ArticleKorean journal of radiology2021
Intraindividual Comparison of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Washout between MRIs with Hepatobiliary and Extracellular Contrast Agents.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Magnetic resonance imaging for the diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma in adults with chronic liver disease.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Hepatobiliary phase imaging in HCC: revisiting diagnostic algorithms and clinical utility of gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI across international guidelines.Insights into imaging · 2026Review
- Value of enhancing capsule for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma on MRI: implications for simplifying LI-RADS.European radiology · 2026Article
- Comparison of Gadoxetic Acid-Enhanced Liver Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography for the Noninvasive Diagnosis of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Liver cancer · 2025Article
- Imaging diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinoma: Future directions with special emphasis on hepatobiliary magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.Clinical and molecular hepatology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo intraindividually compare hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) washout between MRIs using hepatobiliary agent (HBA) and extracellular agent (ECA). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study included 114 prospectively enrolled patients with chronic liver disease (mean age, 55 ± 9 years; 94 men) who underwent both HBA-MRI and ECA-MRI before surgical resection for HCC between November 2016 and May 2019. For 114 HCCs, the lesion-to-liver visual signal intensity ratio (SIR) using a 5-point scale (-2 to +2) was evaluated in each phase. Washout was defined as negative visual SIR with temporal reduction of visual SIR from the arterial phase. Illusional washout (IW) was defined as a visual SIR of 0 with an enhancing capsule. The frequency of washout and MRI sensitivity for HCC using LR-5 or its modifications were compared between HBA-MRI and ECA-MRI. Subgroup analysis was performed according to lesion size (< 20 mm or ≥ 20 mm).
resultsThe frequency of portal venous phase (PP) washout with HBA-MRI was comparable to that of delayed phase (DP) washout with ECA-MRI (77.2% [88/114] vs. 68.4% [78/114];
conclusionExtracellular phase washout for HCC diagnosis was comparable between MRIs with both contrast agents, except for tumors < 20 mm. Adding IW could improve the sensitivity for HCC on ECA-MRI in tumors < 20 mm.
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.