The Comparative Study Of Ultrasound And CT In Diagnosis Of Hepatic Inflammatory Myofbroblastic Tumor

Objective To evaluate the ultrasonography and CT in the diagnosis of hepaticinflammatory myofibroblastic tumor(HIMT) and compare the diagnosis value of twomethods.Methods45poorly blood supplying liver tumor cases confirmed by surgery include15cases of HIMT,11cases of single liver tumor,9cases of intrahepatic peripheralcholangiocarcinoma,5cases of poorly blood supplying liver cancer,5cases ofhepatapostema analyzed their dynamic contrast-enhanced spiral CT and ultrasonographyimages retrospectively. Two teams were established according to HIMT and non-HIMT.The tumor’s shapes, position of blood vessel, area of necrosis, expanded biliary ducts,levels of enhancement, transient hepatic perfusion disorders, corona and it’s enhancement,CDFI, blood spectrum, RI. The results were analyzed by using receiver operatingcharacteristic curve (receive operating characteristic curve, ROC) which was made byfive-level reliability of Kappa and χ~2-test.Results In15HIMT cases,9cases were diagnosed correctly by ultrasonographyinclude5cases of cucurbit appearance,2cases of portalvein-crossing,2cases of coronawithout colorful blood of CDFI.11cases of HIMT were diagnosed correctly by CT scaninclude9cases which were diagnosed correctly by ultrasonography and2cases withcentral enhancement and corona enhancement.6cases were misdiagnosed byultrasonography include2cases of alveolate appearance and4cases with colorful blood ofCDFI.4cases were misdiagnosed by CT scan include2cases of alveolate appearance and2cases without corona enhancement.21cases of non-HIMT were diagnosed correctly byultrasonography.9cases without colorful blood of CDFI were misdiagnosed.24cases of non-HIMT were diagnosed correctly by CT scan,6cases without enhancement, expandedbiliary ducts, transient hepatic perfusion disorders were misdiagnosed.Ultrasonography’s ROC areas、sensitivity、specificity is0.663、60%、70%and CTscan’s ROC areas、sensitivity、 specificity is0.861、73.3%、80.0%and the diagnosticmethods of CT and ultrasonography have statistical significance(χ~2=8.0，P <0.05).Conclusion (1)CT and ultrasonography share the same diagnostic value in the HIMThaving cucurbit appearance and portal vein-crossing appearance.(2)CT diagnostic value issuperior to ultrasonography in HIMT with corona.(3)CT diagnostic value is same asultrasonography in alveolate appearance HIMT, but CT have a little superiority toultrasonography at differential diagnosis.(4)As a whole, ultrasonography has low value butCT has medium value in HIMT diagnosis, CT method is superior to ultrasonographymethod.