{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022888713496448304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.891304347826087, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Imaging of hepatic metastases.

BACKGROUND
Imaging plays an important role not only in screening, evaluating, staging, and monitoring disease, but also in surveillance following tumor ablation. Advances in imaging techniques have increased our ability to detect and characterize focal liver lesions, resulting in improvements in diagnostic capability and improved monitoring of liver metastases. This has led to increased interest in both hepatic imaging and image-guided hepatic interventions.


METHODS
Several imaging options are reviewed according to their effective application, notably computed tomography (CT), CT during arterial portography, ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging, positron emission tomography, and integrated PET/CT imaging.


RESULTS
Although there are exceptions regarding imaging options based on patient selection and on institution preference and expertise, multidetector helical CT scanning remains the dominant modality in the evaluation of suspected hepatic metastases, and for preoperative planning, treatment monitoring, and posttreatment follow-up.


CONCLUSIONS
Ultimately, the choice of imaging modality must be based not only on the patient and the clinical situation, but also on the imaging expertise within each institution.