D M Cheney1, M C Coleman2, A K Voges2, K M Thieman Mankin1, J F Griffin2. 1. Department of Small Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA. 2. Department of Large Animal Clinical Sciences, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound and CT for localising solitary hepatic masses to particular liver divisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Dogs diagnosed with a solitary liver mass by ultrasound and/or CT, with surgical or necropsy confirmation within 1 month of imaging. Ultrasound reports were reviewed for mass location. CT scans were reviewed by two radiologists and mass location was determined by consensus agreement. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for ultrasound and CT for each liver division. RESULTS: Fourteen of 71 dogs had CT only, 27 of 71 had ultrasound only and 30 of 71 had both. Location was correctly predicted in 42 of 57 dogs (74%) by ultrasound and in 37 of 44 dogs (84%) by CT. Both CT and ultrasound had high specificity for localising masses in all divisions. Sensitivity varied among divisions and was highest for left division masses. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results suggest that either imaging modality is appropriate for presurgical planning. Prospective studies are recommended to help identify additional factors that may aid in determination of hepatic mass location.
OBJECTIVES: To estimate the sensitivity and specificity of ultrasound and CT for localising solitary hepatic masses to particular liver divisions. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Dogs diagnosed with a solitary liver mass by ultrasound and/or CT, with surgical or necropsy confirmation within 1 month of imaging. Ultrasound reports were reviewed for mass location. CT scans were reviewed by two radiologists and mass location was determined by consensus agreement. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated for ultrasound and CT for each liver division. RESULTS: Fourteen of 71 dogs had CT only, 27 of 71 had ultrasound only and 30 of 71 had both. Location was correctly predicted in 42 of 57 dogs (74%) by ultrasound and in 37 of 44 dogs (84%) by CT. Both CT and ultrasound had high specificity for localising masses in all divisions. Sensitivity varied among divisions and was highest for left division masses. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results suggest that either imaging modality is appropriate for presurgical planning. Prospective studies are recommended to help identify additional factors that may aid in determination of hepatic mass location.