ArticleBMC medical imaging2024
Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography guidance avoids US-CT/MR fusion error for percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A shared-control ultrasound-guided robotic system for liver puncture under respiratory motion.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Taiwan Academy of Tumor Ablation (TATA) consensus on hepatocellular carcinoma ablation.Hepatology international · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Real-Time CT/MRI-US Fusion Imaging in Thermal Ablation of Ultrasonographically Inconspicuous Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cardiovascular and interventional 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the impact of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) combined with CT or MRI fusion imaging on percutaneous radiofrequency ablation (RFA) outcomes for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) inconspicuous on conventional ultrasonography (US).
methodsPatients were categorized into US-inconspicuous (USI) and US-conspicuous (USC) groups based on US imaging. The parameters of viable HCCs ⎯ including diameter, location, and RFA efficacy ⎯ were compared between USI and USC groups. Moreover, the breathing fusion imaging errors were measured. The differences in technical success, technical efficacy, local tumor progression, new tumor occurrence, and overall survival rate between USI and USC groups were analyzed.
resultsSixty-five patients with 106 lesions were included. CEUS showed high consistency with CT/MRI but revealed larger diameters (p < 0.001) and more feeding arteries (p = 0.019) than CT/MRI. Breathing fusion imaging errors averaged 17 ± 4 mm, significantly affecting lesions in segments II, III, V, and VI (p < 0.001). The USI group had more lesions ablated per patient in a single RFA procedure (p = 0.001) than the USC group. No significant differences were observed in technical success rate, technical efficacy rate, local tumor progression rate, and overall survival rate between the two groups.
conclusionsCEUS combined with fusion imaging provides detailed information on viable HCCs and their feeding arteries. CEUS-guided RFA avoids fusion imaging errors and achieves comparable efficacy in both US-conspicuous and US-inconspicuous HCCs.
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.