ArticlePediatric radiology2023
Usefulness of central radiologic review in clinical trials of children with hepatoblastoma.
Article in Pediatric radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges with the PRETEXT staging system: a SIOPEL Radiology Group position paper.Pediatric radiology · 2026Review
- Hepatoblastoma.Nature reviews. Disease primers · 2025Review
- Radiological and clinical signatures to differentiate hepatocellular carcinoma from hepatoblastoma in children older than 5 years of age: a feasibility study.Pediatric radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNo previous research papers have reported a comparative survey of local radiologic diagnoses and central review in children with hepatoblastoma.
objectiveTo evaluate the utility of central review of children with hepatoblastoma enrolled in a clinical trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 91 children enrolled in a clinical trial conducted by the Japanese Study Group for Pediatric Liver Tumor. We compared the results of the initial pre-treatment extent of tumor (PRETEXT) disease staging performed at local sites with the results obtained on central review to determine the concurrence rates for tumor staging and additional criteria.
resultsThe concurrence rate for PRETEXT staging was 70%. As the stage increased, the concurrence rate decreased. Using additional criteria, central review identified 143 lesions (157.1%), about 1.8 times higher than the number identified for the local site diagnoses. The additional criterion found most often on central review was "multifocal lesion" (n=19). The concurrence rate for lung metastases was high. However, our central review found many false-positive assertions of hepatic vein lesions, portal vein invasion and extrahepatic lesions among the local site diagnoses.
conclusionIn a clinical trial of hepatoblastoma, central review provided a more precise diagnosis than local site diagnoses with respect to severe PRETEXT stages III and IV cases and other cases including hepatic and portal vein invasion. The central review process appears to be effective and essential for improving the quality of clinical trials.
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.