ArticleOncotarget2017
Critical analysis of the major and ancillary imaging features of LI-RADS on 127 proven HCCs evaluated with functional and morphological MRI: Lights and shadows.
Article in Oncotarget, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 51 citations in OpenAlex.
- Radiological assessment of secondary biliary tree lesions: an update.The Journal of international medical research · 2020Pooled it
- Radiologists and treatment response assessment: conventional and functional radiological criteria for predicting therapeutic response in virus-related and non-virus-related cancers.Infectious agents and cancer · 2025Review
- Scientific Status Quo of Small Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Assessment and Radiomics.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Development and validation of a CT-based nomogram for accurate hepatocellular carcinoma detection in high risk patients.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- Radiomics and artificial intelligence analysis by T2-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to predict Breast Cancer Histological Outcome.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Colorectal liver metastases patients prognostic assessment: prospects and limits of radiomics and radiogenomics.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Review
- Article
- Management of Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer: Radiologists Challenging and Risk Assessment.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Structured reporting of computed tomography in the polytrauma patient assessment: a Delphi consensus proposal.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- Diagnostic Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Technique Optimization and Tips and Tricks for Radiologists.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Imaging Features of Main Hepatic Resections: The Radiologist Challenging.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018: differential diagnostic value of ADC values for benign and malignant nodules with moderate probability (LR-3).Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Preliminary Experience of Liquid Biopsy in Lung Cancer Compared to Conventional Assessment: Light and Shadows.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Article
- Article
- Structured Reporting in Radiological Settings: Pitfalls and Perspectives.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Management of cutaneous melanoma: radiologists challenging and risk assessment.La Radiologia medica · 2022Review
- Multimodality Imaging Assessment of Desmoid Tumors: The Great Mime in the Era of Multidisciplinary Teams.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Imaging Assessment of Interval Metastasis from Melanoma.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo report a critical analysis of major and ancillary MR imaging features in assessment of HCC.
methodsRetrospectively we evaluated 70 cirrhotic patients with 173 nodules, which were subjected to MR study at 0 time (MR0), after 3 (MR3) and 6 months (MR6) using two different contrast media. EOB-GD-DTPA was injected at MR0 and MR6, while Gd-BT-DO3A at MR3. Three expert hepatic radiologists reviewed all images, recording, according to LI-RADS, the size, the presence and quality of arterial-phase hyperenhancement, washout and capsule appearance, threshold growth. Additionally, we recorded signal intensity (SI) on T2-W images, on DWI, on apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps and SI on T1-W images of EOB-GD-BPTA hepatospecific phase. Median value of ADC and of Intravoxel incoherent motion related parameters were assessed.
results127 HCCs and 24 dysplastic nodules were assessed. Hypervascular on arterial phase was found in 84 HCCs, washout appearance in 124, capsule appearance in 111, hypointensity on hepatospecific phase in 127, hyperintensity on T2-W sequences and restricted diffusion in 107. Hyper vascular on arterial phase was found in 17 dysplastic nodules, wash-out appearance in 2, hypointensity on hepatospecific phase in 7 while no dysplastic nodules showed capsule appearance, hyperintensity on T2-W and restricted diffusion. Highest accuracy was obtained by washout appearance and hypointense signal on hepatospecific phase (97% and 95%).
conclusionsHypointensity on hepatospecific phase and washout appearance are the most relevant diagnostic sign for differentiating low-risk from high-risk HCC nodules. The capsule appearance, T2-W hyperintensity and restricted diffusion have high positive predictive value.
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.