 超声造影肝脏影像报告-数据系统与欧洲超声造影指南对肝脏结节良恶性鉴别的诊断效能对比[J]. 陆军军医大学学报, 2023, 45(5):462-467.
[7]	王柄华, 游益娟, 周果, 等. 冰雹型肝泡型包虫病的超声造影增强模式分析[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2023, 39(4):418-420.
[8]	阿依努尔·艾尔肯, 阿卜杜艾尼·啊卜力孜, 塔来提·吐尔干, 等. miR-1、miR-133b与肝泡型棘球蚴病患者肝纤维化的关系[J]. 中华地方病学杂志, 2023, 42(9):689-696.
[9]	颜有霞, 田青山, 王顺娟, 等. 正电子发射-计算机断层显像在肝脏泡型棘球蚴病可切除性及切除范围中的应用价值[J]. 中国肝脏病杂志(电子版), 2020, 12(4):78-82.
[10]	王玉乐. Em-cfDNA与超声造影对肝泡型包虫病诊断价值的比较研究[D]. 西宁: 青海大学, 2021.
[11]	任波. 基于影像组学评价肝泡型包虫病组织特征和生物活性的研究[D]. 西宁: 新疆医科大学影像医学与核医学, 2021.
[12]	杨凤武, 陈重, 陶杰, 等. 便捷式超声在包虫病筛查诊疗中的价值[J]. 西南国防医药, 2020, 30(9):820-823.
[13]	刘雪琴, 万伟, 刘金鹏. 肝转移性鳞癌误诊为肝包虫病1例[J]. 中国肝脏病杂志(电子版), 2022, 14(4):68-72.
[14]	王晶晶, 吕明德, 张灵强, 等. 超声造影在肝多房棘球蚴病诊疗中的应用现状[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(7):720-722.
[15]	尹秋萍, 张玉英, 马钦风, 等. 不同类型肝泡型包虫病病灶边缘区超声造影参数与微血管密度的相关性[J]. 中国介入影像与治疗学, 2022, 19(2):85-89.
[16]	刘文亚, 蒋奕, 王健. 肝包虫病影像学诊断专家共识[J]. 临床肝胆病杂志, 2021, 37 (4): 792-797.
[17]	田宏亮, 葛赛, 袁浩, 等. 西布曲明对比奥利司他治疗肥胖症的Meta分析[J]. 中国临床药理学与治疗学, 2010, 15(6):651-656.
[18]	Kinsella R, Semciw AI, Hawke LJ, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of clinical tests for assessing greater trochanteric pain syndrome: A systematic review with meta-analysis[J]. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther, 2024, 54(1):1-24.
[19]	唐苏丹, 向春红, 杨全. 超声及MRI诊断妊娠期阑尾炎:Meta分析[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2021, 37(3):411-415.
[20]	唐一植, 李倩, 蒋炜. 超声造影对肝泡型包虫病的鉴别诊断价值[J]. 四川医学, 2013, 34(7): 1088-1090.
[21]	张惠, 刘志红, 邓立强, 等. 超声造影对泡型肝包虫病的临床诊断价值[J]. 西南医科大学学报, 2018, 41(4):313-316.
[22]	曹旭峰, 王建华, 潘涛. 超声造影与超声弹性成像对原发性肝癌和肝泡型包虫病的鉴别价值[J]. 肝脏, 2021, 26(6):692-695.
[23]	Zhang X, Suolang L, Ren Y, et al. Can contrast-enhanced ultrasound differentiate the type of hepatic echinococcosis: Cystic echinococcosis or alveolar echinococcosis?[J]. Parasit Vectors, 2023, 16(1):131. doi: 10.1186/s13071-023-05731-2 pmid: 37069610
[24]	董甜甜, 聂芳, 魏佳琪, 等. 实时超声造影诊断肝泡状棘球蚴病[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2015, 31(6): 872-875.
[25]	王凯强, 王玉乐, 张灵强, 等. Em-cfDNA与超声造影对肝泡型包虫病的诊断价值[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2022, 11(6): 634-638.
[26]	Schwarze V, Mueller-Peltzer K, Negrão DFG, et al. The use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the diagnostic evaluation of hepatic echinococcosis[J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2018, 70(4):449-455. doi: 10.3233/CH-189310 pmid: 30347607
[27]	李婷, 鲍海华. 多模态影像技术在肝囊型包虫病分型中的应用价值[J]. 中国CT和MRI杂志, 2022, (7):104-106.
[28]	邓旭, 韩军伟, 王晶晶, 等. 超声造影与MRI诊断肝泡型包虫病病灶生物学活性的一致性分析[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2022, 11(6):625-628.
[29]	唐群科, 张瑛, 叶雨辰. 泡型包虫病治疗的研究进展[J]. 中华地方病学杂志, 2021, 40(2):169-172.
[30]	万敏, 蔡迪明, 李永忠, 等. 超声造影在泡型肝包虫病与肝血管瘤鉴别诊断中的价值[J]. 西部医学, 2020, 32(6):908-913.
[31]	王海筠, 吴景玲, 吕晓娟, 等. 超声造影鉴别诊断原发性肝癌和肝血管瘤及肿瘤发生转移的危险因素[J]. 分子影像学杂志, 2021, 44(3):536-540.
[32]	杨永林, 张彬彬, 王砚琴. 阿苯达唑治疗肝囊性包虫病的疗效及安全性的系统评价和Meta分析[J]. 中国保健营养, 2018, 28(36):234, 101.
[33]	王晶晶, 邓旭, 张灵强, 等. 超声造影评估肝泡型包虫病微波消融治疗效果[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2022, 11(6):629-633.

序号	研究者	年份	国家	超声诊断仪	探头型号及频率	造影剂类型	造影剂剂量 (ml)	患者年龄 (岁)
1	唐一植等^[20]	2013	中国	GE logiq E9	C5-1,3.5~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	26~70
2	张惠等^[21]	2018	中国	ACUSON S2000	腹部凸阵探头	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	18~65
3	曹旭峰等^[22]	2021	中国	迈瑞DC N3S	C5-1,3~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	1.2	44.67±8.14
4	Zhang等^[23]	2023	China	Philips iU22	C5-1,3~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	1~1.2	42.88±10.28
5	董甜甜等^[24]	2015	中国	Philips iU22	C5-2,2~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	48.1±15.6
6	王凯强等^[25]	2022	中国	Philips CX50	C5-1,1~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	18~65
7	Schwarze等^[26]	2018	Germany	GE logiq E9	不详	SonoVue Bracco	1~2.4	62±11.5

序号	研究者	年份	国家	超声诊断仪	探头型号及频率	造影剂类型	造影剂剂量 (ml)	患者年龄 (岁)
1	唐一植等^[20]	2013	中国	GE logiq E9	C5-1,3.5~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	26~70
2	张惠等^[21]	2018	中国	ACUSON S2000	腹部凸阵探头	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	18~65
3	曹旭峰等^[22]	2021	中国	迈瑞DC N3S	C5-1,3~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	1.2	44.67±8.14
4	Zhang等^[23]	2023	China	Philips iU22	C5-1,3~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	1~1.2	42.88±10.28
5	董甜甜等^[24]	2015	中国	Philips iU22	C5-2,2~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	48.1±15.6
6	王凯强等^[25]	2022	中国	Philips CX50	C5-1,1~5 MHz	SonoVue Bracco	2.4	18~65
7	Schwarze等^[26]	2018	Germany	GE logiq E9	不详	SonoVue Bracco	1~2.4	62±11.5