ArticleJournal of liver cancer2024
Re-assessing the diagnostic value of the enhancing capsule in hepatocellular carcinoma imaging.
Article in Journal of liver cancer, 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.
- Clinical and LI-RADS features on gadoxetic acid‑enhanced MRI for predicting complete response after transarterial chemoembolization in hepatocellular carcinoma > 2 cm.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Article
- Value of enhancing capsule for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma on MRI: implications for simplifying LI-RADS.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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUNDS/
aimsThe enhancing capsule (EC) in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) diagnosis has received varying degrees of recognition across major guidelines. This study aimed to assess the diagnostic utility of EC in HCC detection.
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed patients who underwent pre-surgical computed tomography (CT) and hepatobiliary agent-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (HBA-MRI) between January 2016 and December 2019. A single hepatic tumor was confirmed based on the pathology of each patient. Three radiologists independently reviewed the images according to the Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System (LI-RADS) v2018 criteria and reached a consensus. Interobserver agreement for EC before reaching a consensus was quantified using Fleiss κ statistics. The impact of EC on the LI-RADS classification was assessed by comparing the positive predictive values for HCC detection in the presence and absence of EC.
resultsIn total, 237 patients (median age, 60 years; 184 men) with 237 observations were included. The interobserver agreement for EC detection was notably low for CT (κ=0.169) and HBA-MRI (κ=0.138). The presence of EC did not significantly alter the positive predictive value for HCC detection in LI-RADS category 5 observations on CT (94.1% [80/85] vs. 94.6% [88/93], P=0.886) or HBAMRI (95.7% [88/92] vs. 90.6% [77/85], P=0.178).
conclusionsThe diagnostic value of EC in HCC diagnosis remains questionable, given its poor interobserver agreement and negligible impact on positive predictive values for HCC detection. This study challenges the emphasis on EC in certain diagnostic guidelines and suggests the need to re-evaluate its role in HCC imaging.
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.