Ultrasound

Colorectal cancer

Computed tomography

Radiology

Internal medicine

Prospective cohort study

Medicine

Nuclear medicine

Cancer

Magnetic resonance imaging

Positron emission tomography

Pathology

Multidetector computed tomography

Acta Radiologica

Background Imaging of colorectal cancer liver metastases (CRCLMs) has improved in recent years. Therefore, the role of current imaging techniques needs to be defined. Purpose To assess the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), multidetector computed tomography (MDCT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography (PET)/CT in the detection of CRCLMs. Material and Methods PubMed database was searched for articles published during 2000–2019. Inclusion criteria were as follows: diagnosis/suspicion of CRCLMs; CEUS, MDCT, MRI, or FDG PET/CT performed for the detection of CRCLMs; prospective study design; histopathologic examination, intraoperative findings and/or follow-up used as reference standard; and data for calculating sensitivity and specificity reported. Results Twelve prospective studies were assessed, including 536 patients with CRCLMs (n = 1335). On a per-lesion basis, the sensitivity of CEUS, MDCT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT was 86%, 84%, 89%, and 62%, respectively. MRI had the highest sensitivity on a per-lesion analysis. CEUS and MDCT had comparable sensitivities. On a per-patient basis, the sensitivity and specificity of CEUS, MDCT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT was 80% and 97%, 87% and 95%, 87% and 94%, and 96% and 97%, respectively. The per-patient sensitivities for MRI and MDCT were similar. The sensitivity for MRI was higher than that for CEUS, MDCT, and FDG PET/CT for lesions &lt;10 mm and lesions at least 10 mm in size. Hepatospecific contrast agent did not improve diagnostic performances. Conclusion MRI is the preferred imaging modality for evaluating CRCLMs. Both MDCT and CEUS can be used as alternatives.

Imaging of colorectal cancer liver metastases using contrast-enhanced US, multidetector CT, MRI, and FDG PET/CT: a meta-analysis