AIM: In patients with lesions of the liver we compared diagnoses based on different methods of ultrasound as well as spiral CT with the final diagnosis reached at the time of the patient's discharge from hospital. METHOD: From records of a prospective multicentre study including 90 liver lesions investigated with B-mode baseline and conventional colour/power Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced colour/power Doppler ultrasound and spiral-CT, we evaluated only those where diagnoses for all modalities were available, and where the diagnosis at discharge comprising all clinical, laboratory and imaging data as well as histologic proof was at least "highly probable". RESULTS: 60 lesions met the inclusion criteria. 20 lesions were ultimately diagnosed as benign, and 40 as malignant. With respect to the diagnosis of malignancy, sensitivity was 92.5 % (37/40) with B-mode and unenhanced conventional colour/power Doppler US ultrasound, 97.5 % (39/40) with contrast-enhanced colour/ power Doppler ultrasound, and 100 % with CT; the corresponding specificities were 65 % (13/20), 85 % (17/20) and 80 % (16/20). 4 of 7 false positive, and 2 of 3 false negative results in the unenhanced technique were diagnosed correctly with contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound improved the diagnostic accuracy in 10 % of the cases. Its accuracy in our study was equal to that of CT.
AIM: In patients with lesions of the liver we compared diagnoses based on different methods of ultrasound as well as spiral CT with the final diagnosis reached at the time of the patient's discharge from hospital. METHOD: From records of a prospective multicentre study including 90 liver lesions investigated with B-mode baseline and conventional colour/power Doppler ultrasound, contrast-enhanced colour/power Doppler ultrasound and spiral-CT, we evaluated only those where diagnoses for all modalities were available, and where the diagnosis at discharge comprising all clinical, laboratory and imaging data as well as histologic proof was at least "highly probable". RESULTS: 60 lesions met the inclusion criteria. 20 lesions were ultimately diagnosed as benign, and 40 as malignant. With respect to the diagnosis of malignancy, sensitivity was 92.5 % (37/40) with B-mode and unenhanced conventional colour/power Doppler US ultrasound, 97.5 % (39/40) with contrast-enhanced colour/ power Doppler ultrasound, and 100 % with CT; the corresponding specificities were 65 % (13/20), 85 % (17/20) and 80 % (16/20). 4 of 7 false positive, and 2 of 3 false negative results in the unenhanced technique were diagnosed correctly with contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound. CONCLUSION: Compared to conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced Doppler ultrasound improved the diagnostic accuracy in 10 % of the cases. Its accuracy in our study was equal to that of CT.