Abstract
A series of 60 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) were evaluated over a 2-year period of ultrasonography (US), computed tomography (CT), and angiography. The angiographic studies carried out with intraarterial digital technology were compared to both US and CT of the liver. In 16 of 60 patients, we observed discordance of the findings obtained with angiography, CT, and US. We therefore compared these three methodologies in those cases where diagnostic discordance was noted. In our experience, US had a sensitivity of 73.4%, 76.7% for CT, and 95% for angiography. In 13 of 60 patients, we performed CT with arterial portography (CTAP) which demonstrated a better resolution than conventional CT. In view of the sensitivity of US — comparable to that of CT — and for the even greater sensitivity of intraarterial digital angiography, we performed an US study of patients at risk of HCC. CT was found to play a diagnostic/staging role after angio graphic study has been performed, especially when enhanced by arterial portography.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Kobayashi K, Sugimoto T, Makino H, et al. Screening methods for early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma.Hepatology 1985; 5:1100–1005
Takashima T, Matsui O, Suzuki M, Ida M. Diagnosis and screening of hepatocellular carcinomas.Radiology 1982; 145:635–638
Mittal R, Kowal C, Starzl T, Thiel D, et al.: Accuracy of computerized tomography in determining hepatic tumour size in patients receiving liver transplantation or resection.J Clin Oncol 1984; 2:637–642
Hayashi N, Yamamoto K, Tamaki N, Shibata T, et al. Metastatic nodules of hepatocellular carcinoma: detection with angiography, CT, and US.Radiology 1987; 165:61–63
Barakos J, Goldberg H, Brown J, Gilbert T. Comparison of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of focal hepatic lesions.Gastrointest Radiol 1990; 15:93–101
Vlachos L, Trakadas S, Gouliamos A, Lazarou S, Mourikis D, et al. Comparative study between ultrasound, computed tomography, intra-arterial digital subtraction angiography and magnetic resonance imaging in the differentiation of tumours of the liver.Gastrointest Radiol 1990; 15:102–106
Moss AA, Goldberg HI, Stark DD, et al. Hepatic tumours: magnetic resonance and CT appearance.Radiology 1984; 150:141–147
Chezmar JL, Rumancik WM, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Nelson RC, Bernardino ME. Liver and abdominal screening in patients with cancer: CT versus MR imaging.Radiology 1988; 168:43–47
Sumida M, Ohto M, Ebara M, Kimura K, Okuda K, Hirooka N. Accuracy of angiography in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma.AJR 1986; 147:531–536
Yumoto Y, Jinno K, Tokuyama K, Araki Y, et al. Hepatocellular carcinoma detected by iodized oil.Radiology 1985; 154:19–24
Matsui O, Takashima T, Kadoya M, Ida M, et al. Dynamic computed tomography during arterial portography: the most sensitive examination for small hepatocellular carcinomas.Comput Tomogr 1985; 9:19–24
Heiken JP, Weyman PJ, Lee JKT, Balfe DM, et al. Detection of focal hepatic masses: prospective evaluation with CT, delayed CT, CT during arterial portography and MR imaging.Radiology 1989; 171:47–51
Matsui O, Kadoya M, Suzuki M, et al. Dynamic sequential computed tomography during arterial portography in the detection of hepatic neoplasms.Radiology 1983; 146:721–727
Freeny PC, Marks WM. Computed tomographic arteriography of the liver.Radiology 1983; 148:193–197
Sheu JC, Sung JL, Chen DS, et al. Early detection of hepatocellular carcinoma by real time ultrasonography.Cancer 1985; 56:660–666
Ebara M, Ohto M, Shinagawa T, et al. Natural history of minute hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than three centimeters complicating cirrhosis.Gastroenterology 1986; 90:289–298
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Garbagnati, F., Spreafico, C., Marchianò, A. et al. Staging of hepatocellular carcinoma by ultrasonography, computed tomography, and angiography: The role of CT combined with arterial portography. Gastrointest Radiol 16, 225–228 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01887351
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01887351