Diagnostic accuracy of CEUS vs contrast-enhanced CT for central lung cancer with obstructive atelectasis
A study of central lung cancer with obstructive atelectasis reported that additional CEUS allowed differentiation of central tumor from atelectatic tissue in 10 additional cases, increasing diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) from 75.9% to 92.6% when CEUS was added. [1]
Biopsy success rate when CEUS guidance is combined with rapid on-site evaluation (ROSE)
A systematic review/meta-analysis of CEUS-guided biopsy reported a pooled biopsy success rate of 99.18% (95% CI 98.00–99.90%). [2]
Bronchial vs pulmonary arterial perfusion arrival-time thresholds (≥10 s vs <10 s)
EFSUMB/European guidance summarized in the literature states that a time to enhancement <10 s is indicative of predominant pulmonary arterial supply. [3]
A separate CEUS review excerpt also summarizes a commonly used dichotomy that early enhancement is consistent with pulmonary arterial supply and later enhancement with bronchial supply, with reference to an ~10-second boundary. [4]
Not located in the available sources: a study-level, CEUS lung-cancer-specific quantitative claim explicitly stating “≥10 seconds for bronchial perfusion” as a validated threshold corresponding to the specific “≥10 s versus <10 s” wording in the question.
Peripheral lung cancer diagnosis accuracy: CEUS vs contrast-enhanced CT for peripheral lesions
A peripheral lung lesions imaging/biopsy comparison literature item reported diagnostic accuracy differences for CEUS-guided biopsy vs conventional US guidance (not a CEUS vs CECT diagnostic-imaging accuracy head-to-head for peripheral lesions). [5]
An older peripheral lung carcinoma paper compared contrast-enhanced ultrasound enhancement pattern with contrast-enhanced CT and concluded similar diagnostic value for detecting peripheral lung carcinoma vascularity. “[Enhancement pattern of peripheral lung carcinoma: comparison between contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography]” (PubMed)
Not located in the available sources: the specific quantitative diagnostic-accuracy comparison for CEUS vs CECT for peripheral lesions as stated in the question (e.g., sensitivity/specificity/accuracy values specifically matching the text).
Color parametric imaging: improvement in inter-observer accuracy
A lung-CEUS review excerpt reported that integration with color parametric imaging improved diagnostic accuracy and interobserver agreement, including a reported AUC increase (0.68 to 0.86) for the cited context. [4]
Not located in the available sources: the specific quantitative statement about inter-observer accuracy improving with color parametric imaging in the exact numeric form described in the question.
C-statistic >0.97 for six-parameter logistic models
Not located in the available sources: any peer-reviewed CEUS lung-cancer paper excerpted by the searched materials that explicitly reports a C-statistic >0.97 for six-parameter logistic models matching the described claim.
Evidence gaps vs the requested quantitative claims
The searched accessible peer-reviewed sources provided direct quantitative support for:
- Central tumors with obstructive atelectasis: CECT diagnostic performance 75.9% → 92.6% with added CEUS. [1]
- CEUS-guided biopsy success: 99.18% pooled success rate. [2]
- Arrival-time threshold concept: <10 s = predominant pulmonary arterial supply. [3]
The remaining requested quantitative claims (peripheral-lesion CEUS vs CECT accuracy; color-parametric inter-observer accuracy improvement; explicit ≥10 s bronchial threshold wording; C-statistic >0.97 for a six-parameter logistic model; and the exact ROSE-combined 99.18% linkage) were not found in the available retrieved sources in the exact form stated.