ArticleKorean journal of radiology2026
Diagnostic Performance and Clinical Implications of the "Probable Hepatocellular Carcinoma" Category in the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center Korea Guidelines v2022.
Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2026. 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.
- LI-RADS v2018 versus KLCA-NCC v2022: comparison of probability-based HCC categories.European radiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic performance of the "probable hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC)" category in the Korean Liver Cancer Association-National Cancer Center (KLCA-NCC) v2022 guidelines. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis multicenter retrospective study included patients at risk of HCC who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI between January 2015 and June 2018; a subgroup of these patients also underwent liver CT. Eligible patients had at least one non-cystic lesion (≥10 mm) with a reference standard. Four radiologists interpreted the images independently and the results were pooled. The performance of "definite HCC" and "probable HCC" together and "probable HCC" alone were compared between v2018 and v2022.
resultsA total of 2,237 patients (1,666 men; mean age, 59 ± 11 years) with 2,445 lesions were included. In v2022, 1.5% (143/9,780) of the lesions were additionally categorized as "probable HCC" by four reviewers on MRI; among these, 104 lesions were not HCCs. Focal nodular hyperplasia (FNH) or FNH-like nodules constituted 90.4% (94/104) of the false positives. When "definite HCC" and "probable HCC" were combined, v2022 showed higher sensitivity (83.7% [5,670/6,776] vs. 83.1% [5,631/6,776]) but lower specificity (77.1% [2,316/3,004] vs. 80.6% [2,420/3,004]) than v2018 (
conclusionThe revised "probable HCC" category in the KLCA-NCC v2022 aligns with updates in the diagnostic flow, demonstrating acceptable performance on MRI and CT. Notably, FNH or FNH-like nodules can be misclassified as "probable HCC" when MRI is used.
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.