ArticlePloS one2017
Diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR for small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma and the concordance rate of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS).
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development and validation of a multi-parametric MRI diagnostic model for differentiating hemangioma-like metastases from small (< 3 cm) hepatic hemangiomas: a size-based subgroup analysis.BMC medical imaging · 2026Article
- Evidence Supporting Diagnostic Value of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for CT- and MR Imaging-based Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Journal of biomedical physics & engineering · 2024Review
- Second-line Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography for Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System category 3 and 4 on gadoxetate-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea) · 2022Article
- Pearls and pitfalls in magnetic resonance imaging of hepatocellular carcinoma.World journal of gastroenterology · 2020Review
- LI-RADS v2014 categorization of hepatocellular carcinoma: Intraindividual comparison between gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI and gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI.European radiology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND &
aimsTo assess diagnostic accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR for small hypervascular hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) detected by C-arm CT and concordance rate of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS).
methodsIn this retrospective study, we recruited 4,544 patients suspected of having HCC underwent C-arm CT from November 2008 to May 2013. Among these patients, gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR was performed in 167 patients with HCC (n = 379; 257 > 1 cm, 122 ≤ 1 cm). HCC was confirmed by MR, CT, or follow-up images. Two radiologists graded likelihood of HCC and assessed MR features. Jackknife alternative free-response receiver operating characteristic (JAFROC) analysis was performed. All HCCs were evaluated concordance rate of LI-RADS.
resultsMean JAFROC figure of merit for large (>1-cm) HCC was 0.948, while that for small HCC was 0.787 with fair agreement (κ = 0.409). Mean sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) were 91% and 90% for large HCC versus 63.0% and 79% for small HCC, respectively. Seventeen of 122 small HCCs (13.9%) were not visible on MR. Among 379 HCCs, 99 met LR-5, and 259 met LR-4. Common features for small HCC included arterial enhancement (81.9%), hepatobiliary phase hypointensity (80.3%), and delayed washout (72.9%).
conclusionDiagnostic accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MR imaging for small, hypervascular HCCs (Mean figure of merit = 0.787) was still low compared with large HCC (Mean figure of merit = 0.948). LR-5 and LR-4 covered 94% (358/379) of the HCCs.
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.