Associations Between Dual‐phase Computed Tomography Features and Histopathologic Diagnoses in 52 Dogs With Hepatic or Splenic Masses

Abstract

Ability to noninvasively differentiate malignant from nonmalignant abdominal masses would aid clinical decision making. The aim of this retrospective, cross‐sectional study was to identify features in dual‐phase computed tomographic (CT) studies that could be used to distinguish malignant from nonmalignant hepatic and splenic masses in dogs. Medical records were searched for dogs that had an abdominal dual‐phase CT examination, a hepatic or splenic mass, and subsequent histopathologic diagnosis. Computed tomographic images for all included dogs were acquired prior to and <30 s (early phase) and >60 s (delayed phase) after intravenous contrast administration. Fifty‐two dogs with 55 masses were studied: 24 hepatic, including 14 (58%) malignant and 10 (42%) non‐malignant; 31 splenic, including 18 (58%) malignant and 13 (42%) nonmalignant. There was substantial overlap in the pre‐ and postcontrast CT features of malignant and nonmalignant hepatic and splenic masses. Regardless of histologic diagnosis, hepatic masses most frequently showed marked, generalized enhancement in early phase images that persisted in the delayed phase. Splenic hemangiosarcoma and nodular hyperplastic lesions most frequently showed marked, generalized enhancement in early phase images that persisted in delayed images whereas most splenic hematomas had slight enhancement in early phase images. All splenic hematomas and 77% of the hemangiosarcomas had contrast accumulation compatible with active hemorrhage. There were no other significant differences in quantitative or categorical CT data between malignant and nonmalignant hepatic or splenic masses. Dual‐phase CT of dogs with hepatic or splenic masses provides limited specific diagnostic information.

Radiographic, ultrasonographic, and computed tomographic characteristics of an accessory liver lobe in a cat

“…In CT examinations, accessory liver lobe shows the same degree of attenuation and contrast enhancement as the normal liver tissue . Several studies have reported the convenience of performing dual/dynamic phase and triple‐phase helical CT scan in cases of hepatic masses to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. In this cat, the triple‐phase CT features of the hepatic mass did not agree with characteristics previously described for a malignant neoplastic lesion (primary or metastatic), or with a benign lesion .…”

Determining the anatomical origin of canine hepatic masses by CT

“…), hence it may be recommended for the work‐up of dogs with suspected hepatic mass even though accurate diagnosis of hepatic masses is not possible with CT (Jones et al . ).…”

“…In clinical patients having CT, variations in the degree of opacification of the hepatic vessels normally occur (Jones et al . ) that can reduce visibility of specific lobar veins.…”

Ability of positive and negative contrast computed tomographic peritoneography to delineate canine liver lobe fissures

“…Clifford et al evaluated MRI of focal hepatic lesions and found that MRI accurately differentiated between benign and malignant lesions in the dog, but there was no assessment of tumor localization. Multiple studies have been performed with computed tomography (CT) for characterization of canine hepatic masses and description of contrast enhancement . Our experience has been that hilar anatomy, including associated vasculature, can be distorted by large masses, making CT determination of lobar involvement difficult in many cases, even when evaluating arterial and venous phases.…”

“…Multiple studies have been performed with computed tomography (CT) for characterization of canine hepatic masses and description of contrast enhancement. [6][7][8] Our experience has been that hilar anatomy, including associated vasculature, can be distorted by large masses, making CT determination of lobar involvement difficult in many cases, even when evaluating arterial and venous phases.…”