ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Prognostic value of LI-RADS category on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and 18F-FDG PET-CT in patients with primary liver carcinomas.
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 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Performance of LI-RADS category 5 vs combined categories 4 and 5: a systemic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2018 category 5 for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma: an updated meta-analysis.European radiology · 2024Pooled it
- MRI-diagnosis of category LR-M observations in the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System v2018: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European radiology · 2022Pooled it
- Integrating CEUS Imaging Features and LI-RADS Classification for Postoperative Early Recurrence Prediction in Solitary Hepatocellular Carcinoma: A Machine Learning-Based Prognostic Approach.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
- Inter-reader agreement for CT/MRI LI-RADS category M imaging features: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of liver cancer · 2024Article
- Prognostic performance of MRI LI-RADS version 2018 features and clinical-pathological factors in alpha-fetoprotein-negative hepatocellular carcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Proliferative hepatocellular carcinomas in cirrhosis: patient outcomes of LI-RADS category 4/5 and category M.European radiology · 2024Article
- LI-RADS category is associated with treatment outcomes of small single HCC: surgical resection vs. radiofrequency ablation.European radiology · 2024Article
- Prognostic value of LI-RADS category on MRI in patients with primary hepatic lymphoepithelioma-like carcinoma.European radiology · 2023Article
- Non-invasive imaging in the diagnosis of combined hepatocellular carcinoma and cholangiocarcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2023Review
- LI-RADS: Looking Back, Looking Forward.Radiology · 2023Review
- Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI with a focus on LI-RADS v2018 imaging features predicts the prognosis after radiofrequency ablation in small hepatocellular carcinoma.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Up-to-Date Role of CT/MRI LI-RADS in Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the postoperative prognostic value of the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) category on gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose PET-CT in patients with primary liver carcinomas (PLCs).
methodsA total of 189 patients with chronic liver disease and surgically proven single PLC (42 intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas and 21 combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinomas and 126 hepatocellular carcinomas [2:1 matching to non-HCC malignancies]) were retrospectively evaluated with gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI and PET-CT. Two independent reviewers assigned an LI-RADS category for each observation. The tumor-to-liver standardized uptake value ratio (TLR) was calculated. The overall survival (OS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), and the associated factors were evaluated.
resultsIn multivariable analysis, LI-RADS category (LR-4 or LR-5 [LR-4/5] vs. LR-M; OS, hazard ratio [HR] 2.24, p = 0.006; RFS, HR 1.61, p = 0.028) and TLR (low, < 2.3 vs. high, ≥ 2.3; OS, HR 2.09, p = 0.014; RFS, HR 2.17, p < 0.001) were the independent factors for OS and RFS. For the LR-M group, the high TLR group showed lower OS and RFS rates than the low TLR group (OS, p = 0.008; RFS, p < 0.001). For the LR-4/5 group, the OS and RFS rates were not significantly different between the high TLR and low TLR groups (both p > 0.05).
conclusionsBoth LI-RADS category on MRI and TLR on PET-CT are associated with the postoperative prognosis of PLCs. The prognosis of PLCs classified as LR-M can be further stratified according to the TLR group, but not for the PLCs classified as LR-4/5. KEY POINTS: • The LI-RADS category (LR-4/5 vs. LR-M) and tumor-to-liver standardized uptake value ratio (TLR, low vs. high) were independent factors for postoperative prognosis of primary liver carcinomas (PLCs). • For PLCs classified as LR-M, the TLR group helps stratify the postoperative prognosis of PLCs, with the high TLR group having a poor prognosis and the low TLR group having a better prognosis (p = 0.008 for OS and p < 0.001 for RFS). • For PLCs classified as LR-4/5, the OS and RFS rates were not significantly different between the high TLR and low TLR groups (both p > 0.05).
Indexed as
Identifiers
33211142What 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.