Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31654212›Full record

Observational studyEuropean radiology2020

Assessment of primary liver carcinomas other than hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with LI-RADS v2018: comparison of the LI-RADS target population to patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors.

Tyler J Fraum, Roberto Cannella, Daniel R Ludwig, Richard Tsai, Muhammad Naeem, Maverick LeBlanc, Amber Salter, Allan Tsung, Anup S Shetty, Amir A Borhani and 2 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Assessment of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with LI-RADS in the high-risk population: MRI diagnosis and postoperative survival.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
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

12 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tyler J FraumMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA. fraumt@wustl.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6573-5081
Roberto CannellaDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3708 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Daniel R LudwigMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Richard TsaiMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Muhammad NaeemMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Maverick LeBlancMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Amber SalterDivision of Biostatistics, Washington University School of Medicine, 660 S. Euclid Ave., CB 8067, St. Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Allan TsungDepartment of Surgery, Ohio State University Medical Center, N924 Doan Hall, 410 W 10th Ave, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA.
Anup S ShettyMallinckrodt Institute of Radiology, Washington University School of Medicine, 510 S. Kingshighway Blvd, Campus Box 8131, Saint Louis, MO, 63110, USA.
Amir A BorhaniDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3708 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Alessandro FurlanDepartment of Radiology, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, 3708 Fifth Ave, Pittsburgh, PA, 15213, USA.
Kathryn J FowlerDepartment of Radiology, University of California San Diego, 200 W Arbor Dr., San Diego, CA, 92103, USA.
Mallinckrodt (United States) · USUniversity of Pittsburgh Medical Center · USThe Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center · USUniversity of California San Diego · USWashington University in St. Louis · US

Funding

Pittsburgh Liver Research CenterP30DK120531 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Gavin E Arteel · 2019 to 2026
$10.9M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo determine whether the LI-RADS imaging features of primary liver carcinomas (PLCs) other than hepatocellular carcinoma (non-HCC PLCs) differ between patients considered high risk (RF+) versus not high risk (RF-) for HCC and to compare rates of miscategorization as probable or definite HCC between the RF+ and RF- populations.

methodsThis retrospective study included all pathology-proven non-HCC PLCs imaged with liver-protocol CT or MRI from 2007 to 2017 at two liver transplant centers. Patients were defined per LI-RADS v2018 criteria as RF+ or RF-. Two independent, blinded readers (R1, R2) categorized 265 lesions using LI-RADS v2018. Logistic regression was utilized to assess for differences in imaging feature frequencies between RF+ and RF- patients. Fisher's exact test was used to assess for differences in miscategorization rates.

resultsNon-HCC PLCs were significantly more likely to exhibit nonrim arterial phase hyperenhancement (R1: OR = 2.94; R2: OR = 7.09) and nonperipheral "washout" (R1: OR = 3.65; R2: OR = 7.69) but significantly less likely to exhibit peripheral "washout" (R1: OR = 0.30; R2: OR = 0.10) and delayed central enhancement (R1: OR = 0.18; R2: OR = 0.25) in RF+ patients relative to RF- patients. Consequently, non-HCC PLCs were more often miscategorized as probable or definite HCC in RF+ versus RF- patients (R1: 23.3% vs. 3.6%, p < 0.001; R2: 11.0% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.009).

conclusionsNon-HCC PLCs are more likely to mimic HCCs on CT and MRI in the LI-RADS target population than in patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors. KEY POINTS: • The presence of LI-RADS-defined risk factors for HCC tends to alter the imaging appearances of non-HCC PLCs, resulting in higher frequencies of major features and lower frequencies of LR-M features. • Non-HCC PLCs are more likely to be miscategorized as probable or definite HCC in the LI-RADS target population than in patients without LI-RADS-defined HCC risk factors.

Indexed as

AgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansLiver NeoplasmsLogistic ModelsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk FactorsSingle-Blind MethodTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaBile duct neoplasmsCarcinoma, hepatocellularCholangiocarcinomaLiver cirrhosisLiver neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31654212
OpenAlexW2981370906

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.