RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interval change in hepatic colorectal metastases as assessed with serial computed tomographic (CT) scans without contrast material enhancement differs from that as assessed using serial, portal dominant phase, contrast-enhanced CT scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT scans were obtained in 28 patients. Three radiologists separately reviewed serial unenhanced and contrast-enhanced studies to assess the interval change in liver metastases. These radiologists recorded total number of lesions, bidimensional measurements of the largest lesions (as many as three), and overall impressions regarding the interval change (none, worse, or better). RESULTS: Among the 84 judgments (28 patients x 3 radiologists), comparisons of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT studies were concordant in 60 assessments (71%). Nineteen (23%) showed mild disagreement. Of these, contrast-enhanced CT studies demonstrated disease stability when unenhanced CT studies demonstrated otherwise in 11 judgments, whereas unenhanced CT studies demonstrated stability when contrast-enhanced CT studies demonstrated otherwise in eight assessments. Furthermore, of the five marked disagreements, two resulted from a conclusion of interval improvement on unenhanced CT studies and a conclusion of interval worsening on contrast-enhanced CT studies, whereas three demonstrated the opposite. Neither set of serial CT studies systematically resulted in under- or overestimation of disease progression (McNemar Q test, P < .25). CONCLUSION: The authors found no consistent pattern to demonstrate that serial unenhanced or contrast-enhanced CT studies resulted in over- or underestimation of disease progression.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine whether the interval change in hepatic colorectal metastases as assessed with serial computed tomographic (CT) scans without contrast material enhancement differs from that as assessed using serial, portal dominant phase, contrast-enhanced CT scans. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Unenhanced and contrast-enhanced abdominal CT scans were obtained in 28 patients. Three radiologists separately reviewed serial unenhanced and contrast-enhanced studies to assess the interval change in liver metastases. These radiologists recorded total number of lesions, bidimensional measurements of the largest lesions (as many as three), and overall impressions regarding the interval change (none, worse, or better). RESULTS: Among the 84 judgments (28 patients x 3 radiologists), comparisons of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT studies were concordant in 60 assessments (71%). Nineteen (23%) showed mild disagreement. Of these, contrast-enhanced CT studies demonstrated disease stability when unenhanced CT studies demonstrated otherwise in 11 judgments, whereas unenhanced CT studies demonstrated stability when contrast-enhanced CT studies demonstrated otherwise in eight assessments. Furthermore, of the five marked disagreements, two resulted from a conclusion of interval improvement on unenhanced CT studies and a conclusion of interval worsening on contrast-enhanced CT studies, whereas three demonstrated the opposite. Neither set of serial CT studies systematically resulted in under- or overestimation of disease progression (McNemar Q test, P < .25). CONCLUSION: The authors found no consistent pattern to demonstrate that serial unenhanced or contrast-enhanced CT studies resulted in over- or underestimation of disease progression.
Authors: Sang Yu Nam; Su Joa Ahn; Young Rock Jang; Yong Soon Chun; Heung Kyu Park; Seung Joon Choi; Hye Young Choi; Jeong Ho Kim Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2020-12-11 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Brian Flemming; Mark D Kovacs; Andrew Hardie; Melissa Picard; Philip F Burchett; Heather Collins; Douglas H Sheafor Journal: Acta Radiol Open Date: 2021-02-27