ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Clear cell hepatocellular carcinoma: Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MR imaging features and prognosis.
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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
purposeTo investigate imaging findings on gadolinium-ethoxybenzyl-diethylenetriamine pentaacetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (Gd-EOB-DTPA-enhanced MRI) and prognosis of clear cell hepatocellular carcinoma (CCHCC) comparing with non-otherwise specified hepatocellular carcinoma (NOS-HCC).
methodsThe clinical, pathological and MR imaging features of 42 patients with CCHCC and 84 age-matched patients with NOS-HCC were retrospectively analyzed from January 2015 to October 2021. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression and Cox regression analyses were performed to identify independent diagnostic and prognostic factors for CCHCC. Disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS) were determined by Kaplan-Meier analysis.
resultsCCHCC showed fat content more frequently (P < 0.001) and relatively higher Edmondson tumor grade (P = 0.001) compared with NOS-HCC. The lesion-to-muscle ratio (LMR) and lesion-to-liver ratio (LLR) of CCHCC on pre-enhancement T1-weighted imaging (pre-T1WI) (P = 0.001, P = 0.003) and hepatobiliary phase (HBP) (P = 0.007, P = 0.048) were significantly higher than those of NOS-HCC. The area under the curve (AUC) for fat content, LLR on pre-T1WI and their combination with better diagnostic performance in predicting CCHCC were 0.678, 0.666, and 0.750, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes between CCHCC and NOS-HCC. Multivariate Cox analysis confirmed that tumor size > 2 cm and enhancing capsule were independent prognostic factors for DFS and OS among CCHCC patients.
conclusionFat content and adjusted lesion signal intensity on pre-T1WI and HBP could be used to differentiate CCHCC from NOS-HCC. CCHCC had similar prognosis with NOS-HCC.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38557768What 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.