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

BMC Cancer

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.

ISSN: 1471-2407