Contrast ultrasound in hepatocellular carcinoma at a tertiary liver center: First Indian experience

Table 1 Lesion characterization on contrast enhanced ultrasound and comparison with reference imaging

FD	Total number	True positive diagnosis	TP ref	FP	FP ref	MP	UMP
HCC	17	15	17	2	0	15	2
CLD (no enhancing nodule)	10	7	10	3	0	7	3
CLD (enhancing nodule)	5	1	4	4	1	1	4
Post-RFA HCC	5	5	5	0	0	5	0
Post-TACE HCC	3	3	3	0	0	3	0
Others	10	5	9	5	1	5	5

FD: Final diagnosis as pre reference standard and clinical data; TP: Number of true positive diagnosis made by contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); TP ref: Number of true positive diagnosis made by computer tomography/magnetic resonance imaging (CT/MRI); FP: Number of incorrect diagnosis made by CEUS; FP ref: Number of incorrect diagnosis made by CT/MRI; MP: Number of matched pairs of correct diagnosis by CEUS and reference standard (CT/MRI); UMP: Number of unmatched pairs for incorrect diagnosis by CEUS compared to reference standard; HCC: Hepatocellular carcinoma; CLD: Chronic liver disease; No enhancing nodules: Absent hypervascular nodule/blush; Enhancing nodule: Present hypervascular nodule/blush; RFA: Radio frequency ablation; TACE: Trans-arterial chemo embolization.

Table 2 χ² test results

χ2	Estimate	95%CI
Sensitivity	0.861	0.639-0.956
Specificity	0.500	0.055-0.945
PPV	0.969	0.759-0.997
NPV	0.167	0.018-0.69
LR+	1.722	0.240-12.334
LR-	0.278	0.029-2.696

PPV: Predictive value; NPV: Negative predictive value; LR: Likelihood ratio.