ArticleBMC gastroenterology2025
Diagnostic performances of adding transition and hepatobiliary phase to washout in gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI for subcentimeter hepatocellular carcinoma.
Article in BMC gastroenterology, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the diagnostic performances of washout (WO) criteria confined to portal venous phase (PVP), extended to transition phase (TP) or hepatobiliary phase (HBP) for subcentimeter hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) using gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo hundred patients (mean age, 53.4 ± 10.4 years) who were scanned with 1.5-T gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI were included. Arterial phase hyperenhancement and signal intensity on PVP, TP and HBP images were evaluated. Three WO criteria were established: WO confined to the PVP, WO extended to the TP and WO extended to the HBP. ASSESSMENT: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and accuracy with 95% confidence interval were calculated for WO confined to the PVP and WO extended to the TP or HBP, and generalized estimating equation was used to compare sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy.
resultsA total of 200 surgically confirmed subcentimeter hepatic nodules (171 HCCs and 29 non-HCCs) were included. For solitary subcentimeter HCCs, WO extended to the TP showed significantly higher sensitivity and accuracy than WO confined to the PVP (70.80% vs. 49.64%, P < 0.05; 71.52% vs. 55.70%, P < 0.001) and AFP (70.80% vs. 51.09%, P < 0.05; 71.52% vs. 55.70%, P < 0.05), but no significant difference in specificity (76.19% vs. 95.24%, P > 0.05; 76.19% vs. 85.71%, P > 0.05). Extending WO to the HBP achieved significantly higher sensitivity (78.10% vs. 49.64%, P < 0.001; 78.10% vs. 70.80%, P < 0.05) and accuracy (75.32% vs. 55.70%, P < 0.001; 75.32% vs. 71.52%, P < 0.05) compared to WO confined to the PVP and WO extended to the TP, but lower specificity (57.14%% vs. 95.24%, P < 0.05) compared to WO confined to the PVP. The combination of AFP with WO confined to the PVP, WO extended to the TP, or WO extended to the HBP yielded significantly higher sensitivities and accuracies compared to each MRI washout criterion alone (all P < 0.001).
conclusionWO extending to TP rather than HBP may be a preferred alternative for diagnosing subcentimeter HCC, and the supplement of AFP may improve sensitivity and accuracy.
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.