Table 3. Lesion-by-lesion comparison between different imaging methods.
| CT | % | MR | % | PET | % | CEUS | % | i-CEUS | % | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Sensitivity | ||||||||||
| All lesions | 127/154 | 82 | 127/139 | 91 | 85/141 | 60 | 116/143 | 81 | 146/152 | 96 |
| Group-A | 53/58 | 91 | 44/47 | 94 | 46/59 | 78 | 48/57 | 84 | 55/56 | 98 |
| Group-B |
74/96 |
77 |
83/92 |
90 |
39/82 |
48 |
68/86 |
79 |
91/96 |
95 |
|
Positive predictive value | ||||||||||
| All lesions | 127/135 | 94 | 127/134 | 95 | 85/87 | 98 | 116/126 | 92 | 146/157 | 93 |
| Group-A | 53/54 | 98 | 44/44 | 100 | 46/47 | 98 | 48/49 | 98 | 55/57 | 96 |
| Group-B |
7/81 |
91 |
83/90 |
92 |
39/40 |
98 |
68/77 |
88 |
91/100 |
91 |
|
Specificity | ||||||||||
| All lesions | 12/20 | 60 | 10/17 | 59 | 18/20 | 90 | 10/20 | 53 | 9/20 | 45 |
| Group-A | 7/8 | 88 | 5/5 | 100 | 7/8 | 88 | 7/8 | 88 | 6/8 | 75 |
| Group-B |
5/12 |
42 |
5/12 |
42 |
11/12 |
92 |
3/12 |
25 |
3/12 |
25 |
|
Negative predictive value | ||||||||||
| All lesions | 12/39 | 31 | 10/22 | 45 | 18/74 | 24 | 10/37 | 27 | 9/15 | 60 |
| Group-A | 7/12 | 58 | 5/8 | 63 | 7/20 | 35 | 7/16 | 44 | 6/7 | 86 |
| Group-B |
5/27 |
19 |
5/14 |
36 |
11/54 |
20 |
3/21 |
14 |
3/8 |
38 |
|
Accuracy | ||||||||||
| All lesions | 139/174 | 80 | 137/156 | 88 | 103/161 | 64 | 126/163 | 77 | 155/172 | 90 |
| Group-A | 60/66 | 91 | 49/52 | 94 | 53/67 | 79 | 55/65 | 85 | 61/64 | 95 |
| Group-B | 79/108 | 73 | 89/104 | 85 | 50/94 | 53 | 71/98 | 72 | 94/108 | 87 |
Abbreviations: CEUS=liver contrast-enhanced-ultrasound; CT=computed tomography scan; Group-A=patients directly resected; Group-B=patients resected after preoperative chemotherapy; i-CEUS=intraoperative-CEUS; MR=magnetic nuclear resonance.