Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33103093›Full record

ArticleJHEP reports : innovation in hepatology2020

Gadoxetic acid-based hepatobiliary MRI in hepatocellular carcinoma.

Jens Ricke, Ingo G Steffen, Irene Bargellini, Thomas Berg, José Ignacio Bilbao Jaureguizar, Bernhard Gebauer, Roberto Iezzi, Christian Loewe, Musturay Karçaaltincaba, Maciej Pech and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Patient Selection for Downstaging of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Prior to Liver Transplantation-Adjusting the Odds?Transplant international : official journal of the European Society for Organ Transplantation · 2022
    Review
  20. 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

15 authors at 12 institutions in 9 countries.

Jens RickeDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ingo G SteffenDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Irene BargelliniDepartment of Interventional Radiology, Pisa University Hospital, Pisa, Italy.
Thomas BergKlinik und Poliklinik für Gastroenterologie, Sektion Hepatologie, Universitätsklinikum Leipzig AöR, Leipzig, Germany.
José Ignacio Bilbao JaureguizarDepartment of Radiology, Clínica Universidad de Navarra, Pamplona, Spain.
Bernhard GebauerDepartment of Radiology, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Roberto IezziDipartimento di Diagnostica per Immagini, Radioterapia Oncologica ed Ematologia, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, UOC di Radiologia, Rome, Italy.
Christian LoeweSection of Cardiovascular and Interventional Radiology, Department of Bioimaging and Image-Guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Musturay KarçaaltincabaDepartment of Radiology, Hacettepe University School of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey.
Maciej PechDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, University of Magdeburg, Magdeburg, Germany.
Christian SengelRadiologie interventionnelle vasculaire et percutanée, CHU de Grenoble, Grenoble, France.
Otto van DeldenDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Academic Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Vincent VandecaveyeDepartment of Radiology, University Hospitals Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Christoph J ZechRadiology and Nuclear Medicine, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Max SeidenstickerDepartment of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DEAgostino Gemelli University Polyclinic · ITCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de Grenoble · FRCharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEClinica Universidad de Navarra · ESHacettepe University · TRKlinik und Poliklinik für Neurologie · DEKU Leuven · BEMedical University of Vienna · ATUniversity Hospital Magdeburg · DEUniversity of Amsterdam · NLUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND &

aimsSORAMIC is a prospective phase II randomised controlled trial in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). It consists of 3 parts: a diagnostic study and 2 therapeutic studies with either curative ablation or palliative Yttrium-90 radioembolisation combined with sorafenib. We report the diagnostic cohort study aimed to determine the accuracy of gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), including hepatobiliary phase (HBP) imaging features compared with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT). The primary objective was the accuracy of treatment decisions stratifying patients for curative or palliative (non-ablation) treatment.

methodsPatients with clinically suspected HCC underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (HBP MRI, including dynamic MRI) and contrast-enhanced CT. Blinded read of the image data was performed by 2 reader groups (radiologists, R1 and R2). A truth panel with access to all clinical data and follow-up imaging served as reference. Imaging criteria for curative ablation were defined as up to 4 lesions <5 cm and absence of macrovascular invasion. The primary endpoint was non-inferiority of HBP MRI

resultsThe intent-to-treat population comprised 538 patients. Treatment decisions matched the truth panel assessment in 83.3% and 81.2% for HBP MRI (R1 and R2), and 73.4% and 70.8% for CT. Non-inferiority and superiority (second step) of HBP MRI

conclusionsIn HCC, HBP MRI provided a more accurate decision than CT for a curative LAY SUMMARY: Patients with hepatocellular carcinoma are allocated to curative or palliative treatment according to the stage of their disease. Hepatobiliary imaging using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI is more accurate than CT for treatment decision-making.

Indexed as

APASL, Asian Pacific Association for the Study of the LiverBCLC, Barcelona Clinic Liver CancerCT, computed tomographyDWI, diffusion-weighted imagingGadoxetic acidGEE, generalised estimating equationGRE, gradient echoHBP, hepatobiliary phaseHCC, hepatocellular carcinomaHepatocellular carcinomaHGDN, high-grade dysplastic noduleITT, intent to treatMagnetic resonance imagingMRI, magnetic resonance imagingOR, odds ratioPP, per protocolRFA, radio-frequency ablationSORAMIC, Sorafenib and Micro-Therapy Guided by Gadolinium-EOB-DTPA-Enhanced MRISORAMIC trialTSE, turbo spin echo

Identifiers

PMID33103093
PMCPMC7578758
OpenAlexW3080847075

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.