ArticlePloS one2021
The role of quantitative diffusion-weighted imaging in characterization of hypovascular liver lesions: A prospective comparison of intravoxel incoherent motion derived parameters and apparent diffusion coefficient.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Values on Diffusion-Weighted MRI for Differentiating Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Apparent diffusion coefficient correlates with different histopathological features in several intrahepatic tumors.European radiology · 2023Article
- Intravoxel incoherent motion imaging used to assess tumor microvascular changes after transarterial chemoembolization in a rabbit VX2 liver tumor model.Frontiers in oncology · 2023Article
- The Utility of Conventional CT, CT Perfusion and Quantitative Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Predicting the Risk Level of Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors of the Stomach: A Prospective Comparison of Classical CT Features, CT Perfusion Values, Apparent Diffusion Coefficient and Intravoxel Incoherent Motion-Derived Parameters.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Conventional, functional and radiomics assessment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 2022Article
- Value of Intravoxel Incoherent Motion (IVIM) Imaging for Differentiation between Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma and Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Contrast media & molecular imaging · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe utility of intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) related parameters in differentiation of hypovascular liver lesions is still unknown. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the value of IVIM related parameters in comparison to apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) for differentiation among intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma (IMC), and hypovascular liver metastases (HLM).
methodsSeventy-four prospectively enrolled patients (21 IMC, and 53 HLM) underwent 1.5T magnetic resonance examination with IVIM diffusion-weighted imaging using seven b values (0-800 s/mm2). Two independent readers performed quantitative analysis of IVIM-related parameters and ADC. Interobserver reliability was tested using a intraclass correlation coefficient. ADC, true diffusion coefficient (D), perfusion-related diffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (ƒ) were compared among the lesions using Kruskal-Wallis H test. The diagnostic accuracy of each parameter was assessed by receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.
resultsThe interobserver agreement was good for ADC (0.802), and excellent for D, D*, and ƒ (0.911, 0.927, and 0.942, respectively). ADC, and D values were significantly different among IMC and HLM (both p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference among these lesions for ƒ and D* (p = 0.101, and p = 0.612, respectively). ROC analysis showed higher diagnostic performance of D in comparison to ADC (AUC = 0.879 vs 0.821).
conclusionIVIM-derived parameters in particular D, in addition to ADC, could help in differentiation between most common hypovascular malignant liver lesions, intrahepatic mass-forming cholangiocarcinoma and hypovascular 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.