SynthesisEuropean radiology2019
Detection of liver metastases on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced MRI: systematic review, meta-analysis, and similarities with gadoxetate-enhanced MRI.
Synthesis in European radiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intraindividual crossover comparison of gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced and gadoxetate disodium-enhanced MRI for characterizing focal liver lesions.European radiology experimental · 2025Trial
- Beyond morphology: functional imaging of the liver with gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Automatic 3D Tracking of Liver Metastases: Follow-Up Assessment of Cancer Patients in Contrast-Enhanced MRI.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Baseline hepatobiliary MRI for predicting chemotherapeutic response and prognosis in initially unresectable colorectal cancer liver metastases.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Comparison ofCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2024Article
- Yes, you should do a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients scheduled for local therapy of colorectal cancer liver metastases: insights into the CAMINO study.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 2024Article
- Benign focal liver lesions: The role of magnetic resonance imaging.World journal of hepatology · 2022Review
- Imaging evaluation of the liver in oncology patients: A comparison of techniques.World journal of hepatology · 2021Review
- Advances in liver US, CT, and MRI: moving toward the future.European radiology experimental · 2021Review
- The role of lesion hypointensity on gadobenate dimeglumine-enhanced hepatobiliary phase MRI as an additional major imaging feature for HCC classification using LI-RADS v2018 criteria.European radiology · 2021Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the sensitivity and positive predictive value (PPV) of gadobenate-enhanced MR imaging for the detection of liver metastases.
methodsThis systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. A comprehensive search (EMBASE, PubMed) was performed to identify relevant articles up to December 2017. Studies eligible for inclusion were performed using appropriate methodology with complete verification by means of histopathology, intraoperative observation and/or follow-up, and sufficient information to permit determination of true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN), and false-positive (FP) values. Sources of bias were assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. An inverse variance-weighted random-effects model was used to obtain sensitivity and PPV estimates. Information was analyzed and presented using Cochran's Q statistic, funnel plots, and modified Deeks' analysis.
resultsTen articles (256 patients, 562 metastases) were included. Sensitivity estimates for pre-contrast (unenhanced) imaging, gadobenate-enhanced dynamic imaging, and combined unenhanced, dynamic, and delayed hepatobiliary phase imaging for detecting liver metastases on a per-lesion basis were 77.8% (95% CI 71.4-84.3%, 7 assessments), 88.1% (95% CI, 84.0-92.2%, 13 assessments), and 95.1% (95% CI 93.1-97.1%, 15 assessments), respectively. The addition of hepatobiliary phase images significantly improved the detection of liver metastases. The overall PPV was 90.9% (95% CI 86.6-95.1%, 11 assessments). Deeks' funnel analysis revealed no association between sample size and sensitivity (β = 0.02, p = 0.814) indicating no significant publication bias.
conclusionsGadobenate-enhanced MR imaging has high sensitivity and PPV for the detection of liver metastases on a per-lesion basis. The sensitivity and PPV for detection is comparable to reported values for the pure liver-specific agent gadoxetate. KEY POINTS: • Gadobenate dimeglumine is a hepatobiliary MR contrast agent that permits acquisition of contrast-enhanced liver images during the immediate post-injection dynamic phase, like any extracellular agent, and in the delayed hepatobiliary phase, after specific uptake by the hepatocytes. • The hepatobiliary phase improves detection of liver metastases when compared either to pre-contrast unenhanced images alone or to pre-contrast + gadobenate-enhanced dynamic phase images. • The meta-analysis showed an overall sensitivity of 95.1% and PPV of 90.9% of gadobenate-enhanced MRI for the detection of metastases, when based on the evaluation of all available acquisitions.
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.