ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
How to differentiate between combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with rim arterial phase hyperenhancement?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2024. 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, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Intratumoral heterogeneity of CT enhancement for component prediction and prognostic significance in combined hepatocellular carcinoma‑cholangiocarcinoma.European radiology · 2026Article
- Differentiating combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma from mass-forming intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with MRI and tumor markers: a multi-center study.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo analyze and compare the differences in MRI features between combined hepatocellular carcinoma-cholangiocarcinoma (cHCC-CCA) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (iCCA) with arterial phase peripheral enhancement, so as to provide valuable references for preoperative differential diagnosis.
methodsSeventy cHCC-CCA patients and 74 iCCA patients confirmed by pathology were included in this study. Their contrast-enhanced MRI showed rim arterial phase hyperenhancement (Rim APHE). The differences of clinicopathological data and MRI features between cHCC-CCA and iCCA were compared. Then, the sensitivity, specificity, and area under curve (AUC) were also analyzed and compared.
resultsSeventy cHCC-CCA patients (mean age, 55.7 ± 10.6 years) and 74 iCCA patients (mean age, 61.1 ± 10.5 years) were evaluated. In this study, univariable and multivariable regression analysis showed that AFP > 20 ng/ml (OR = 5.824, p = 0.006), enhancing capsule (OR = 7.252, p = 0.001), and mosaic architecture (OR = 32.732, p < 0.001) were independent risk factors of cHCC-CCA with Rim APHE. However, only hepatic capsule retraction (OR = 0.091, p < 0.001) was an independent predictor of iCCA. In addition, combining AFP > 20 ng/ml with enhancing capsule (96.7% vs. 79.2%, p < 0.001) and/or mosaic architecture (96.4% vs. 94.7%, p < 0.001) can improve the sensitivity of differentiating cHCC-CCA (vs. iCCA) with Rim APHE.
conclusionThe combination of elevated AFP and MRI features, such as enhancing capsule and mosaic architecture, will help in preoperative differential diagnosis of cHCC-CCA and iCCA with Rim APHE.
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.