ArticleEuropean radiology2026
Value of enhancing capsule for diagnosing hepatocellular carcinoma on MRI: implications for simplifying LI-RADS.
Article in European radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe evaluated the value of EC as a major feature for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and its implications on simplifying LI-RADS v2018: by either excluding EC (LI-RADS[EC(-)]), or treating EC as equivalent to other major features (LI-RADS[EC(+)]). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis retrospective study included patients who underwent preoperative MRI within 1 month of surgery. Two radiologists independently assigned LI-RADS categories, with consensus resolution. The association between EC and HCC was evaluated by diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). Sensitivity and specificity of LI-RADS[EC(-)] and LI-RADS[EC(+)] were compared to LI-RADS v2018 using generalized estimating equations.
resultsAmong 735 patients (median [interquartile range] age, 60 [54-66] years, 562 men) with 986 observations, 150 (20.4%) underwent extracellular contrast (ECA)-MRI and 585 (79.6%) underwent hepatobiliary contrast (HBA)-MRI. EC was significantly associated with HCC on both ECA-MRI (DOR = 16.6, p < 0.001) and HBA-MRI (DOR = 9.3, p < 0.001). LI-RADS[EC(+)] strategy demonstrated significantly higher sensitivity than LI-RADS v2018 on both ECA-MRI (81.3% vs. 78.4%, p = 0.047) and HBA-MRI (74.2% vs. 72.7%; p = 0.005), without significant differences in specificity (96.7% vs. 96.7%; p > 0.99 for ECA-MRI and 91.7% vs. 92.1%; p = 0.26 for HBA-MRI). However, LI-RADS[EC(-)] yielded a lower sensitivity (74.8% vs. 78.4%; p = 0.03 for ECA-MRI and 72.3% vs. 72.7%; p = 0.17 for HBA-MRI) without a gain in specificity.
conclusionEC is strongly associated with HCC and critical for maintaining the sensitivity of the LI-RADS v2018. Treating EC as equivalent to other major features may simplify LI-RADS and improve sensitivity, particularly on ECA-MRI, where the increase in sensitivity was more pronounced than on HBA-MRI. KEY POINTS: Question Can LIRADS v2018 be simplified by considering enhancing capsule (EC) as equivalent to other major features (i.e., non-peripheral washout), regardless of observation size? Findings Treating EC as equivalent to other major features yielded higher sensitivity than LIRADS v2018 on both extracellular- and hepatobiliary contrast-enhanced MRI, without significantly compromising specificity. Clinical relevance EC is a key feature for hepatocellular carcinoma diagnosis. The strategy of treating EC as equivalent to other major features can be used to increase diagnostic sensitivity as well as simplify LI-RADS v2018, particularly on extracellular contrast-enhanced MRI.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40847079What 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.