ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2025
Comparison of ultrasound-detected and undetected hepatocellular carcinomas: a post-hoc, subgroup analysis from the MAGNUS-HCC surveillance trial.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to compare the clinical and imaging features of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) detected versus undetected on surveillance ultrasound (US), based on a prospective cohort.
methodsThis post-hoc subgroup study analyzed data from MAGNUS-HCC trial, a prospective multicenter study evaluating both biannual US and annual non-contrast abbreviated magnetic resonance imaging (NC-AMRI) for HCC surveillance in high-risk patients. Among 34 HCCs, 16 tumors were detected and 18 tumors were undetected on US. We compared clinical features such as sex, age, body mass index (BMI), liver disease etiology, α-fetoprotein (AFP) level, and Child-Pugh class between participants who were diagnosed on US and those who were not. Imaging features including size, hemiliver distribution, anatomical section, subcapsular location, blind spot location, the presence of hepatic steatosis, and the presence of poor sonic window were also compared. NC-AMRI features were also assessed.
resultsNo significant differences were observed between US-detected and US-undetected groups in terms of sex, age, liver disease etiology, AFP level, or Child-Pugh class. Patients with US-undetected HCCs had higher BMI (25.7 vs. 23.8 kg/m2, P=0.049). Lesions in blind spots were significantly more common in the US-undetected group (55.6% vs. 18.8%, P=0.039), as were lesions in the left hemiliver (38.9% vs. 6.3%, P=0.043). No significant differences were found in tumor size, anatomical section, subcapsular location, presence of poor sonic window, presence of hepatic steatosis, or magnetic resonance imaging characteristics. Of the 16 US-detected tumors, 62.5% were hypoechoic and 37.5% were hyperechoic.
conclusionUS is less effective in detecting HCCs in patients with a higher BMI and tumors located in the blind spots or left hemiliver. These limitations should be considered in planning and interpreting surveillance strategies.
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.