This poster is published under an
open license. Please read the
disclaimer for further details.
Keywords:
Radiographers, Liver, CT, Efficacy studies, Diagnostic procedure, Metastases
Authors:
S. Tomé García1, J. G. García Calonge1, E. Ramón Botella1, M. Monteiro2; 1Madrid/ES, 2COIMBRA/PT
DOI:
10.1594/ecr2017/C-2759
Results
With regard to the observations made by the radiologist and ourselves,
the results were:
After analyzing (Fig.
8) we see a homogeneous sample of a population of elderly close to 70 years old,
without a clear genetic predisposition by gender,
since the sample is compensated for both men and women.
In view of (Fig.
9) it is not observed the initial condensation of cancer patients in a clear age profile,
being homogeneously distributed throughout the sample.
During the evaluation of (Fig.
10),
a significant clinical evidence that during the Portal phase all patients have at least one metastatic lesion it is observed,
however during the Arterial phase,
8 patients were observed no metastatic lesions (false negative ) which however appeared in if the Portal phase,
therefore,
it would have been a failure in both the onset and counting of the number of lesions.
From (Fig.
11) we can deduce that with statistical significance,
the Portal phase has a sensitivity of 100%,
since all patients have at least 1 metastatic lesion,
while during the Arterial phase in only 76.47% of patients the same injury was found,
so we can say with a p-value <0.001 that there is a clinical difference between doing only the Portal phase or the Arterial phase.
But we can also say that although the same injuries are not present in both phases,
when they appear they both are coincident in the same hepatic location in 100% of cases,
with a p-value of 0.419.