ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2025
Application of LI-RADS CT/MRI Radiation Treatment Response Assessment Version 2024: a study after transarterial radioembolization for hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The value ofEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
- Prognostic Value of MRI-Based Treatment Response Assessment Criteria in Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Stereotactic Body Radiotherapy: A Comparative Analysis of mRECIST, LI-RADS TRA Version 2017, and LI-RADS Radiation TRA Version 2024.Journal of magnetic resonance imaging : JMRI · 2026Article
- Letter to the Editor: Early post-treatment imaging enables timely diagnosis of viable hepatocellular carcinomas after selective internal radiation therapy.European radiology · 2026Article
- Role of MRI in Imaging Assessment of Radiation-Based Treatment of Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Cancers · 2026Review
- LI-RADS CT/MRI Treatment Response Assessment Update in 2024.Journal of the Korean Society of Radiology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo compare the performance of the LI-RADS CT/MRI Radiation Treatment Response Assessment (TRA) version 2024 (v2024) after transarterial radioembolization (TARE) for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) with that of the LI-RADS CT/MRI TRA version 2017 (v2017).
methodsThis retrospective study included patients with HCC treated with TARE followed by hepatic surgery between November 2012 and April 2023 at two tertiary referral centers. Each treated lesion was assigned an LI-RADS treatment response (LR-TR) category based on a consensus reading of three radiologists using both v2024 and v2017. The sensitivity and specificity of the two TRA versions were compared using the McNemar test, with histopathology as a reference standard.
resultsA total of 46 (mean age, 56.2 years; 39 men) patients with 46 TARE-treated lesions (23 with incomplete [< 100%] necrosis) were included. The distribution of categories based on v2024 was as follows: LR-TR Nonviable, 52.2% (24/46); LR-TR Nonprogressing, 39.1% (18/46); and LR-TR Viable, 8.7% (4/46). While no category change was noted for LR-TR Nonviable lesions, 16 lesions classified as LR-TR Viable in v2017 were recategorized as LR-TR Nonprogressing in v2024. For predicting histopathologically incomplete necrosis, the LR-TR Viable or Nonprogressing categories of v2024 and the LR-TR Viable or Equivocal categories of v2017 showed equivalent high sensitivity (87.0%; 20/23; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 67.9, 95.5) and specificity (91.3%; 21/23; 95% CI 73.2, 97.6) (all P > 0.99).
conclusionWhile applying the updated radiation TRA v2024 resulted in recategorization, its diagnostic performance in predicting tumor viability was comparable to that of TRA v2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40238042What 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.