Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40439010›Full record

Observational studyThe British journal of surgery2025

Magnetic resonance-derived hepatic uptake index improves the identification of patients at risk of severe post-hepatectomy liver failure.

Wolf C Bartholomä, Stefan Gilg, Peter Lundberg, Peter N Larsen, Ville Sallinen, Malin Sternby Eilard, Jozef Urdzik, Gert Lindell, Torkel B Brismar, Eva Fallentin and 11 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in The British journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. 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

21 authors.

Wolf C BartholomäDepartment of Radiology and Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-6897-2717
Stefan GilgDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention, and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Peter LundbergDepartment of Radiology and Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-8661-2232
Peter N LarsenDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ville SallinenDepartment of Gastroenterological Surgery, Helsinki University Hospital and University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0001-5394-4169
Malin Sternby EilardTransplant Institute, Institute of Clinical Sciences, Sahlgrenska Academy at University of Gothenburg, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-7726
Jozef UrdzikDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Gert LindellDepartment of Surgery, Skåne University Hospital Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Torkel B BrismarDepartment of Radiology, Karolinska University Hospital in Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.
Eva FallentinDepartment of Radiology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Ali OvissiDepartment of Radiology, University of Helsinki and Helsinki University Hospital, Helsinki, Finland.
Andreas SocratousDepartment of Radiology, Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Tomas BjernerDepartment of Radiology and Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Sophie KollbeckDepartment of Surgical Gastroenterology and Transplantation, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Jens TellmanDepartment of Radiation Physics and Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Fredrik HolmquistDepartment of Medical Imaging and Physiology, Skåne University Hospital, Lund University, Lund, Sweden.
Nils DahlströmDepartment of Radiology and Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0002-4111-1693
Mischa WoisetschlägerDepartment of Radiology and Department of Health, Medicine, and Caring Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.
Bergthor BjörnssonDepartment of Surgery and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9704-1260
Ernesto SparrelidDivision of Surgery and Oncology, Department of Clinical Science, Intervention, and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden.
Per SandströmDepartment of Surgery and Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences, Linköping University, Linköping, Sweden.

Funding

County Council of ÖstergötlandRegion of ÖstergötlandSwedish Research Council: Engineering and Natural SciencesVinnova
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPost-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is a leading cause of mortality after major liver resection. Accurate preoperative risk assessment is essential, yet current methods have limitations. Gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI (Gd-EOB MRI) enables both morphological and functional evaluation of the liver. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the hepatic uptake index (HUI) obtained from routine preoperative Gd-EOB MRI for identifying patients at risk of severe PHLF.

methodsThis observational retrospective multicentre study included 292 patients who underwent major hepatectomy between 2010 and 2020 in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Preoperative Gd-EOB MRI was performed for each patient and the HUI, hepatic uptake index of the standardized future liver remnant (sFLR-HUI), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Version 3 (MELD 3) score were evaluated. Statistical analyses included logistic regression and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve assessment to determine cut-off values and discriminative accuracies for severe PHLF (International Study Group of Liver Surgery grades B and C).

resultsAmong the 292 patients, 25 (8.6%) developed severe PHLF. Patients with severe PHLF had significantly lower HUI and sFLR-HUI values (P < 0.001). The HUI demonstrated superior discriminative performance for severe PHLF (area under the curve (AUC) 0.758) compared with volume-only assessments, such as the standardized future liver remnant (sFLR) (AUC 0.628). Combining the HUI with the MELD 3 score improved performance further (AUC 0.803).

conclusionThe HUI obtained from routine Gd-EOB MRI outperforms volume-based biomarkers (sFLR) for identification of patients at risk of severe PHLF. Incorporating image-derived functional assessments, such as the HUI, with independent biomarkers, such as the MELD 3 score, may optimize preoperative risk stratification for severe PHLF and improve outcomes after major hepatectomy.

Indexed as

HepatectomyLiverLiver FailureMagnetic Resonance ImagingPostoperative ComplicationsAdultAgedContrast MediaFemaleGadolinium DTPAHumansMaleMiddle AgedRetrospective StudiesRisk AssessmentContrast MediaGadolinium DTPAgadolinium ethoxybenzyl DTPA

Identifiers

PMID40439010
PMCPMC12120443

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.