ArticlePloS one2020
Therapeutic response monitoring after targeted therapy in an orthotopic rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma using contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Focusing on inter-scanner, and inter-operator reproducibility.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Comprehensive and Repeatable Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Quantification Approach for Clinical Evaluations of Tumor Blood Flow.Investigative radiology · 2025Article
- Quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in rat models of hepatic acute graft-versus-host disease.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo assess therapeutic response monitoring after targeted therapy in an orthotopic rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using CEUS with focusing on inter-scanner and inter-operator reproducibility. MATERIALS AND
methodsFor reproducibility, CEUS was performed using two different US scanners by two operators in sixteen rat models of HCC. Using perfusion analysis software (VueBox ®), eleven parameters were collected, and intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) was used to analyze reproducibility. Then seventeen rat models of HCC were divided into treatment group (n = 8, 30 mg/kg/day sorafenib for five days) and control group (n = 9). CEUS was performed at baseline and 14 days after first treatment, and changes of perfusion parameters were analyzed.
resultsIn treatment group, CEUS perfusion parameters showed a significant change. The peak enhancement (PE, 2.50 x103±1.68 x103 vs 5.55x102±4.65x102, p = 0.010) and wash-in and wash out AUC (WiWoAUC, 1.07x105±6.48 x104 vs 2.65x104±2.25x104, p = 0.009) had significantly decreased two weeks after treatment. On the contrary, control group did not show a significant change, including PE (1.15 x103±7.53x102 vs 9.43x102± 7.81 x102, p = 0.632) and WiWoAUC (5.09 x104±3.25x104 vs 5.92 x104±3.20x104, p = 0.646). For reproducibility, the various degrees of inter-scanner reproducibility were from poor to good (ICC: <0.01-0.63). However, inter-operator reproducibility of important perfusion parameters, including WiAUC, WoAUC, and WiWoAUC, ranged from fair to excellent (ICC: 0.59-0.93) in a different scanner.
conclusionOur results suggest that CEUS is useful for assessment of the treatment response after targeted therapy and with fair to excellent inter-operator reproducibility.
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.