ReviewFuture oncology (London, England)2016
Computed tomography imaging assessment of postexternal beam radiation changes of the liver.
Review in Future oncology (London, England), 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radioembolization: Technical Tips and Follow-Up Imaging.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
- Imaging evaluation following transarterial radioembolization with yttrium-90 microspheres downstaging hepatocellular carcinoma: the first case in China.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
- Article
- Indicator for local recurrence of hepatocellular carcinoma after proton beam therapy: analysis of attenuation difference between the irradiated tumor and liver parenchyma on contrast enhancement CT.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- FDG-Avid Focal Liver Reaction From Proton Therapy in a Patient With Primary Esophageal Adenocarcinoma.Clinical nuclear medicine · 2018Article
- Imaging Evaluation FollowingKorean journal of radiologyReview
- Lung Shunt Reduction for Yttrium-90 Radioembolization: ChemoembolizationIn vivo (Athens, Greece)Article
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 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Radiation is being used for patients with primary and secondary liver cancers, as a rapidly evolving treatment. However, postradiation imaging changes of the liver are not well understood and therefore challenging to interpret. Distinguishing normal radiation changes from residual or recurrent disease is difficult. Size and contrast enhancement have been used to guide interpretation and clinical recommendations, but normal radiation changes can make interpretation difficult and are not accounted for in available guidelines. Knowledge of dose- and time-dependent changes in addition to imaging findings, such as morphological and enhancement patterns, provides useful differentiating parameters. This paper reviews recent studies using computed tomography that can guide interpretation and help differentiate tumor from benign changes after external beam radiation.
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.