Trial reportInternational journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery2025
Estimation of tumor coverage after RF ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma using single 2D image slices.
Trial report in International journal of computer assisted radiology and surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Emerging nanomedicine for liver diseases treatment.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo assess the technical success of radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), an artificial intelligence (AI) model was developed to estimate the tumor coverage without the need for segmentation or registration tools.
methodsA secondary retrospective analysis of 550 patients in the multicenter and multinational OPTIMA trial (3-7 cm solidary HCC lesions, randomized to RFA or RFA + LTLD) identified 182 patients with well-defined pre-RFA tumor and 1-month post-RFA devascularized ablation zones on enhanced CT. The ground-truth, or percent tumor coverage, was determined based on the result of semi-automatic 3D tumor and ablation zone segmentation and elastic registration. The isocenter of the tumor and ablation was isolated on 2D axial CT images. Feature extraction was performed, and classification and linear regression models were built. Images were augmented, and 728 image pairs were used for training and testing. The estimated percent tumor coverage using the models was compared to ground-truth. Validation was performed on eight patient cases from a separate institution, where RFA was performed, and pre- and post-ablation images were collected.
resultsIn testing cohorts, the best model accuracy was with classification and moderate data augmentation (AUC = 0.86, TPR = 0.59, and TNR = 0.89, accuracy = 69%) and regression with random forest (RMSE = 12.6%, MAE = 9.8%). Validation in a separate institution did not achieve accuracy greater than random estimation. Visual review of training cases suggests that poor tumor coverage may be a result of atypical ablation zone shrinkage 1 month post-RFA, which may not be reflected in clinical utilization.
conclusionAn AI model that uses 2D images at the center of the tumor and 1 month post-ablation can accurately estimate ablation tumor coverage. In separate validation cohorts, translation could be challenging.
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.