ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
LI-RADS for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma by contrast-enhanced US with SonoVue and Sonazoid-a single center prospective study.
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 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.
- Review
- Systematic evaluation and meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound contrast in predicting the efficacy of systemic therapy for advanced hepatocellular carcinoma.Translational cancer research · 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
purposeTo compare the diagnostic performance of two algorithms for HCC diagnosis: SonoVue-CEUS based on CEUS LI-RADS version 2017 and a modified algorithm incorporating Kupffer-phase findings for Sonazoid-CEUS.
methodsThis single center prospective study enrolled high-risk patients for HCC. Each participant underwent SonoVue-CEUS and Sonazoid-CEUS. Each liver observation was assigned two LI-RADS categories according to each algorithm: SonoVue-CEUS LI-RADS and modified Sonazoid-CEUS LI-RADS. For the latter method, observations at least 10 mm with non-rim arterial phase hyperenhancement were upgraded LR-4 to LR-5 if there was no washout with a Kupffer defect and were reassigned LR-M to LR-5 if there was early washout with mild Kupffer defect. The reference standard was pathologic confirmation.
resultsOverall, 66 patients (mean age, 61.2 years ± 10.9; 54 male patients, 12 female patients) with 66 observations (mean size, 31 mm ± 16) were eventually enrolled. The results of Sonazoid-CEUS LI-RADS showed significant changes in sensitivity (82% vs. 65%, p < 0.001), accuracy (85% vs. 71%, p < 0.001) compared with the SonoVue-CEUS LI-RADS. There was no significant difference in specificity (93% vs. 87%, p = 0.26).
conclusionWhen incorporating Kupffer-phase findings, Sonazoid-CEUS LI-RADS had higher sensitivity without loss of specificity compared with SonoVue-CEUS LI-RADS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40116886What 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.