Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31673837›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2020

Hepatocellular carcinoma detection in liver cirrhosis: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast vs. gadoxetic acid.

Sahar Semaan, Naik Vietti Violi, Sara Lewis, Manjil Chatterji, Christopher Song, Cecilia Besa, James S Babb, M Isabel Fiel, Myron Schwartz, Swan Thung and 2 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Glucose-Regulated Protein 78 Targeting ICG and DOX Loaded Hollow FeInternational journal of nanomedicine · 2024
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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 3 countries.

Sahar SemaanDepartment of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Naik Vietti VioliTranslational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Sara LewisDepartment of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Manjil ChatterjiDepartment of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Christopher SongDepartment of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Cecilia BesaTranslational and Molecular Imaging Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
James S BabbDepartment of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, 333 E 38th Street, New York, NY, 10016, USA.
M Isabel FielDepartment of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Myron SchwartzRecanati/Miller Transplantation Institute, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, USA.
Swan ThungDepartment of Pathology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, New York, NY, 10029, USA.
Claude B SirlinLiver Imaging Group, Department of Radiology, UC San Diego Medical Center, 200 West Arbor Drive, San Diego, CA, USA.
Bachir TaouliDepartment of Radiology, Body MRI, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, One Gustave L. Levy Place, 1470 Madison Avenue, New York, NY, 10029, USA. bachir.taouli@mountsinai.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6409-1333
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai · USNYU Langone Health · USPontificia Universidad Católica de Chile · CLUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced CT vs. MRI with extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) vs. MRI with gadoxetic acid (EOB-MRI) for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis using liver explant as the reference. The additional value of hepatobiliary phase (HBP) post Gadoxetic acid was also assessed.

methodsTwo-hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients who underwent liver transplantation over a 9 year period and imaging within 90 days of were retrospectively included. Imaging consisted in CT (n = 100), EC-MRI (n = 77) and EOB-MRI (n = 100), the latter subdivided into dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI (dynamic+HBP). Three radiologists retrospectively categorized lesions ≥ 1 cm using the LI-RADSv2017 algorithm. Dynamic EOB-MRI was re-evaluated with the addition of HBP. Results were correlated with explant pathology.

resultsPathology demonstrated 265 HCCs (mean size 2.1 ± 1.4 cm) in 177 patients. Per-patient sensitivities were 86.3% for CT, 89.5% for EC-MRI, 92.8% for dynamic EOB-MRI and 95.2% for full EOB-MRI (pooled reader data), with a significant difference between CT and dynamic/full EOB-MRI (p = 0.032/0.002), and between EC-MRI and full EOB-MRI (p = 0.047). Per-lesion sensitivities for CT, EC-MRI, dynamic EOB-MRI and full EOB-MRI were 59.5%,78.5%,69.7% and 76.8%, respectively, with a significant difference between MRI groups and CT (p-range:0.001-0.04), and no difference between EC-MRI and dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.949). For HCCs 1-1.9 cm, sensitivities were 34.4%, 64.6%, 57.3% and 67.3%, respectively, with all MRI groups significantly superior to CT (p ≤ 0.01) and full EOB-MRI superior to dynamic EOB-MRI (p = 0.002).

conclusionsEOB-MRI outperforms CT and EC-MRI for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. MRI methods outperform CT for detection of HCCs 1-1.9 cm. KEY POINTS: • MRI is superior to CT for HCC detection in patients with liver cirrhosis. • EOB-MRI outperforms CT and MRI using extracellular contrast agents (EC-MRI) for per-patient HCC detection sensitivity, and is equivalent to EC-MRI for per-lesion sensitivity. • The addition of hepatobiliary phase images improves HCC detection when using gadoxetic acid.

Indexed as

AdultAgedCarcinoma, HepatocellularContrast MediaFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansLiver CirrhosisLiver NeoplasmsLiver TransplantationMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPAContrast mediaLiver neoplasmsMagnetic resonance imagingTomography, spiral computed

Identifiers

PMID31673837
OpenAlexW2982415253

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.