Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) Evidence in Lung Cancer
CEUS has published quantitative data supporting several lung-cancer–relevant use cases, including central-tumor vs obstructive atelectasis differentiation and CEUS-guided biopsy performance with ROSE. [1]
However, multiple requested specific quantitative claims (including “CPI-derived inter-observer variability improvements,” “multi-parameter logistic model C-statistics,” and “CEUS diagnostic accuracy comparable to contrast-enhanced CT specifically for peripheral lung cancer lesions” with matched metrics) were not located in the available sources with extractable values. [1]
Diagnostic Accuracy for Peripheral Lesions Comparable to Contrast-Enhanced CT
A CEUS diagnostic performance study of peripheral pulmonary lesions reported sensitivity 95% for CEUS and sensitivity 97% for CT. [2]
A contemporaneous focus on “peripheral pulmonary focal lesions” and biopsy accuracy exists, but it does not provide the requested direct CT-comparable diagnostic accuracy for peripheral lung cancer lesions in the same format as the claim requires. [3]
Comparison with the cited references: the specific CT-matched quantitative claim cannot be verified because the cited reference list was not provided. [2]
Arrival-Time Thresholds for Bronchial vs Pulmonary Arterial Supply
A CEUS lung review states that contrast appearing within the lung from 2 to 6 seconds suggests pulmonary arterial origin, and contrast appearing later than 6 seconds suggests systemic bronchial arterial supply. [4]
A review focused on arrival-time cutoffs notes that enhancement before 6 seconds is an exception supporting bronchial vs pulmonary arterial discrimination. [5]
Comparison with the cited references: the exact requested “arrival-time thresholds” could be supported for the 6-second boundary concept, but additional requested threshold values (e.g., specific cutoffs beyond 6 seconds) were not extractable from the located sources as a lung-cancer–specific dataset. [4]
CEUS Performance: Central Tumors vs Obstructive Atelectasis
A study evaluating CEUS in central lung cancer with obstructive atelectasis reported that CEUS increased diagnostic performance of CECT from 75.9% to 92.6% for demarcation of central lung cancer in the presence of tumor-associated obstructive atelectasis. [1]
Comparison with the cited references: the quantitative values above were directly present in the located source and therefore can be compared to any matching cited reference values once the reference is supplied. [1]
CEUS-Guided Biopsy Success with ROSE
In peripheral pulmonary focal lesions, CEUS combined with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE) was reported to improve puncture sampling outcomes, with CEUS-guided puncture success 97.6% (41/42) and a stated advantage versus conventional ultrasound guidance. [3]
A separate percutaneous biopsy guidance study reported diagnostic success 96.3% (CEUS group) vs 80% (US group), supporting CEUS selection for viable tissue sampling in peripheral lesions. [6]
Comparison with the cited references: ROSE-linked biopsy success values were located for at least one peripheral focal lesion CEUS+ROSE dataset, but the exact ROSE-associated success rate claimed in the question cannot be matched to a “cited reference” without the reference list. [3]
CPI-Derived Inter-Observer Variability Improvements
No source was located that specifically reports CPI-derived inter-observer variability improvements in CEUS for lung cancer with extractable quantitative outcomes. [7]
A CPI-related inter-observer variability dataset was located for liver focal lesions, which does not support the lung-cancer CPI claim. [7]
Comparison with the cited references: verification against the cited lung-cancer CPI reference is not possible without the reference details. [7]
Multi-Parameter Logistic Model Performance (C-Statistics)
No located source provided extractable C-statistics for a multi-parameter logistic model in lung cancer using CEUS features matching the requested claim. [8]
A systematic review acknowledges use of time-based indices and complex multi-parameter models in quantitative CEUS, but the located extractable content did not include the requested C-statistic values for the specific claim. [8]
Comparison with the cited references: verification cannot be performed because the cited model and reference details were not provided. [8]
What Can Be Concluded Versus the Requested Quantitative Claims
- Supported with extractable quantitative values:
- Central lung cancer vs obstructive atelectasis improvement (CEUS with added performance on top of CECT from 75.9% to 92.6%). [1]
- CEUS+ROSE puncture success (97.6% (41/42)) in peripheral pulmonary focal lesions. [3]
-
Arrival-time supply discrimination concept using the 6-second boundary (2–6 seconds pulmonary arterial origin; >6 seconds bronchial arterial origin). [4]
-
Not verified with extractable quantitative values in the located sources:
- Peripheral lung cancer CEUS diagnostic accuracy “comparable to contrast-enhanced CT” in the specific quantitative format requested. [2]
- CPI-derived inter-observer variability improvements in lung cancer. [7]
- Multi-parameter logistic model C-statistics. [8]
Required Information to Perform a Direct “Compare with the Cited References” Audit
The cited reference list (authors, year, and paper titles or DOIs/PMIDs) is required to map each requested quantitative claim to its source and confirm whether the reported numbers match the cited studies. [1]