Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40343495›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging2025

To contrast or not to contrast? Evaluating the diagnostic accuracy of hepatobiliary contrast agents in liver FDG-PET/MR: a prospective study.

Luigi Asmundo, Felipe Furtado, Francis Delaney, Mojtahed Amirkasra, Azadeh Hajati, Abdar Esfahani Shadi, Avinash Kambadakone, Lawrence Blaszkowsky, Jeffrey Clark, David Ryan and 1 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Luigi AsmundoDepartment of Radiology, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, Piazza Ospedale Maggiore 3, Milan, 20162, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-1410-341X
Felipe FurtadoStephen M. Ross School of Business, University of Michigan, 701 Tappan Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-8454-2418
Francis DelaneyMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Eccles St, Phibsborough, Dublin, D07 R2WY, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-6745-1410
Mojtahed AmirkasraDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WHT 270, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1879-9255
Azadeh HajatiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WHT 270, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-1196-6957
Abdar Esfahani ShadiDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WHT 270, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6077-4580
Avinash KambadakoneDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WHT 270, Boston, MA, 02116, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6714-9190
Lawrence BlaszkowskyHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9437-2977
Jeffrey ClarkHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9524-3600
David RyanHarvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9685-673X
Onofrio Antonio CatalanoDepartment of Radiology, Massachusetts General Hospital, 55 Fruit Street, WHT 270, Boston, MA, 02116, USA. onofriocatalano@yahoo.it.ORCID 0000-0001-7733-4138

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe role of hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced imaging in the evaluation of liver malignancies in FDG-PET/MR remains underexplored. The aim of this study was to assess the diagnostic performance of stand-alone FDG-PET, non-contrast-enhanced (NCE) PET/MR, and contrast-enhanced (CE) PET/MR with and without hepatobiliary phase (HBP).

methodsThis prospective, single-center diagnostic accuracy study enrolled 60 patients with histologically confirmed abdominal malignancies and malignant liver lesions. Each patient underwent whole-body FDG-PET/MR, including dedicated upper abdominal imaging with NCE, CE without HBP, and CE with HBP. Three blinded radiologists independently evaluated the images in consensus. The reference standard was histopathology or follow-up imaging. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Fisher's exact test and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical comparisons.

resultsA total of 134 malignant liver lesions (38 primary tumors, 96 metastases) were identified. CE FDG-PET/MR with HBP achieved the highest diagnostic accuracy (97%), sensitivity (97.8%), and specificity (95.2%). NCE FDG-PET/MR had an accuracy of 67%, sensitivity of 78%, and specificity of 44%, while stand-alone FDG-PET had the lowest accuracy (52%). The addition of HBP significantly improved specificity (75.6-95.2%, p = 0.013) and enabled detection of smaller lesions (median size 7 mm vs. 19 mm, p = 0.00017).

conclusionThe inclusion of hepatobiliary contrast significantly enhances the diagnostic performance of FDG-PET/MR for liver malignancies, particularly in detecting small or poorly defined lesions. These findings support the integration of HBP into PET/MR workflows to optimize liver lesion detection and staging. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Contrast MediaFluorodeoxyglucose F18LiverLiver NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMultimodal ImagingPositron-Emission TomographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedProspective StudiesRadiopharmaceuticalsContrast MediaFluorodeoxyglucose F18RadiopharmaceuticalsDiagnostic accuracyHepatobiliary contrastHepatobiliary phase MRILesion detectionLiver malignanciesOncologic imagingPET/MR imaging

Identifiers

PMID40343495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.