ArticlePloS one2020
Abbreviated MRI protocol for colorectal liver metastases: How the radiologist could work in pre surgical setting.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05314400 (A Prospective Study Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy, Outcome, and Economic Impact of Abbreviated Gadoxetate-enhanced MRI of the Liver in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma), which is not on this map. Cited by 26 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.
A Prospective Study Evaluating Diagnostic Accuracy, Outcome, and Economic Impact of Abbreviated Gadoxetate-enhanced MRI of the Liver in Patients With Metastatic Colorectal Carcinoma
Who cites it
26 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance of simulated abbreviated liver MRI combined with CT for liver metastasis screening in rectal cancer staging.European radiology · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of abbreviated non-contrast liver MRI for detecting synchronous colorectal liver metastases.PloS one · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Certainty in Characterizing Liver Lesions in Rectal Cancer: Abbreviated Liver MRI versus CT.Annals of surgical oncology · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of non-contrast MRI versus gadoxetic acid-enhanced abbreviated protocols in detecting colorectal liver metastases.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- MRI management of focal liver lesions: what a beginner cannot fail to know.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Review
- Radiomics and machine learning analysis by computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging in colorectal liver metastases prognostic assessment.La Radiologia medica · 2023Article
- Colorectal liver metastases patients prognostic assessment: prospects and limits of radiomics and radiogenomics.Infectious agents and cancer · 2023Review
- Risk Assessment and Cholangiocarcinoma: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Biology · 2023Review
- Diagnostic Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Neoplasms: Technique Optimization and Tips and Tricks for Radiologists.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2023Review
- Imaging Features of Main Hepatic Resections: The Radiologist Challenging.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Machine Learning Approaches with Textural Features to Calculate Breast Density on Mammography.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2023Article
- Risk Assessment and Pancreatic Cancer: Diagnostic Management and Artificial Intelligence.Cancers · 2023Review
- Cost-effectiveness analysis of MRI, CE-CT and 18F-FDG PET/CT for detecting colorectal liver metastases eligible for hepatic resection.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- Abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging protocols in oncology: improving accessibility in precise diagnostics.Polish journal of radiology · 2023Review
- Diagnostic performance of abbreviated gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance protocols with contrast-enhanced computed tomography for detection of colorectal liver metastases.World journal of radiology · 2022Article
- Radiomics in medical imaging: pitfalls and challenges in clinical management.Japanese journal of radiology · 2022Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Radiomics and machine learning analysis based on magnetic resonance imaging in the assessment of liver mucinous colorectal metastases.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
- Imaging Features of Post Main Hepatectomy Complications: The Radiologist Challenging.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Radiomics textural features by MR imaging to assess clinical outcomes following liver resection in colorectal liver metastases.La Radiologia medica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMRI is the most reliable imaging modality that allows to assess liver metastases. Our purpose is to compare the per-lesion and per-patient detection rate of gadoxetic acid-(Gd-EOB) enhanced liver MRI and fast MR protocol including Diffusion Weighted Imaging (DWI) and T2-W Fat Suppression sequence in the detection of liver metastasis in pre surgical setting.
methodsOne hundred and eight patients with pathologically proven liver metastases (756 liver metastases) underwent Gd-EOBMRI were enrolled in this study. Three radiologist independently graded the presence of liver lesions on a five-point confidence scale assessed only abbreviated protocol (DWI and sampling perfection with application-optimized contrasts using different flip angle evolution (SPACE) fat suppressed sequence) and after an interval of more than 2 weeks the conventional study (all acquired sequences). Per-lesion and per-patient detection rate of metastases were calculated. Weighted к values were used to evaluate inter-reader agreement of the confidence scale regarding the presence of the lesion.
resultsMRI detected 732 liver metastases. All lesions were identified both by conventional study as by abbreviated protocol. In terms of per-lesion detection rate of liver metastasis, all three readers had higher detection rate both with abbreviated protocol and with standard protocol with Gd-EOB (96.8% [732 of 756] vs. 96.5% [730 of 756] for reader 1; 95.8% [725 of 756] vs. 95.2% [720 of 756] for reader 2; 96.5% [730 of 756] vs. 96.5% [730 of 756] for reader 3). Inter-reader agreement of lesions detection rate between the three radiologists was excellent (k range, 0.86-0.98) both for Gd-EOB MRI and for Fast protocol (k range, 0.89-0.99).
conclusionAbbreviated protocol showed the same detection rate than conventional study in detection of liver metastases.
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.