During in-vivo high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) treatment of rat mammary adenocarcinoma tumors, the spectral quantitative-ultrasound (QUS) parameters effective scatterer diameter (ESD) and effective acoustic concentration (EAC), estimated from the ultrasound backscatter coefficient (BSC), changed reversibly and nearly linearly with tissue temperature (Ghoshal et al., IEEE TUFFC 2016). This correlation suggests QUS could provide real-time, noninvasive temperature monitoring of thermal therapy, but its physical basis is unresolved: the observed parameter changes may be caused by temperature elevation itself or by mechanical effects of HIFU — boiling (vapor-bubble formation at the focus) or acoustic cavitation (bubble formation, oscillation, and collapse driven by the ultrasound field) — and the direction of the EAC change with temperature is tissue-dependent, increasing in mammary tumors while decreasing in liver. The open problem is to establish a mechanism-resolved, confound-controlled account of these temperature-correlated spectral QUS changes: quantitatively separating thermal from mechanical contributions, and explaining the tissue-dependent response from tissue microstructure, under controlled estimation biases (attenuation compensation, temperature co-registration, motion). Substantial ex-vivo progress has been made on liver (ESD tracking hepatocyte diameter, backscattered-energy thermometry to 90 °C, BSC anisotropy of lesions), but the mechanical-versus-thermal partition in vivo remains unquantified and the tumor-versus-liver sign difference remains unexplained.

Background

High-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) is a noninvasive thermal therapy in which a focused ultrasound beam raises tissue temperature locally (typically above 55 °C) to ablate tumors; its clinical success depends on real-time monitoring of the heated region, currently achieved most robustly by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) thermometry, which infers temperature from the temperature dependence of the MRI signal but is expensive and partly constrained. Ultrasound-based monitoring is attractive because imaging probes are cheap, real-time, and can be co-aligned with the therapy beam. Quantitative ultrasound (QUS) goes beyond B-mode imaging (the standard grayscale ultrasound image) by analyzing the radio-frequency (RF) backscattered signal: the backscatter coefficient (BSC), the frequency-dependent scattering cross section per unit volume, is estimated (e.g., by the reference phantom technique, in which spectra from tissue are normalized by spectra from a well-characterized phantom) and fit with a scattering model. In the spherical Gaussian model, scatterers are modeled as weak Gaussian-shaped inhomogeneities, and the fit yields the effective scatterer diameter (ESD), the apparent size of the dominant scatterers, and the effective acoustic concentration (EAC), a combination of scatterer number density and scattering strength, usually quoted in dB/cm³ relative to 1/cm³. Because ESD and EAC summarize the tissue microstructure giving rise to scattering, their changes during heating are candidate signatures of temperature and of tissue state.

The experimental lineage is as follows. Ghoshal, Luchies, Blue, and Oelze (2011) showed in excised rabbit and beef liver and in cell-loaded phantoms that ESD increased and EAC decreased by 20–40% as temperature rose from 37 °C to 50 °C, establishing temperature sensitivity of spectral QUS parameters. Ghoshal, Kemmerer, and Oelze (2012) recorded QUS parameter changes during HIFU exposure of liver samples in which EAC decreased with increasing temperature, while Kemmerer and Oelze (2012) showed in water-bath-heated excised rat liver (purely thermal, no HIFU) that attenuation rose monotonically with exposure temperature and that ESD/EAC distinguished heat-treated from untreated tissue at frequencies above 15 MHz. Kemmerer, Ghoshal, Karunakaran, and Oelze (2013) exposed rodent mammary tumors to therapeutic ultrasound at several intensities and found BSC changes that were not always sensitive to thermal insult and that correlated with peak exposure pressure, an early hint that mechanical exposure variables, not just heat, drive backscatter changes. Ghoshal, Kemmerer, Karunakaran, Abuhabsah, Miller, Sarwate, and Oelze (2014) then monitored HIFU exposure of in-situ tumors in euthanized rats: EAC consistently tracked temperature during heating and cooling, but ESD showed no consistent trend, for reasons that were not understood. Related work on the backscattered-energy approach (Li, Ghoshal, Lavarello, and Oelze, 2014) showed that temperature-induced changes in backscattered energy can arise in part from speckle changes (speckle being the interference-generated texture of ultrasound echoes) produced by speed-of-sound shifts rather than from changes in intrinsic scatterer properties, underscoring how easily estimator-level artifacts can mimic microstructural effects.

Ghoshal, Kemmerer, Karunakaran, Miller, and Oelze (2016) extended the monitoring to in-vivo rat mammary adenocarcinoma tumors with significant tissue motion. During HIFU heating from about 38.7 °C to 64.2 °C, ESD decreased from about 121 μm to 81 μm and EAC increased from about 33 to 46 dB/cm³, both linearly correlated with the temperature recorded by a fine-needle thermocouple placed a few millimeters behind the HIFU focus; the changes largely reversed during cooling. The authors concluded that spectral QUS parameters can monitor in-vivo HIFU-induced temperature elevation robustly against motion, but listed unresolved issues that jointly define the open problem: (1) mechanical effects of HIFU such as boiling (vapor-bubble formation at the focus) or acoustic cavitation (the formation, oscillation, and collapse of gas bubbles driven by the ultrasound field) could contribute to the observed ESD/EAC changes, and the contributions of mechanical versus thermal effects were not quantified; (2) the sign of the EAC–temperature change is tissue-dependent, increasing in mammary tumors but decreasing in liver, and the mechanism of this tissue dependence is not understood, as is the inconsistent ESD trend in the earlier in-situ dead-rat study; (3) the temperature correlation was established under known estimation biases, namely attenuation compensation with a single average attenuation slope (0.7 dB/cm/MHz) measured from excised tumors, thermocouple temperatures not necessarily representative of the peak temperature in the QUS analysis region, and motion-induced parameter fluctuations of roughly 5% in sham controls (animals prepared and handled identically but not exposed to HIFU).

Adjacent monitoring approaches developed since — envelope-statistics imaging such as Nakagami-m maps (parametric images of a statistic describing the statistical distribution of the echo envelope, sensitive to how scatterers are arranged) that differentiate thermal coagulation (heat-induced solidification of tissue) from cavitation erosion ex vivo (Han et al., 2018), echo decorrelation, entropy imaging, and backscattered-energy (ΔBSE) thermometry in liver (Rohfritsch, Barrère, Estienne, and Melodelima, 2024) — address related needs but do not answer the mechanistic questions posed for the BSC-based spectral parameters. Reviews of ultrasound thermometry and ablation monitoring (Lewis, Staruch, and Chopra, 2015; Li, Zhou, Wu, and Wu, 2022; Fite, Wang, Ghanouni, and Ferrara, 2022; Zhou, Gao, Wu, Ding, Bin, and Tsui, 2024; Bader et al., 2025) uniformly treat QUS-based temperature monitoring as a promising but mechanistically unsettled research direction, noting that ultrasound-based estimates have not reached the robustness of MRI thermometry.

Problem Statement

The problem, as posed by Ghoshal, Kemmerer, Karunakaran, Miller, and Oelze (2016) in their discussion of in-vivo spectral quantitative-ultrasound monitoring of HIFU, is to establish what the temperature-correlated changes in the backscatter-coefficient-derived parameters ESD and EAC physically represent, so that spectral QUS can serve as a calibrated, noninvasive, in-vivo monitor of HIFU thermal therapy. Concretely, an answer must resolve the following jointly linked questions. (1) Attribution: quantitatively separate the contributions of tissue temperature elevation from those of mechanical effects of HIFU — boiling (vapor-bubble formation at the focus) and acoustic cavitation (the formation, oscillation, and collapse of gas bubbles driven by the ultrasound field) — to the observed ESD and EAC changes during in-vivo exposure; the 2016 experiments could not exclude mechanical contributions, and earlier tumor work (Kemmerer et al., 2013) found backscatter changes correlating with peak exposure pressure rather than thermal dose (the time–temperature integral that measures cumulative thermal exposure) alone. (2) Tissue-dependent mechanism: identify the mechanism by which the same parameters respond oppositely to temperature in different tissues — EAC increasing with temperature in in-vivo mammary adenocarcinoma tumors but decreasing in liver — and explain the related lack of a consistent ESD trend in in-situ dead-rat tumors (Ghoshal et al., 2014). In addressing these questions, the estimation biases acknowledged in the 2016 study should be accounted for: attenuation compensation with a single average attenuation slope rather than one accounting for biological variability, temperature elevation, and irreversible tissue change; temperature ground truth from a thermocouple placed behind the HIFU focus rather than co-registered with the actual QUS analysis region; and motion-induced parameter fluctuations of roughly 5% in sham controls, which can be reduced (e.g., by slow-time averaging of RF frames, i.e., averaging radio-frequency data over successive image frames) or otherwise bounded. The common objective of these questions is a mechanism-understood account of in-vivo spectral QUS changes during HIFU: without (1) the temperature calibration has no physical basis, and without (2) it cannot be transferred between tissues. No restriction to a particular tissue, animal model, frequency range, or answer form is imposed beyond what the sources state; progress on components ex vivo or in other tissues is relevant insofar as it contributes to the in-vivo attribution and mechanism questions above.

References

  1. Goutam Ghoshal, Jeremy P. Kemmerer, Chandra Karunakaran, Rita J. Miller, Michael L. Oelze, 'Quantitative Ultrasound for Monitoring High-Intensity Focused Ultrasound Treatment In Vivo', IEEE Transactions on Ultrasonics, Ferroelectrics, and Frequency Control 63(9), 1234-1242, 2016. DOI: 10.1109/tuffc.2016.2517644, https://doi.org/10.1109/tuffc.2016.2517644
  2. Goutam Ghoshal, Jeremy P. Kemmerer, Chandra Karunakaran, Rami Abuhabsah, Rita J. Miller, Sandhya Sarwate, Michael L. Oelze, 'Quantitative ultrasound imaging for monitoring in situ high-intensity focused ultrasound exposure', Ultrasonic Imaging 36(4), 239-255, 2014. DOI: 10.1177/0161734614524179, https://doi.org/10.1177/0161734614524179
  3. Goutam Ghoshal, Jeremy P. Kemmerer, Michael L. Oelze, 'Changes in quantitative ultrasound parameters during HIFU application', AIP Conference Proceedings, 106-111, 2012. DOI: 10.1063/1.4757319, https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4757319
  4. Jeremy P. Kemmerer, Goutam Ghoshal, Chandra Karunakaran, Michael L. Oelze, 'Assessment of high-intensity focused ultrasound treatment of rodent mammary tumors using ultrasound backscatter coefficients', Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 134(2), 1559-1568, 2013. DOI: 10.1121/1.4812877, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4812877
  5. Jeremy P. Kemmerer, Michael L. Oelze, 'Ultrasonic assessment of thermal therapy in rat liver', Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology 38(12), 2130-2137, 2012. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.07.024, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.07.024
  6. Goutam Ghoshal, Adam C. Luchies, James P. Blue, Michael L. Oelze, 'Temperature dependent ultrasonic characterization of biological media', Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 130(4), 2203-2211, 2011. DOI: 10.1121/1.3626162, https://doi.org/10.1121/1.3626162
  7. Xin Li, Goutam Ghoshal, Roberto J. Lavarello, Michael L. Oelze, 'Exploring potential mechanisms responsible for observed changes of ultrasonic backscattered energy with temperature variations', Medical Physics 41(5), 052901, 2014. DOI: 10.1118/1.4870964, https://doi.org/10.1118/1.4870964
  8. Victor Barrère, Emilie Franceschini, David Melodelima, 'Characterization of High Intensity Ultrasound Exposures by Quantitative Ultrasound', 2019 IEEE International Ultrasonics Symposium (IUS), 544-547, 2019. DOI: 10.1109/ULTSYM.2019.8925754, https://doi.org/10.1109/ULTSYM.2019.8925754
  9. Adrien Rohfritsch, Emilie Franceschini, Aurélien Dupré, David Melodelima, 'Quantitative ultrasound techniques for assessing thermal ablation: Measurement of the backscatter coefficient from ex vivo human liver', Medical Physics 50(11), 6908-6919, 2023. DOI: 10.1002/mp.16762, https://doi.org/10.1002/mp.16762
  10. Adrien Rohfritsch, Victor Barrère, Laura Estienne, David Melodelima, '2D ultrasound thermometry during thermal ablation with high-intensity focused ultrasound', Ultrasonics 142, 107372, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultras.2024.107372, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultras.2024.107372
  11. Adrien Rohfritsch, Alexis Griffon, Elorri Olhagaray, Antoine Biénassis, Laura Barrot, Pauline Muleki-Seya, David Melodelima, 'Impact of focused ultrasound on the cellular network of liver tissue: a new perspective for thermal lesion detection', Physics in Medicine & Biology 71(1), 015008, 2026 (online 2025). DOI: 10.1088/1361-6560/ae2bd8, https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-6560/ae2bd8
  12. Meng Han, Na Wang, Shifang Guo, Nan Chang, Shukuan Lu, Mingxi Wan, 'Nakagami-m parametric imaging for characterization of thermal coagulation and cavitation erosion induced by HIFU', Ultrasonics Sonochemistry 45, 78-85, 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.03.008, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultsonch.2018.03.008
  13. Sinan Li, Zhuhuang Zhou, Shuicai Wu, Weiwei Wu, 'A Review of Quantitative Ultrasound-Based Approaches to Thermometry and Ablation Zone Identification Over the Past Decade', Ultrasonic Imaging 44(5-6), 213-228, 2022. DOI: 10.1177/01617346221120069, https://doi.org/10.1177/01617346221120069
  14. Brett Z. Fite, James Wang, Pejman Ghanouni, Katherine W. Ferrara, 'A Review of Imaging Methods to Assess Ultrasound-Mediated Ablation', BME Frontiers, 2022. DOI: 10.34133/2022/9758652, https://doi.org/10.34133/2022/9758652
  15. Matthew A. Lewis, Robert M. Staruch, Rajiv Chopra, 'Thermometry and ablation monitoring with ultrasound', International Journal of Hyperthermia 31(2), 163-181, 2015. DOI: 10.3109/02656736.2015.1009180, https://doi.org/10.3109/02656736.2015.1009180
  16. Zhuhuang Zhou, Ruiyang Gao, Shuicai Wu, Qiying Ding, Guangyu Bin, Po-Hsiang Tsui, 'Scatterer size estimation for ultrasound tissue characterization: A survey', Measurement 225, 114046, 2024. DOI: 10.1016/j.measurement.2023.114046, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2023.114046
  17. Kenneth B. Bader, Frédéric Padilla, Kevin J. Haworth, Nicholas Ellens, Diane Dalecki, Douglas L. Miller, Keith A. Wear, Bioeffects Committee of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine, 'Overview of Therapeutic Ultrasound Applications and Safety Considerations: 2024 Update', Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 44(3), 381-433, 2025. DOI: 10.1002/jum.16611, https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16611
  18. Xinyi Wang, Shiqing Zhao, Aili Zhang, 'Image-Based Monitoring of Thermal Ablation', Bioengineering 12(1), 78, 2025. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering12010078, https://doi.org/10.3390/bioengineering12010078