Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26373763›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2016

Differentiation of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from hepatocellular carcinoma on gadoxetic acid-enhanced liver MR imaging.

Rihyeon Kim, Jeong Min Lee, Cheong-Il Shin, Eun Sun Lee, Jeong Hee Yoon, Ijin Joo, Seong Ho Kim, Inpyeong Hwang, Joon Koo Han, Byung Ihn Choi

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
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 41 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
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.

Rihyeon KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Min LeeDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea. jmsh@snu.ac.kr.
Cheong-Il ShinDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Eun Sun LeeDepartment of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Jeong Hee YoonDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Ijin JooDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Seong Ho KimDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Inpyeong HwangDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Joon Koo HanDepartment of Radiology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, Seoul, Korea.
Byung Ihn ChoiDepartment of Radiology, Chung-Ang University Hospital, 102, Heukseok-ro, Dongjak-gu, Seoul, Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine the different imaging features of intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (IMCC) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) on gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

methodsThis retrospective study was institutional review board approved and the requirement for informed consent was waived. Patients who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI with histologically confirmed IMCCs (n = 46) or HCCs (n = 58) were included. Imaging features of IMCCs and HCCs on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI including T2- and T1-weighted, diffusion weighted images, dynamic study and hepatobiliary phase (HBP) images were analyzed. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify relevant differentiating features between IMCCs and HCCs.

resultsMultivariate analysis revealed heterogeneous T2 signal intensity and a hypointense rim on the HBP as suggestive findings of IMCCs and the wash-in and "portal wash-out" enhancement pattern as well as focal T1 high signal intensity foci as indicative of HCCs (all, p < 0.05). When we combined any three of the above four imaging features, we were able to diagnose IMCCs with 94 % (43/46) sensitivity and 86 % (50/58) specificity.

conclusionsCombined interpretation of enhancement characteristics including HBP images, morphologic features, and strict application of the "portal wash-out" pattern helped more accurate discrimination of IMCCs from HCCs. KEY POINTS: • Analysis of enhancement characteristics helped accurate discrimination of IMCCs from HCCs. • Wash-out should be determined on the PVP of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. • A hypointense rim on the HBP was a significant finding of IMCCs.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBile Duct NeoplasmsBile Ducts, IntrahepaticCarcinoma, HepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPACholangiocarcinomaGadoxetic acidHepatocellular carcinomaLiverMRI

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.