ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2025
Bolus-Tracked Biphasic Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging Following Microwave Liver Ablation Improves Ablation Zone Conspicuity and Semi-automatic Segmentation Quality.
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional 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.
- Single-room transcatheter CT hepatic angiography for microwave liver ablation: a feasibility and safety study.The British journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Commentary on, "Bolus-Tracked Biphasic Contrast-Enhanced CT Imaging Following Microwave Liver Ablation Improves Ablation Zone Conspicuity and Semi-automatic Segmentation Quality".Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeContrast-enhanced CT (CECT) may be performed immediately following microwave liver ablation for assessment of ablative margins. However, practices and protocols vary among institutions. Here, we compare a standardized bolus-tracked biphasic CECT protocol and compare this with a single venous phase fixed delay protocol for ablation zone (AZ) assessment.
methodsAn institutional review board approved study performed at a specialist cancer centre. A prospective cohort of patients undergoing bolus-tracked biphasic imaging was compared with a retrospective cohort of patients who underwent fixed delay venous phase imaging. AZ conspicuity and segmentation quality were semi-quantitatively scored using Five-point Likert scales. Time between ablation and image acquisition was recorded for each AZ and was correlated to AZ conspicuity and segmentation quality.
resultsForty patients, median age 59 years (IQR 48-66 years), 24 men, underwent microwave ablation of 68 liver tumours. AZ conspicuity was higher in the bolus-tracked (n = 33) vs. fixed delay (n = 35) cohorts, 4.5 vs. 2.5, P < 0.0001. Commensurate segmentation quality was also higher, 5.0 vs. 3.0 respectively, P < 0.0001. Ordinal regression showed that image quality scores declined by 3-4% for each minute that passes after ablation, particularly for arterial phase images, where regression coefficients were - 0.04, P = 0.007, and -0.03, P = 0.012 for conspicuity and segmentation quality, respectively.
conclusionBolus-tracked biphasic contrast-enhanced CT protocols improve both conspicuity and semi-automatic segmentation quality of microwave liver ablation zones, particularly if imaged soon after ablation. EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE: Level 2b; exploratory prospective cohort study.
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.