ArticleLa Radiologia medica2015
MR imaging of primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm and metastatic hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm: a comparative study.
Article in La Radiologia medica, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasms: imaging characteristics and misdiagnosis analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo investigate MR characteristics in differentiating primary hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PHNEN) from metastatic hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (MHNEN). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-nine patients with histopathologically proven liver neuroendocrine neoplasm were retrospectively analyzed. The morphological and MR signal features on T1, T2-weighted, dynamic-enhanced, and diffusion-weighted imaging were evaluated and compared between the PHNEN group (n = 12) and the MHNEN group (n = 27).
resultsThe tumor size (P = 0.0084), number (P = 0.017), distribution (P = 0.000), contour (P = 0.041), the presence of capsule-like enhancement (P = 0.034), tumor homogeneity (P = 0.018) and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values (P = 0.024) were different between PHNENs and MHNENs. Large, solitary or massive-growing nodules with lobulated or irregular contour, capsule-like enhancement, heterogeneous signals or lower ADC values supported the diagnosis of PHNEN compared with MHNEN. ROC analysis demonstrated an area under the curve of 0.746, when the optimal cutoff value of 1.049 × 10(-3) mm(2)/s was used, a sensitivity of 63.0 % (95 % CI, 44.2-79.4 %), a specitivity of 80.0 % (95 % CI, 50.1-96.4 %), a positive predictive value of 89.5 % (95 % CI, 70.9-98.2 %), and a negative predictive value of 44.4 % (95 % CI, 23.4-67.0 %) can be achieved.
conclusionsMRI may provide valuable information for the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of PHNENs and MHNENs.
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.