ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2024
Intra-individual comparison of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound and SonoVue contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma.
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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess whether the diagnostic performance of Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound (SZUS) is non-inferior to that of SonoVue contrast-enhanced ultrasound (SVUS) in diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) in individuals with high risk. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study was conducted from October 2020 to May 2022 and included participants with a high risk of HCC who underwent SZUS and SVUS. All lesions were confirmed by clinical or pathological diagnosis. Each nodule was classified according to the Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System version 2017 (CEUS LI-RADS v2017) for SVUS and SZUS and the modified CEUS LI-RADS (using Kupffer phase defect instead of late and mild washout) for SZUS. The diagnostic performance of both two modalities for all observations was compared. Analysis of the vascular phase and Kupffer phase imaging characteristics of CEUS was performed.
resultsOne hundred and fifteen focal liver lesions from 113 patients (94 HCCs, 12 non-HCC malignancies, and 9 benign lesions) were analysed. According to CEUS LI-RADS (v2017), SVUS and SZUS showed similar sensitivity (71.3% vs. 72.3%) and specificity (85.7% vs. 81.0%) in HCC diagnosis. However, the modified CEUS LI-RADS did not significantly improve the diagnostic efficacy of Sonazoid compared to CEUS LI-RADS v2017, having equivalent sensitivity (73.4% vs. 72.3%) and specificity (81.0% vs. 81.0%). The agreement between SVUS and SZUS for all observations was 0.610 (95% CI 0.475, 0.745), while for HCCs it was 0.452 (95% CI 0.257, 0.647).
conclusionUsing LI-RADS v2017, SZUS and SVUS showed non-inferior efficacy in evaluating HCC lesions. In addition, adding Kupffer phase defects to SZUS does not notably improve its diagnostic efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38584190What 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.