ArticleEuropean radiology2021
Evaluation of LI-RADS 3 category by magnetic resonance in US-detected nodules ≤ 2 cm in cirrhotic patients.
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 10 papers, 4 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- 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
- Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled 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
- What is the risk of HCC in hypervascular LI-RADS 3 observations without ancillary features in routine clinical practice?Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Performance of PSMA PET/MRI in Characterizing LI-RADS 3 Observations in Patients with Cirrhosis.Journal of nuclear medicine : official publication, Society of Nuclear Medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced US in small liver nodules not conclusively characterized after MRI in cirrhotic patients.European radiology · 2025Article
- Utilizing a domain-specific large language model for LI-RADS v2018 categorization of free-text MRI reports: a feasibility study.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Clinical impact of CEUS on non-characterizable observations and observations with intermediate probability of malignancy on CT/MRI in patients at risk for HCC.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2024Article
- Clinical Application of Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System for Characterizing Liver Neoplasms: A Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
12 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesLiver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis in high-risk patients is a dynamic system, which was lastly updated in 2018. We aimed to evaluate the accuracy for HCC diagnosis of LI-RADS v2018 with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with extracellular contrast for solitary nodules ≤ 20 mm detected during ultrasound (US) surveillance in cirrhotic patients, with particular interest in those observations categorized as LI-RADS 3.
methodsBetween November 2003 and February 2017, we included 262 consecutive cirrhotic patients with a newly US-detected solitary ≤ 20-mm nodule. A LI-RADS (LR) v2018 category was retrospectively assigned. The diagnostic accuracy for each LR category was described, and the main MRI findings associated with HCC diagnosis were analyzed.
resultsFinal diagnoses were as follows: 197 HCC (75.2%), 5 cholangiocarcinoma (1.9%), 2 metastasis (0.8%), and 58 benign lesions (22.1%); 0/15 (0%) LR-1, 6/26 (23.1%) LR-2, 51/74 (68.9%) LR-3, 11/12 (91.7%) LR-4, 126/127 (99.2%) LR-5, and 3/8 (37.5%) LR-M were HCC. LR-5 category displayed a sensitivity and specificity of 64% (95% CI, 56.8-70.7) and 98.5% (95% CI, 91.7-100), respectively. Considering also LR-4 as diagnostic for HCC, the sensitivity slightly increased to 69.5% (95% CI, 62.6-75.9) with minor impact on specificity (96.2%; 95% CI, 89.3-99.6). Regarding LR-3 observations, 51 out of 74 were HCC, 2 were non-HCC malignancies, and 20 out of 21 LR-3 nodules > 15 mm (95.2%) were finally categorized as HCC.
conclusionsThe high probability of HCC in US-detected LR-3 observations (68.9%) justifies triggering an active diagnostic work-up if intended to diagnose HCC at a very early stage. KEY POINTS: • In cirrhotic patients with nodules ≤ 20 mm detected during US surveillance, 51 out of 74 (68.9%) of LR-3 nodules by MRI corresponded to an HCC. • In LR-3 nodules, HCC diagnosis was closely related to baseline tumor size. All 5 nodules smaller than 1 cm were diagnosed as benign. Oppositely, 20 out of 21 LR-3 observations > 15 mm (95.2%) were diagnosed as HCC. • The high probability of HCC in US-detected LR-3 observations justifies triggering an active diagnostic work-up if intended to diagnose HCC at a very early stage.
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.