“No focal suspicious intrahepatic lesion.”

This is radiologist code-speak for normal liver.

In the context of the example sentence “no focal” also means “no multifocal”, “no diffuse”, “no infiltrating”. In fact, “no focal” means none. We could change the sentence to “No suspicious intrahepatic lesion” without changing its intent.

What does suspicious mean in the example sentence? Does it mean there are lesions in the liver, just not suspicious ones? Probably not since it would be appropriate for the radiologist to have described such lesions (cyst, hemangioma etc.) before concluding they were not suspicious. The word suspicious can be removed leaving “No intrahepatic lesion.”

What does the prefix “intra-” add? Is an “intrahepatic lesion” different than an “hepatic lesion”? It is not. The prefix adds two more syllables but no more meaning.

Possible revision:“No liver lesions”.  (Assuming the clinical question required a pertinent negative statement regarding the liver.) If the clinical information for the exam indicated no apparent concern for liver disease ( ie. “Left lower quadrant pain, rule-out diverticulitis”), then simply stating “Normal liver” would be appropriate.

The original example sentence had a Flesch-Kincaid reading level of 17.0 and a NEGATIVE reading ease score! The suggested revision has a 5.2 grade reading level and reading ease of 63.