Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32173774›Full record

ReviewAbdominal radiology (New York)2020

Critical review of HCC imaging in the multidisciplinary setting: treatment allocation and evaluation of response.

J Amorim, M França, A Perez-Girbes, A Torregrosa, L Martí-Bonmatí

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 22% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Ethyl Acetate Fraction ofEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Comparison of PET imaging of activated fibroblasts andEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2021
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J AmorimRadiology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto (CHUP), Porto, Portugal. joaopinheiroamorim@gmail.com.
M FrançaRadiology Department, Centro Hospitalar Universitário do Porto (CHUP), Porto, Portugal.
A Perez-GirbesRadiology Department and Biomedical Imaging Research Group, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico e Instituto Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
A TorregrosaRadiology Department and Biomedical Imaging Research Group, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico e Instituto Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
L Martí-BonmatíRadiology Department and Biomedical Imaging Research Group, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico e Instituto Investigación Sanitaria La Fe, Valencia, Spain.
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe · ESCentro Hospitalar do Porto · PT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Imaging has not only an established role in screening and diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in patients with chronic liver inflammatory diseases, but also a crucial importance for patient stratification and treatment allocation, as well as for assessing treatment response. In the setting of increasing therapeutic options for HCC, the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) system still remains the most appropriate way to select candidate cohorts for best treatments. This classification takes into account the imaging information on tumor burden and extension, liver function, and cancer-related symptoms, stratifying patients in five risk categories (Stages 0, A, B, C and D) associated with different treatment options. Still now, there are no clear roles for biomarkers use in treatment allocation. The increasing use of locoregional non-surgical therapies in the different stages is highly dependent on reliable evaluation of treatment response, in particular when they are used with curative intention or for downstaging at liver transplantation re-assessment. Moreover, objective response (OR) has emerged as an important imaging biomarker, providing information on tumor biology, which can contribute for further prognostic assessment. Current guidelines for OR assessment recommend only the measurement of viable tumor according to mRECIST criteria, with further classification into complete response, partial response, stable disease or progressive disease. Either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can be used for this purpose, and the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) committee has recently provided some guidance for reporting after locoregional therapies. Nevertheless, imaging pitfalls resulting from treatment-related changes can impact with the correct evaluation of treatment response, especially after transarterial radioembolization (TARE). Volume criteria and emerging imaging techniques might also contribute for a better refinement in the assessment of treatment response and monitoring. As the role of imaging deeply expands in the multidisciplinary assessment of HCC, our main objective in this review is to discuss state-of-the-art decision-making aspects for treatment allocation and provide guidance for treatment response evaluation.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedComputed tomographyHepatocellular carcinomaLiver neoplasmsMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID32173774
OpenAlexW3011010900

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.