Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40670845›Full record

ArticleAnnals of surgical oncology2025

Impact of Imaging Review and Multidisciplinary Discussion During Hepatobiliary Tumor Board: A Prospective Study.

Veronica Cox, Antony Haddad, Mateo Lendoire, Sireesha Yedururi, Leonardo Marcal, Elena Panettieri, Yoshikuni Kawaguchi, Roland Bassett, Jean-Nicolas Vauthey, Hyunseon C Kang

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of surgical oncology, 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. Article
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

10 authors.

Veronica CoxDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030-4009, USA. vcox1@mdanderson.org.
Antony HaddadDepartment of Surgical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Mateo LendoireDepartment of General Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Sireesha YedururiDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030-4009, USA.
Leonardo MarcalDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030-4009, USA.
Elena PanettieriDepartment of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCSS, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Yoshikuni KawaguchiHepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery Division, Department of Surgery, Graduate School of Medicine, The University of Tokyo, Tokyo, Japan.
Roland BassettDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, USA.
Jean-Nicolas VautheyDepartment of General Surgery, University of Calgary, Calgary, Canada.
Hyunseon C KangDepartment of Abdominal Imaging, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, 77030-4009, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to quantify the value of imaging second review and multidisciplinary discussion of cases presented at the hepatobiliary tumor board (HTB) at a comprehensive cancer center.

methodsCases referred to HTB for review and discussion during approximately 20 months were prospectively collected and characterized according to referral information, revisions to imaging findings, original management plan (before HTB), and final management plan (after HTB). Accuracy of original imaging interpretations versus revisions was determined, mostly by follow-up imaging.

resultsFor 50 (34.2 %) of 147 patients, hepatobiliary group radiologists (HBRs) performed revisions of original imaging interpretations. In consequence of imaging revision, the management plan was changed for 19 (12.9 %) patients. Revision rates were higher for reports initially read by abdominal radiologists (ARs) than for reports read by HBRs (41.5 % vs 20.8 %; p = 0.011). Imaging reads related to cholangiocarcinoma and colorectal liver metastases (CLM) cases were the most frequently revised (12.2 % vs 8.2 % of all cases brought to conference). Management changes related to revisions occurred most frequently in CLM cases (58.3 %). Imaging revisions improved accuracy by 27.9 %. In 38.8 % of all cases, HBT discussion changed management. The most common reason for the change was interventional radiology or radiation oncology input (28.1 %). The vast majority of the time (95.1 %) questions brought to HTB by clinicians could be answered using available imaging.

conclusionImaging review by hepatobiliary radiologists and multidisciplinary discussion at HTB increases diagnostic accuracy of reads and results in management change for more than one third of patients.

Indexed as

Bile Duct NeoplasmsCholangiocarcinomaInterdisciplinary CommunicationLiver NeoplasmsPatient Care TeamReferral and ConsultationAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedPrognosisProspective StudiesHepatobiliary oncologyHepatobiliary radiologistHepatobiliary tumor boardLiver imagingMultidisciplinary conference

Identifiers

PMID40670845

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.