Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32910233›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Integrating baseline MR imaging biomarkers into BCLC and CLIP improves overall survival prediction of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC).

Mounes Aliyari Ghasabeh, Mohammadreza Shaghaghi, Ankur Pandey, Sanaz Ameli, Bharath Ambale Venkatesh, Angela Jacob, Pallavi Pandey, Bita Hazhirkarzar, Yan Luo, Roya Rezvani Habibabadi and 3 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Response Assessment of Primary Liver Tumors to Novel Therapies: an Imaging Perspective.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2023
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

13 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Mounes Aliyari GhasabehThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Mohammadreza ShaghaghiThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Ankur PandeyThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Sanaz AmeliThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Bharath Ambale VenkateshThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Angela JacobThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Pallavi PandeyThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Bita HazhirkarzarThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Yan LuoThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Roya Rezvani HabibabadiThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Pegah KhoshpouriThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Maryam GhadimiThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA.
Ihab R KamelThe Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Sciences, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 600 N. Wolfe Street/MRI 143, Baltimore, MD, 21287, USA. ikamel@jhmi.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0511-7796
Johns Hopkins University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the independent predictive role of baseline imaging biomarkers for overall survival (OS) and transplant-free survival (TFS) in patients with HCC and assess the incremental value of these biomarkers to current staging systems.

methodsIn this retrospective IRB approved study, the clinical, laboratory, and imaging parameters of 304 HCC patients were collected. Cox regression model was utilized to identify the potential predictors of survival. Recursive partitioning test was utilized to identify the optimal ADC cutoff for stratifying patients' OS. Patients were stratified based on Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) and Cancer of the Liver Italian Program (CLIP). Binary ADC value (above vs. below the cutoff) and tumor margin (well- vs. ill-defined) were integrated into BCLC and CLIP. OS and TFS was compared for patients based on standard criteria with and without imaging biomarkers.

resultsAt baseline, patients with low tumor ADC and well-defined tumor margin (favorable imaging biomarkers) had longer survival, as compared to those with high ADC and ill-defined tumor margin (unfavorable imaging biomarkers) (median OS of 43 months vs. 7 months, respectively) (p < 0.001). Tumor ADC and tumor margin remained strong independent predictors of survival after adjustment for demographics, BCLC and CLIP staging, and tumor burden. Incorporating ADC and tumor margin improved performance of OS prediction by 9% in BCLC group and 6% in CLIP group.

conclusionIncorporating ADC and tumor margin to current staging systems for HCC significantly improve prediction of OS and TFS of these criteria. KEY POINTS: • ADC and tumor margin are predictors of overall survival in HCC patients, independent of clinical, laboratory, and other imaging variables. • Adding ADC and tumor margin improved the prognostic value of BCLC and CLIP criteria by 9% and 6%, respectively. • High ADC and ill-defined tumor margin at baseline predicted poor survival, regardless of patient's liver function and general health status.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, HepatocellularLiver NeoplasmsBiomarkersHumansItalyMagnetic Resonance ImagingNeoplasm StagingPrognosisRetrospective StudiesBiomarkersCarcinoma, hepatocellularChemoembolization, therapeuticMagnetic resonance imagingNeoplasm stagingSurvival analysis

Identifiers

PMID32910233
OpenAlexW3086043859

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.