OBJECTIVE: To verify the earliest detectability of liver metastases in patients who underwent serial multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) examinations. METHODS: We selected 12 patients with known primary cancer who underwent 4 or more contrast-enhanced, 4-detector MDCTs. When metastases had been reported, an evaluation of the preceding MDCT was done to define whether the lesion was detectable, detectable only by minimal signs, undetectable, or detected but misdiagnosed as a benign lesion (MBL). RESULTS: Eighty-eight lesions were analyzed. Evaluating the preceding examination, we defined detectable (n= 8), detectable only by minimal signs (n= 5), undetectable (n= 74), and MBL (n= 1). The group with minimal signs was composed of 4 small hypodense foci and 1 calcification. The MBL was a non-Hodgkin lesion first misdiagnosed as a hemangioma. CONCLUSION: Approximately 15% of liver metastases were prospectively missed, 9% of them being retrospectively detectable, 6% being retrospectively visible as minimal signs, whereas only 1% of liver metastases were misdiagnosed as a benign lesion. Copyright (copyright) 2006 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

Liver metastases on serial contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography examinations: was the detection possible on previous examinations? / S. Tresoldi, F. Sardanelli, I. Borzani, N. Flor, G.P. Cornalba. - In: JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY. - ISSN 0363-8715. - 30:3(2006), pp. 378-385. [10.1097/00004728-200605000-00006]

Liver metastases on serial contrast-enhanced multidetector computed tomography examinations: was the detection possible on previous examinations?

F. Sardanelli
Secondo
;
G.P. Cornalba
Ultimo
2006

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To verify the earliest detectability of liver metastases in patients who underwent serial multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) examinations. METHODS: We selected 12 patients with known primary cancer who underwent 4 or more contrast-enhanced, 4-detector MDCTs. When metastases had been reported, an evaluation of the preceding MDCT was done to define whether the lesion was detectable, detectable only by minimal signs, undetectable, or detected but misdiagnosed as a benign lesion (MBL). RESULTS: Eighty-eight lesions were analyzed. Evaluating the preceding examination, we defined detectable (n= 8), detectable only by minimal signs (n= 5), undetectable (n= 74), and MBL (n= 1). The group with minimal signs was composed of 4 small hypodense foci and 1 calcification. The MBL was a non-Hodgkin lesion first misdiagnosed as a hemangioma. CONCLUSION: Approximately 15% of liver metastases were prospectively missed, 9% of them being retrospectively detectable, 6% being retrospectively visible as minimal signs, whereas only 1% of liver metastases were misdiagnosed as a benign lesion. Copyright (copyright) 2006 by Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
Settore MED/36 - Diagnostica per Immagini e Radioterapia
2006
Article (author)
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
Pubblicazioni consigliate

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2434/29398
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 0
  • Scopus 4
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 2
social impact