Skip to main content

Table 2 Identification of patients with liver metastases using various imaging techniques

From: Real time contrast enhanced ultrasonography in detection of liver metastases from gastrointestinal cancer

  Dual-Phase CT CEUS Conventional b-mode Ultrasound Reference method for discrepancies
Patients (n) 1 - (44) - (44) - (44)  
Patients (n) 1 + (47) + (47) + (47)  
Patients (n) 2 + (9) + (9) - (9)  
  + * - - Surgery
  + * - - Surgery
  - + § + # Surgery
  - + § + # Biopsy
  - + § + # MRI
  - + § - MRI
  - + § - F-up
  - + § - F-up
  + * - - F-up
  1. CEUS, contrast enhanced ultrasonography; CT = computed tomography.
  2. 1 A total of 44 patients were negative (-) for metastases with all imaging techniques, while 47 were positive (+) showing the same lesions with all techniques (first two lines). Remaining lines refer to patients in whom imaging findings showed a discrepancy in classifying them as metastatic.
  3. 2 in 9 patients CT and CEUS were concordant, being more sensitive than conventional US. In the remaining other 9 patients a discordance was reported among the three techniques. Each line provides information about a single patient. Since in these 9 patients, CT and CEUS findings were not consistent, confirmation of the results was obtained by a further reference modality, as specified in the right column (MRI = Magnetic Resonance Imaging, F-up = frank progressive metastatic pattern during follow-up, Surgery = intraoperative or pathologic confirmation at the time of laparotomy for metastasis resection).
  4. * patients with liver metastasis at CT, but negative with other techniques.
  5. § patients positive at CEUS and negative at CT.
  6. # patients positive at both conventional US and CEUS and negative at CT.