Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning

Thomas F. Stephenson, Alex Y Chang, Kishan Pandya, Fernando Ona

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)257-262
Number of pages6
JournalComputerized Radiology
Volume6
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - 1982
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Liver
Neoplasm Metastasis
Scanning
Contrast Media

Keywords

  • Cholegraphic
  • Contrast agents
  • CT liver scanningTechnique
  • Urographic

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Radiology Nuclear Medicine and imaging

Cite this

Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning. / Stephenson, Thomas F.; Chang, Alex Y; Pandya, Kishan; Ona, Fernando.

In: Computerized Radiology, Vol. 6, No. 5, 1982, p. 257-262.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Stephenson, Thomas F. ; Chang, Alex Y ; Pandya, Kishan ; Ona, Fernando. / Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning. In: Computerized Radiology. 1982 ; Vol. 6, No. 5. pp. 257-262.
@article{e5692b475f034392a8daba1e8a552221,
title = "Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning",
abstract = "Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.",
keywords = "Cholegraphic, Contrast agents, CT liver scanningTechnique, Urographic",
author = "Stephenson, {Thomas F.} and Chang, {Alex Y} and Kishan Pandya and Fernando Ona",
year = "1982",
doi = "10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "257--262",
journal = "Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics",
issn = "0895-6111",
publisher = "Elsevier Limited",
number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of urographic and cholegraphic contrast enhanced CT liver scanning

AU - Stephenson, Thomas F.

AU - Chang, Alex Y

AU - Pandya, Kishan

AU - Ona, Fernando

PY - 1982

Y1 - 1982

N2 - Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.

AB - Six consecutive patients referred for CT scanning because of suspected hepatic metastases were scanned without contrast enhancement, with intravenous urographic contrast enhancement and 24 hr later with intravenous cholegraphic contrast enhancement. Unenhanced and intravenous urographic contrast enhanced scans were complementary in detecting hepatic metastases. Intravenous Cholegrafin was not effective as a contrast agent in detecting hepatic metastases.

KW - Cholegraphic

KW - Contrast agents

KW - CT liver scanningTechnique

KW - Urographic

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0020183291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0020183291&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X

DO - 10.1016/0730-4862(82)90110-X

M3 - Article

C2 - 7172643

AN - SCOPUS:0020183291

VL - 6

SP - 257

EP - 262

JO - Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics

JF - Computerized Medical Imaging and Graphics

SN - 0895-6111

IS - 5

ER -