Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25994198›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Radiologic-pathologic analysis of quantitative 3D tumour enhancement on contrast-enhanced MR imaging: a study of ROI placement.

Arun Chockalingam, Rafael Duran, Jae Ho Sohn, Rüdiger Schernthaner, Julius Chapiro, Howard Lee, Sonia Sahu, Sonny Nguyen, Jean-François Geschwind, MingDe Lin

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Arun ChockalingamRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. chocka@rpi.edu.
Rafael DuranRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. rafaelduran.md@gmail.com.
Jae Ho SohnRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. sohn87@gmail.com.
Rüdiger SchernthanerRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. rschern1@jhmi.edu.
Julius ChapiroRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. j.chapiro@googlemail.com.
Howard LeeRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. mail2howielee@gmail.com.
Sonia SahuRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. soniapsahu@gmail.com.
Sonny NguyenRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. sonnytrnguyen@gmail.com.
Jean-François GeschwindRussell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Division of Vascular and Interventional Radiology, The Johns Hopkins Hospital, Sheikh Zayed Tower, Ste 7203, 1800 Orleans St, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. jfg@jhmi.edu.
MingDe LinU/S Imaging and Interventions (UII), Philips Research North America, Briarcliff Manor, NY, USA. ming.lin@philips.com.

Funding

Translational Research Central ServicesP30CA006973 · NCI · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI Rosalie Wollett · 1985 to 2026
$208.6M
See, Reach, Treat Tumor-Optimized Transarterial Chemoembolization DrugDeliveryR01CA160771 · NCI · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI GESCHWIND, JEAN-FRANCOIS H, LIN, MINGDE · 2011 to 2015
$2.6M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA006973NCI NIH HHS R01 CA160771
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the influence of region-of-interest (ROI) placement on 3D tumour enhancement [Quantitative European Association for the Study of the Liver (qEASL)] in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients treated with transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE).

methodsPhase 1: 40 HCC patients had nine ROIs placed by one reader using systematic techniques (3 ipsilateral to the lesion, 3 contralateral to the lesion, and 3 dispersed throughout the liver) and qEASL variance was measured. Intra-class correlations were computed. Phase 2: 15 HCC patients with histosegmentation were selected. Six ROIs were systematically placed by AC (3 ROIs ipsilateral and 3 ROIs contralateral to the lesion). Three ROIs were placed by 2 radiologists. qEASL values were compared to histopathology by Pearson's correlation, linear regression, and median difference.

resultsPhase 1: The dispersed method (abandoned in phase 2) had low consistency and high variance. Phase 2: qEASL correlated strongly with pathology in systematic methods [Pearson's correlation coefficient = 0.886 (ipsilateral) and 0.727 (contralateral)] and in clinical methods (0.625 and 0.879). However, ipsilateral placement matched best with pathology (median difference: 5.4 %; correlation: 0.89; regression CI: [0.904, 0.1409]).

conclusionsqEASL is a robust method with comparable values among tested placements. Ipsilateral placement showed high consistency and better pathological correlation. KEY POINTS: Ipsilateral and contralateral ROI placement produces high consistency and low variance. Both ROI placement methods produce qEASL values that correlate well with histopathology. Ipsilateral ROI placement produces best correlation to pathology along with high consistency.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, HepatocellularContrast MediaFemaleHumansLiverLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsContrast MediaHepatocellular carcinomaMRIROITACETumour segmentation

Identifiers

PMID25994198
PMCPMC4654989

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.