Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32999868›Full record

ArticleLiver cancer2020

A New Diagnostic Criterion with Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI May Improve the Diagnostic Performance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.

Yi Wei, Zheng Ye, Yuan Yuan, Zixing Huang, Xiaocheng Wei, Tong Zhang, Shang Wan, Hehan Tang, Xiaopeng He, Bin Song

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Liver cancer, 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
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [Application and prospects of magnetic resonance imaging techniques in the diagnosis and evaluation of hepatocellular carcinoma].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2024
    Review
  5. [Problems and pitfalls of the hepatocyte-specific contrast agent gadoxetate disodium for assessing the main criteria of LI-RADS version 2018].Zhonghua gan zang bing za zhi = Zhonghua ganzangbing zazhi = Chinese journal of hepatology · 2023
    Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yi WeiDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zheng YeDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Yuan YuanDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Zixing HuangDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xiaocheng WeiGE Healthcare China, Beijing, China.
Tong ZhangDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Shang WanDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Hehan TangDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Xiaopeng HeDepartment of Radiology, The Affiliated Hospital, Southwest Medical University, Luzhou, China.
Bin SongDepartment of Radiology, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
West China Hospital of Sichuan University · CNSichuan University · CNAffiliated Hospital of Southwest Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo prospectively establish and validate new diagnostic criterion (DC) for liver-specific contrast agents and further compared the diagnostic sensitivity and specificity with conventional DC.

methodsInstitutional Review Board approved and written informed consent were obtained for this prospective study. Two board-certified reviewers established the reference standard as hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), non-HCC lesions by using marks on all cross-sectional MR images. Another 2 abdominal radiologists independently performed the marked lesion observations using 5 different DCs, including DC-1: arterial phase hyperenhancement (APHE) and portal venous phase washout; DC-2: APHE and hepatobiliary phase (HBP) hypointensity; DC-3: APHE and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) hyperintensity; DC-4: HBP hypointensity and DWI hyperintensity; DC-5: HBP hypointensity, DWI hyperintensity and excluded these markedly T2 hyperintensity. Diagnostic performance of sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for each imaging DC was calculated, per-lesion diagnostic sensitivity and specificity of imaging criteria were compared by using

resultsA total of 215 patients were included (mean age 53.82 ± 11.24 years; range 24-82 years) with 265 hepatic nodules (175 HCCs and 90 non-HCCs). The DC-4 (93.71%; 164/175) and DC-5 (92.57%; 162/175) yielded the highest diagnostic sensitivity and was better than DC-1 (72.57%; 127/175), DC-2 (82.86%; 145/175), and DC-3 (82.29%; 144/175) (all

conclusionsThe combined use of HBP hypointensity and DWI hyperintensity as a new DC for HCC enables a high diagnostic sensitivity and comparable specificity.

Indexed as

Diagnostic criterionDiagnostic performanceGadoxetic acid enhancedHepatocellular carcinomaMagnetic resonance imaging

Identifiers

PMID32999868
PMCPMC7506240
OpenAlexW3017364250

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.