ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2023
Evaluation of liver metastasis in patients with breast cancer: Comparison of single-phase abdominopelvic CT and multi-phase liver CT.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A two-step automatic identification of contrast phases for abdominal CT images based on residual networks.Insights into imaging · 2025Article
- Imaging in metastatic breast cancer, CT, PET/CT, MRI, WB-DWI, CCA: review and new perspectives.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the usefulness of multi-phase liver CT and single-phase abdominopelvic CT (APCT) in evaluating liver metastasis in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.
methodsIn this retrospective study, a total of 7621 newly diagnosed breast cancer patients (mean age, 49.7 years ± 10.1; 7598 women) who underwent single-phase APCT (n = 5536) or multi-phase liver CT (n = 2085) for staging workup between January 2016 and June 2019 were included. The staging CTs were categorized as having no metastasis, probable metastasis, or indeterminate lesions. MRI referral rate (proportion of patients underwent additional liver MRI), negative MRI rate (patients without true hepatic metastasis / patients underwent liver MRI), true positive CT rate (patients with true metastasis / patients categorized as probable metastasis), true metastasis rate among CT indeterminate (patients with true metastasis / patients categorized as indeterminate lesions), and overall liver metastasis rate were compared between the two groups. Further, the radiation dose was recorded for every patient.
resultsThe proportions of having no metastasis and indeterminate lesions on the results of CT interpretation were significantly different between the two groups (P = 0.006). However, the MRI referral rate, negative MR rate, true positive CT rate, true metastasis rate among CT indeterminate, and overall liver metastasis rate were not significantly different between the two groups. Radiation dose of multi-phase CT was three times higher than that of single-phase CT.
conclusionMulti-phase liver CT has little benefit over single-phase APCT in assessing liver metastasis in patients with breast cancer.
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.