ArticleRadiology. Imaging cancer2025
Evaluation of Local Tumor Outcomes Following Microwave Ablation of Colorectal Liver Metastases Using CT Imaging: A Comparison of Visual versus Quantitative Methods.
Article in Radiology. Imaging cancer, 2025. 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.
- Precision of Ablation Margin Assessment After Liver Microwave Ablation: A Head-to-Head Comparison of Visual and Software-Assisted Methods.Cardiovascular and interventional radiology · 2026Article
- Transcatheter CT Hepatic Arteriography versus Conventional CT Guidance for Percutaneous Microwave Ablation of Small Hepatocellular Carcinoma Tumors.Radiology. Imaging cancer · 2026Article
- Margins matter: raising the bar for thermal ablation through quantitative imaging validation in COVER-ALL.Translational gastroenterology and hepatology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose To compare visual versus quantitative ablation confirmation for identifying local tumor progression and residual tumor following microwave ablation (MWA) of colorectal liver metastases (CRLM). Materials and Methods This retrospective study included patients undergoing MWA of CRLM from October 2014 to February 2018. Two independent readers visually assessed pre- and postprocedure images and semiquantitatively scored for incomplete ablation, using a six-point Likert scale, and extracted quantitative imaging metrics of minimal ablative margin (MAM) and percentage of tumor outside of the ablation zone, using both rigid and deformable registration. Diagnostic accuracy and intra- and interobserver agreement were assessed. Results The study included 60 patients (median age, 71 years [IQR, 60-74.5 years]; 38 male) with 97 tumors with a median diameter of 1.3 cm (IQR, 1.0-1.8 cm). Median follow-up time was 749 days (IQR, 330-1519 days). Median time to complete rigid and deformable workflows was 3.0 minutes (IQR, 3.0-3.2 minutes) and 14.0 minutes (IQR,13.9-14.4 minutes), respectively. MAM with deformable registration had the highest intra- and interobserver agreement, with Gwet AC1 of 0.92 and 0.67, respectively, significantly higher than interobserver agreement of visual assessment (Gwet AC1, 0.18;
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.