ArticleEuropean radiology2020
Distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging using the Bayesian method: a bi-center study.
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 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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 · 2025Article
- Multiphase Computed Tomography Scan Findings for Artificial Intelligence Training in the Differentiation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma Based on Interobserver Agreement of Expert Abdominal Radiologists.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Imaged periductal infiltration: Diagnostic and prognostic role in intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma.European journal of radiology open · 2024Article
- A multi-center diagnostic system for intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma based on preoperative MRI and clinical features.European radiology · 2024Article
- A convenient scoring system to distinguish intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma from solitary colorectal liver metastasis based on magnetic resonance imaging features.European radiology · 2023Article
- Clinical Significance of Liver MR Imaging.Magnetic resonance in medical sciences : MRMS : an official journal of Japan Society of Magnetic Resonance in Medicine · 2023Review
- Imaging Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A State-of-the-Art Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Imaging Features of Post Main Hepatectomy Complications: The Radiologist Challenging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Conventional, functional and radiomics assessment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Article
- Preoperative differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma with peripheral rim-like enhancement from intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma on contrast-enhanced MRI.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging Improves the Prognostic Outcomes in Patients With Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma After Curative-Intent Resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Clinical Value of Machine Learning-Based Ultrasomics in Preoperative Differentiation Between Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: A Multicenter Study.Frontiers in oncology · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine imaging hallmarks for distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas (IMBCs) from hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to validate their diagnostic ability using Bayesian statistics.
methodsStudy 1 retrospectively identified clinical and imaging hallmarks that distinguish IMBCs (n = 41) from HCC (n = 247) using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Study 2 retrospectively assessed the diagnostic ability of these hallmarks to distinguish IMBCs (n = 37) from HCC (n = 111) using Bayesian statistics with images obtained from a different institution. We also assessed the diagnostic ability of the hallmarks in the patient subgroup with high diagnostic confidence (≥ 80% of post-test probability). Two radiologists independently evaluated the imaging findings in studies 1 and 2.
resultsIn study 1, arterial phase peritumoral parenchymal enhancement on CT/MRI, delayed enhancement on CT/MRI, diffusion-weighted imaging peripheral hyperintensity, and bile duct dilatation were hallmarks indicating IMBCs, whereas chronic liver disease, non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement on CT/MRI, enhancing capsule on CT/MRI, and opposed-phase signal drop were hallmarks indicating HCC (p = 0.001-0.04). In study 2, Bayesian statistics-based post-test probability combining all hallmark features had a diagnostic accuracy of 89.2% (132/148) in distinguishing IMBCs from HCC for both readers. In the high diagnostic confidence subgroup (n = 120 and n = 124 for readers 1 and 2, respectively), the accuracy improved (95.0% (114/120) and 93.5% (116/124) for readers 1 and 2, respectively).
conclusionsCombined interpretation of CT and MRI to identify hallmark features is useful in discriminating IMBCs from HCCs. High post-test probability by Bayesian statistics allows for a more reliable non-invasive diagnosis. KEY POINTS: • Combined interpretation of CT and MRI to identify hallmark features was useful in discriminating intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma. • Bayesian method-based post-test probability combining all hallmark features determined in study 1 showed high (> 90%) sensitivity and specificity for distinguishing intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas from hepatocellular carcinoma. • If the post-test probability or the confidence was ≥ 80% when combining the imaging features of CT and MRI, the high specificity of > 95% was achieved without any loss of sensitivity to distinguish hepatocellular carcinoma from intrahepatic mass-forming biliary carcinomas.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32500195What 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.