Table 2.
Identification of patients with liver metastases using various imaging techniques
| 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 |
CEUS, contrast enhanced ultrasonography; CT = computed tomography.
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.
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).
* patients with liver metastasis at CT, but negative with other techniques.
§ patients positive at CEUS and negative at CT.
# patients positive at both conventional US and CEUS and negative at CT.