ArticleKorean journal of radiology
Optimal Phase of Dynamic Computed Tomography for Reliable Size Measurement of Metastatic Neuroendocrine Tumors of the Liver: Comparison between Pre- and Post-Contrast Phases.
Article in Korean journal of radiology. 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.
- Assessing the reliability of Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumors (RECIST): a systematic review of the factors contributing to inter-observer variability.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Distinctive imaging features of liver metastasis from gastric adenocarcinoma with enteroblastic differentiation: A case report.World journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Machine learning-based identification of contrast-enhancement phase of computed tomography scans.PloS one · 2024Article
- The role of unenhanced phase of the liver in the scanning protocol of metastatic breast cancer: implications for sensitivity, response evaluation and size measurement.Radiology and oncology · 2021Article
- Optoacoustic imaging in endocrinology and metabolism.Nature reviews. Endocrinology · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The reliability of size measurements of liver metastases from neuroendocrine tumors (NETs) on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) phases made by different readers may be hampered due to transient, variable rim enhancement in arterial phase (AP) or portal venous phase (PVP) images. We aimed to assess the reliability of tumor size measurements in pre- and post-contrast scans. Materials and Methods: The study coordinator selected target lesions according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors 1.1 guidelines in 44 consecutive patients with pathologically confirmed NET liver metastases. Two blinded readers measured the longest diameters of target lesions on pre-contrast, AP, and PVP images twice with a 4-week interval. Inter- and intra-observer agreements were evaluated using Bland-Altman plots and 95% limit of agreement (LOA) calculations. Results: Of the 79 target lesions (approximate mean size of 3 cm), 45 showed rim enhancement. Inter-observer agreement assessed based on LOA was highest in pre-contrast CT images (-6.1-5.7 mm), followed by PVP (-7.9-7.1 mm) and AP (-8.5-7.4 mm) images. Intra-observer agreement showed the same trend: -2.8-2.9 mm and -2.9-2.9 mm for readers 1 and 2, respectively, on pre-contrast CT, -2.8-2.9 mm and -3.0-3.2 mm, respectively, on PVP, and -3.2-4.2 mm and -3.4-3.2 mm, respectively, on AP images. Mean tumor diameters differed significantly among the phases in the following increasing order: pre-contrast CT, PVP, and AP images. Conclusion: There was better inter- and intra-observer agreement in size measurements of NET liver metastases on precontrast scans than on AP and PVP scans. Pre-contrast CT may be the optimal for measuring NET liver metastases if its accuracy is proven.
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.