Copyright
copy;2010 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Sep 7, 2010; 16(33): 4187-4192
Published online Sep 7, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i33.4187
Published online Sep 7, 2010. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v16.i33.4187
Table 3 Diagnostic sensitivity of hepatocellular carcinoma by the four modalities
Modality | Diagnostic sensitivity | |||
All nodules (n = 34) | Moderately-differentiated HCC (n = 24) | |||
n (%) | 95% CI | n (%) | 95% CI | |
Contrast-enhanced computed tomography | 18 (52.9) | 35.1-70.2 | 15 (62.5) | 40.6-81.2 |
Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasonography | 23 (67.6) | 49.5-82.6 | 19 (79.2) | 57.8-92.9 |
Gd-EOB-DTPA magnetic resonance imaging | 26 (76.5) | 58.8-89.3 | 18 (75.04) | 53.3-90.2 |
Computed tomography arterioportal angiography | 30 (88.2) | 72.5-96.7 | 23 (95.8) | 78.9-99.9 |
- Citation: Mita K, Kim SR, Kudo M, Imoto S, Nakajima T, Ando K, Fukuda K, Matsuoka T, Maekawa Y, Hayashi Y. Diagnostic sensitivity of imaging modalities for hepatocellular carcinoma smaller than 2 cm. World J Gastroenterol 2010; 16(33): 4187-4192
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v16/i33/4187.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v16.i33.4187