ArticlePloS one2014
Is DWI/ADC a useful tool in the characterization of focal hepatic lesions suspected of malignancy?
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.
- Role of ADC in differentiating hepatocellular adenoma vs. hepatocellular carcinoma and metastatic liver lesions: systematic review and meta-analysis.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value in differentiating malignant from benign solid liver lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The British journal of radiology · 2021Pooled it
- Weekly MR-DWI/T1WI for early treatment response assessment of hepatic metastasis from ampullary carcinoma treated with gemcitabine, cisplatin, and durvalumab: A case report.Radiology case reports · 2026Article
- Classification of liver lesions based on temporal changes in hepatobiliary phase contrast on magnetic resonance imaging: a preliminary study.Radiological physics and technology · 2025Article
- Potential diagnostic value of high b-value computed diffusion-weighted imaging in hepatocellular carcinoma.Clinical and experimental hepatology · 2024Article
- Predictive Value of MRI with Serum Lectin-Reactive Alpha-Fetoprotein for Liver Cancer Recurrence after Percutaneous Radiofrequency Ablation.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022Article
- Diagnostic Benefit of High b-Value Computed Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Patients with Hepatic Metastasis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the Effect of Patient Preparation Using Castor Oil on ADC Value of Focal Liver Lesion.International journal of general medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of computed tomography arterial portography scan timing using different bolus tracking methods.Radiological physics and technology · 2020Article
- Evaluation of ADCEuropean journal of radiology open · 2018Article
- Diffusion-weighted imaging of the liver: Current applications.World journal of radiology · 2016Review
- DWI/ADC in Differentiation of Benign from Malignant Focal Liver Lesion.Acta informatica medica : AIM : journal of the Society for Medical Informatics of Bosnia & Herzegovina : casopis Drustva za medicinsku informatiku BiH · 2016Article
- Diffusion weighted imaging for the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant ovarian neoplasms.Oncology letters · 2016Article
- Diffusion-weighted MR imaging of non-complicated hepatic cysts: Value of 3T computed diffusion-weighted imaging.European journal of radiology open · 2016Article
- Preliminary Study of MR Diffusion Tensor Imaging of the Liver for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.PloS one · 2015Article
- Preliminary Results of High-Precision Computed Diffusion Weighted Imaging for the Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma at 3 Tesla.Journal of computer assisted tomographyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveApparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values calculated through magnetic resonance imaging have been proposed as a useful tool to distinguish benign from malignant liver lesions. Most studies however included simple cysts in their analysis. Liver cysts are easy to diagnose, have very high ADC values and their inclusion facilitates differentiation in the ADC values between benign and malignant liver lesions groups. We prospectively evaluated the ability of ADC values to differentiate metastatic liver lesions from all benign or only solid benign liver lesions. MATERIAL AND
methodsSixty-seven adult cancer patients with 188 liver lesions were evaluated. Lesions were categorized as metastatic or benign throughout imaging and clinical evaluation. One hundred and five (105) metastatic lesions and 83 benign lesions including hemangiomas (37), cysts (42), adenomas (2) and focal nodular hyperplasias (2) were evaluated. ADC values were calculated for each lesion utilizing two b values (0 and 600 sec/mm2).
resultsThe average ADC value for cysts was 2.4×10(-3) mm2/sec (CI: 2.1-2.6), for solid benign lesions was 1.4×10(-3) mm2/sec (CI: 1.1-1.7) and for metastases was 1.0×10(-3) mm2/sec (CI: 0.8-1.3). There was a difference between the ADC values of metastases and benign solid lesions (p<0.0001). With the ADC value of 1.5×10(-3) mm2/sec as a cut off it is possible to distinguish metastatic from benign liver lesions, including cysts, with an accuracy of 78%. But to distinguish metastatic from benign solid liver lesions the best ADC cut off value was 1.2×10(-3) mm2/sec and the accuracy drops to 71%.
conclusionsADC values proved to be helpful in the distinction between metastasis and benign solid hepatic lesions. But the exclusion of cysts in the analysis point out to a lower cut off value and lower accuracy than previously reported.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.