Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28103837›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2017

Evaluation of the ablation margin of hepatocellular carcinoma using CEUS-CT/MR image fusion in a phantom model and in patients.

Kai Li, Zhongzhen Su, Erjiao Xu, Qiannan Huang, Qingjing Zeng, Rongqin Zheng

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

6 authors.

Kai LiDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Zhongzhen SuDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Erjiao XuDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Qiannan HuangDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Qingjing ZengDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China.
Rongqin ZhengDepartment of Ultrasound, The Third Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, 510630, Guangdong Province, People's Republic of China. zhengrongqin345@sina.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo assess the accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)-CT/MR image fusion in evaluating the radiofrequency ablative margin (AM) of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) based on a custom-made phantom model and in HCC patients.

methodsTwenty-four phantoms were randomly divided into a complete ablation group (n = 6) and an incomplete ablation group (n = 18). After radiofrequency ablation (RFA), the AM was evaluated using ultrasound (US)-CT image fusion, and the results were compared with the AM results that were directly measured in a gross specimen. CEUS-CT/MR image fusion and CT-CT / MR-MR image fusion were used to evaluate the AM in 37 tumors from 33 HCC patients who underwent RFA.

resultsThe sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of US-CT image fusion for evaluating AM in the phantom model were 93.8, 85.7 and 91.3%, respectively. The maximal thicknesses of the residual AM were 3.5 ± 2.0 mm and 3.2 ± 2.0 mm in the US-CT image fusion and gross specimen, respectively. No significant difference was observed between the US-CT image fusion and direct measurements of the AM of HCC. In the clinical study, the success rate of the AM evaluation was 100% for both CEUS-CT/MR and CT-CT/MR-MR, and the duration was 8.5 ± 2.8 min (range: 4-12 min) and 13.5 ± 4.5 min (range: 8-16 min) for CEUS-CT/MR and CT-CT/MR-MR, respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of CEUS-CT/MR imaging for evaluating the AM were 100.0, 80.0, and 90.0%, respectively.

conclusionsA phantom model composed of carrageenan gel and additives was suitable for the evaluation of HCC AM. CEUS-CT/MR image fusion can be used to evaluate HCC AM with high accuracy.

Indexed as

Catheter AblationPhantoms, ImagingAdultCarcinoma, HepatocellularFemaleHumansImage Processing, Computer-AssistedImaging, Three-DimensionalLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePhospholipidsSulfur HexafluorideTomography, X-Ray ComputedUltrasonographycontrast agent BR1PhospholipidsSulfur HexafluorideCEUSCTImage fusionPhantom modelTumor ablation

Identifiers

PMID28103837
PMCPMC5244580

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.