Related Experiment Video For Conventional ultrasound
Updated: Jul 16, 2025
High-frequency Ultrasound Imaging of Mouse Cervical Lymph Nodes
Published on: July 25, 2015
Comparison of microvascular flow imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for blood flow analysis of cervical lymph
Tianqi Wang1, Mingda Xu1, Changyu Xu1
1Department of Medical Ultrasound, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.
Objective:
To compare the diagnostic value of microvascular flow imaging (MVFI) with that of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the analysis of blood flow in benign and malignant cervical lymph nodes.
Material And Methods:
As a prospective study, 95 cervical enlarged lymph nodes (43 benign and 52 malignant) were observed in 95 patients using conventional ultrasonography (including gray and Color Doppler Flow Imaging), CEUS, and MVFI. Two researchers evaluated vascular parameters of MVFI (vascular distribution, internal vascular features, vascular index) and CEUS (enhancement mode, enhancement type) and compared the diagnostic effects of MVFI and CEUS.All results were compared with pathological findings.
Results:
There were significant differences in the vascular distribution and internal vascular features of benign and malignant lymph nodes on MVFI (P < 0.05). The vascular distribution of benign lymph nodes was mainly of the central and avascular types, the internal blood vessels were mostly normal, the vascular distribution of malignant lymph nodes was mainly mixed, the internal vessels were mainly tortuous and displaced. The optimal cut-off value of the benign and malignant lymph node vascular index (VI) was 15.55%, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the VI was 0.876. There were also significant differences in the enhancement mode and types of benign and malignant lymph nodes in CEUS (P < 0.05). The benign lymph nodes showed centrifugal perfusion, and the enhancement types were mostly type I and type II. Most malignant lymph nodes showed centripetal or mixed perfusion, and the enhancement types were usually type III and type IV. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of CEUS in the diagnosis of lymph node lesions were 84.2%, 84.6% and 83.7%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.845. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of MVFI in the diagnosis of lymph node lesions were 85.3%, 84.6%, and 86.0%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.886.
Conclusion:
Both CEUS and MVFI are valuable in differentiating benign and malignant lesions of lymph nodes and have a similar diagnostic performance; however, MVFI is less invasive and simpler than CEUS. Therefore it is preferred for auxiliary examination of enlarged lymph nodes that are difficult to diagnose by conventional ultrasound.
