Logo-ipp
Submitted: 12 Aug 2024
Revision: 06 Oct 2024
Accepted: 17 Apr 2025
ePublished: 22 May 2025
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)

Immunopathol Persa. 2025;11(2): 42733.
doi: 10.34172/ipp.2025.42733
  Abstract View: 41
  PDF Download: 15

Original

Diagnostic value of CT scan compared with ultrasound-guided needle biopsy in the diagnosis of liver masses; a retrospective diagnostic study

Hamid Mahboobi 1 ORCID logo, Gholam Reza Hemmasi 2, Alireza Aghajani 3 ORCID logo, Eshagh Sedighi 4 ORCID logo, Mohammad Reza Babaei 5* ORCID logo

1 Department of Radiology, School of Medicine, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases Research Center, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Student Research Committee, School of Medicine, Anzali International Campus, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran
4 Department of Veterinary Medicine, Islamic Azad University Branch of Urmia, Urmia, Iran
5 Department of Interventional Radiology, School of Medicine, Firoozgar Hospital, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Mohammad Reza Babaei, Email: Doctorreza2012@yahoo.com, Email: Babaei.mr@iums.ac.ir

Abstract

Introduction: Liver masses present a significant clinical challenge due to their diverse etiologies, ranging from benign lesions to malignant tumors. Accurate diagnosis is crucial for determining appropriate management strategies and improving patient outcomes.

Objectives: This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic value of computed tomography (CT) scans compared with ultrasound-guided needle biopsy in assessing liver masses.

Patients and Methods: This retrospective diagnostic study, conducted at Firoozgar hospital in Tehran, Iran, aimed to compare the diagnostic value of CT scans and ultrasound-guided needle biopsies in identifying liver masses among 99 adult patients who underwent both procedures between 2015 and 2020. Data collected included patient demographics, clinical characteristics, imaging findings from intravenous contrast-enhanced CT scans, and pathology results from biopsies. Using biopsy pathology as the reference standard, the study calculated the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CT scans to evaluate their reliability in diagnosing liver masses and determining tumor nature and metastatic potential.

Results: The diagnostic value of CT scans compared to ultrasound-guided needle biopsy pathology as the gold standard in diagnosing liver tumor characteristics is summarized as follows; for malignant tumors, the accuracy is 73.6%, with a sensitivity of 97.2%, specificity of 50%, PPV of 66.03%, NPV of 94.7%, and a Kappa value of 0.542. In contrast, for metastatic tumors, the accuracy is higher at 81.2%, with a sensitivity of 94.9%, specificity of 67.5%, PPV of 74.4%, NPV of 93%, and a Kappa value of 0.650.

Conclusion: In conclusion, these findings indicate that while CT scan is a valuable non-invasive tool for diagnosing liver masses, its observer-based nature necessitates the use of ultrasound-guided needle biopsy to improve diagnostic accuracy. Combining these methods will enhance clinical decision-making and ensure more reliable assessments of liver tumors.


Citation: Mahboobi H, Hemmasi GR, Aghajani A, Sedighi E, Babaei MR. Diagnostic value of CT scan compared with ultrasound-guided needle biopsy in the diagnosis of liver masses; a retrospective diagnostic study. Immunopathol Persa. 2025;11(2):e42733. DOI:10.34172/ipp.2025.42733.
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Comments
Security code


Abstract View: 42

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 15

Your browser does not support the canvas element.