ArticleCancers2025
Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Compared with Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography in the Follow-Up of Hepatocellular Carcinoma Treated with Radiofrequency Ablation.
Article in Cancers, 2025. 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
22 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundContrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) is considered the gold standard for assessing therapeutic response in hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) following locoregional treatments. More recently, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has emerged as a promising, cost-effective alternative, although evidence supporting its use in this context remains limited. This study aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of CEUS compared to CECT in assessing local response of HCC nodules treated with radiofrequency ablation (RFA).
methodsWe retrospectively analyzed a consecutively enrolled cohort of patients undergoing RFA for HCC at IRCCS San Matteo Hospital, Pavia, between January 2017 and January 2022. Follow-up imaging included both CEUS and CECT at predefined time points. Imaging follow-up, MRI, and/or histological results were used as the reference standard to compare CEUS and CECT.
resultsA total of 55 patients (mean age 74 years, 64% male) with 79 HCC nodules were included. Complete response was observed in 57 nodules (72%), all correctly identified by CEUS, whereas 4 cases were misclassified by CECT. Among the 22 nodules (28%) with residual disease, CEUS correctly identified 15 cases, while 17 were detected by CECT; notably, CEUS identified 4 lesions missed by CECT, which identified 6 missed at CEUS. Combined, the two modalities detected 21 (96%) out of 22 residual tumors. CEUS showed a sensitivity of 68.1%, specificity of 100%, and diagnostic accuracy of 91.1%, compared to 68.0%, 98.1%, and 88.6%, respectively, for CECT, with no significant differences.
conclusionsCEUS is a reliable, non-inferior, and complementary modality to CECT for evaluating treatment response of HCC following RFA. Larger prospective studies are warranted to further define its role in clinical practice.
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.