Trial reportEuropean radiology2025
3D-CEUS/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging vs 2D-CEUS after locoregional therapies for hepatocellular carcinoma: a multicenter prospective study of therapeutic response evaluation.
Trial report in European radiology, 2025. 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.
- Noninvasive molecular subtyping of breast cancer using multimodal ultrasound spatiotemporal transformer.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of 3D contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging with 2D-CEUS in assessing the response of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to locoregional therapies in a multicenter prospective study. MATERIALS AND
methodsA consecutive series of patients with HCC scheduled for locoregional treatment were enrolled between April 2021 and March 2023. Patients were randomly divided into 3D-CEUS/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging group (3D/fusion group) or 2D-CEUS group (2D group). CEUS was performed 1 week before and 4-6 weeks after locoregional treatment. Contrast-enhanced MRI (CE-MRI) 4-6 weeks after treatment was set as the reference standard. CEUS images were evaluated for the presence or absence of viable tumors. Diagnostic performance criteria, including sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC), were determined for each modality.
resultsA total of 140 patients were included, 70 patients in the 2D group (mean age, 60.2 ± 10.4 years) and 70 patients in the 3D/fusion group (mean age, 59.8 ± 10.6 years). The sensitivity of the 3D/fusion group was 100.0% (95% CI: 75.9, 100.0), higher than that of the 2D group (55.6%, 95% CI: 22.7, 84.7; p = 0.019). The specificity of the 3D/fusion group was 96.3% (95% CI: 86.2, 99.4), which was comparable to that of the 2D group (98.4%, 95% CI: 90.0, 99.9; p = 0.915). The AUC of the 3D/fusion group was 0.98 (95% CI: 0.95, 1.00), higher than that of the 2D group (0.77, 95% CI: 0.56, 0.98; p = 0.020).
conclusion3D-CEUS/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging exhibits superior diagnostic accuracy in evaluating the treatment response to locoregional therapies for HCC. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: 3D-CEUS/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging can be applied for post-treatment assessment of residual tumors in HCC undergoing locoregional treatment, offering potential benefits in terms of accurate diagnosis and clinical management. KEY POINTS: Evaluating for HCC recurrence following locoregional therapy is important. 3D-CEUS/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging achieved a higher sensitivity than 2D-CEUS in assessing residual tumors after locoregional therapies. 3D-CEUS/MRI-CEUS fusion imaging can help clinicians intervene early in residual HCC lesions after locoregional treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
38992106What 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.