ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2020
Diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria and spectrum of LI-RADS imaging features among primary hepatic carcinomas.
Article 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 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- MRI-diagnosis of category LR-M observations in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- LR-M for CT/MRI on LI-RADS v2018: a review of imaging criteria, performance, challenges and future directions from an end-user perspective.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Inter-reader agreement for CT/MRI LI-RADS category M imaging features: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of liver cancer · 2024Article
- Targetoid Primary Liver Malignancy in Chronic Liver Disease: Prediction of Postoperative Survival Using Preoperative MRI Findings and Clinical Factors.Korean journal of radiology · 2023Article
- [Advances in imaging diagnosis of mixed-type liver cancer].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2023Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Multi-arterial phase MRI depicts inconsistent arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) subtypes in liver observations of patients at risk for hepatocellular carcinoma.European radiology · 2021Article
- Update on Pathologic and Radiologic Diagnosis of Combined Hepatocellular-Cholangiocarcinoma.Journal of liver cancer · 2021Review
- Hepatobiliary phase signal intensity: A potential method of diagnosing HCC with atypical imaging features among LR-M observations.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of LR-M criteria for differentiating hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma, and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma and to compare the imaging features of each type.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 110 patients were surgically diagnosed with cholangiocarcinoma (n = 67) and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma (n = 43) at a single tertiary hospital between 2013 and 2018. Among them, those with risk factors were enrolled (16 cholangiocarcinomas and 33 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas). Forty-nine other patients with size-matched hepatocellular carcinoma were selected as a control group. Two independent readers evaluated the imaging findings of the preoperative MRIs based on LI-RADS version 2018 and assigned an LI-RADS category. The diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria for diagnosing cholangiocarcinoma or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma was evaluated, and the imaging features were compared. The imaging findings of the tumors in patients without risk factors (51 cholangiocarcinomas and 10 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas) were evaluated for subgroup analysis.
resultsIn the non-hepatocellular carcinoma group, 33 patients were categorized into LR-M and 14 patients into LR-5 (67.3% and 28.6%, respectively), while 5 patients with hepatocellular carcinoma were categorized into LR-M and 38 patients into LR-5 (10.2% and 77.6%, respectively). Sensitivity and specificity of the LR-M criteria were 67.3% and 89.8%, respectively. When more than two LR-M features were present, cholangiocarcinoma or combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma were suggested with a specificity of 95.9%.
conclusionThe diagnostic performance of the LR-M criteria is acceptable with moderate sensitivity and high specificity for both cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma. Imaging findings of primary hepatic carcinomas should be understood as a spectrum.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32377757What 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.