ArticleHepatology communications2021
Clinical Staging of Mass-Forming Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: Computed Tomography Versus Magnetic Resonance Imaging.
Article in Hepatology communications, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Imaging of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: from detection to personalized treatments.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
- Real-world evidence in a large cohort comparing FAPI and FDG PET/CT for hepatopancreatobiliary cancer diagnosis.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Imaging differentiation of hepatocellular carcinoma, combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma, and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: pitfalls and advances.Journal of liver cancer · 2026Review
- Head-to-head comparison of [Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Cholangiocarcinoma 2026: status quo, unmet needs and priorities.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Preoperative scoring system for predicting microvascular invasion in intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma using gadoxetate-enhanced MRI.European radiology · 2025Article
- MRI-based microvascular invasion prediction in mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: survival and therapeutic benefit.European radiology · 2025Article
- Standardized reporting of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Review
- Comparison of MRI and CT based deep learning radiomics analyses and their combination for diagnosing intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Autopsy diagnosis of diffuse intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Clinical journal of gastroenterology · 2025Article
- Determining the gross tumor volume for hepatocellular carcinoma radiotherapy based on multi-phase contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging.Clinical and translational radiation oncology · 2025Article
- LI-RADS Category Can Be a Post-Surgical Prognostic Factor for Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma in Patients with Liver Cirrhosis or Chronic Hepatitis B.Liver cancer · 2024Article
- Imaging findings of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma for prognosis prediction and treatment decision-making: a narrative review.Ewha medical journal · 2024Review
- Imaging features and management of focal liver lesions.World journal of radiology · 2024Review
- Diagnosis of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with CEUS.Journal of ultrasonography · 2024Review
- Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Imaging in the Management of Intrahepatic Cholangiocarcinoma: State of Art and Future Perspectives.Cancers · 2023Review
- A Narrative Review on LI-RADS Algorithm in Liver Tumors: Prospects and Pitfalls.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Article
- Conventional, functional and radiomics assessment for intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma.Infectious agents and cancer · 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
10 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We compared the performance of computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for preoperative clinical staging of mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA), using the eighth American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) system. This retrospective, multicenter, cohort study consecutively identified patients who underwent partial hepatectomy for mass-forming iCCA and had preoperative CT and MRI performed from January 2009 to December 2015. CT and MRI characteristics were used to determine clinical stage based on the eighth AJCC system. Performances of CT and MRI for clinical T and N staging were compared using generalized estimating equations. In 334 patients (median age, 63 years; 221 men), MRI sensitivities were significantly higher than CT sensitivities for detecting T1b or higher stages (91.0% vs. 80.5%, respectively, P < 0.001), T2 or higher stages (89.1% vs. 73.8%, respectively, P < 0.001), and T3 or T4 stage (77.8% vs. 58.0%, respectively, P < 0.001). MRI was also more sensitive at identifying multiple tumors than CT (66.7% vs. 50.0%, respectively, P = 0.026), without a significant difference in specificity (78.1% vs. 80.1%, respectively, P = 0.342). Sensitivities were comparable between CT and MRI for determination of size >5 cm (i.e., T1b for single tumor) and extrahepatic organ invasion (i.e., T4). Sensitivities of CT and MRI were not different for N stage (65.0% vs. 64.0%, respectively, P = 0.808), but the specificity of CT was significantly higher than that of MRI (80.7% vs. 72.9%, respectively, P = 0.001) when using a composite reference standard. Conclusion: MRI showed superior sensitivity to CT for diagnosing T2 and T3 stages, particularly multiple tumors. CT and MRI had comparable sensitivity for N staging, but CT provided higher specificity than MRI.
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.