ArticleLiver cancer2020
A New Diagnostic Criterion with Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced MRI May Improve the Diagnostic Performance for Hepatocellular Carcinoma.
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.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparison of Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI versus multiphasic enhanced CT for detecting occult recurrence after curative ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound fusion imaging in percutaneous liver biopsy for liver lesions invisible on conventional B-mode ultrasound.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Gadoxetic acid disodium (Gd-EOB-DTPA) contrast-enhanced abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance in at-risk patients: a multi-center study in China.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2024Article
- [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 · 2024Review
- [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 · 2023Review
- Review
- Review
- Nomogram development and validation to predict Ki-67 expression of hepatocellular carcinoma derived from Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI combined with T1 mapping.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Article
- Surveillance, Diagnosis, and Treatment Outcomes of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Japan: 2021 Update.Liver cancer · 2021Article
- Article
- Image Guidance in Ablation for Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Fusion Imaging.Frontiers in oncology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.