ArticlePediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition2026
A Real World Analysis of Imaging Compared to Biopsy for Diagnosis of Pediatric Liver Tumors.
Article in Pediatric gastroenterology, hepatology & nutrition, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Pediatric liver tumors are challenging and need biopsy to perform when imaging suggests a malignant tumor, findings are equivocal, or confirmation of certain benign lesions is required. This study aims to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of real-world imaging of liver tumors, using pathology as the gold standard. Methods: Patients less than 18 years old with a liver tumor and imaging obtained before liver tumor biopsy were retrospectively identified. Liver imaging reports (ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging) were collected to evaluate specific diagnoses and to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions. A discrepancy was defined as discordance in the benign or malignant classification between imaging and pathological findings. Results: Among 50 patients, imaging and biopsy findings matched between benign and malignant in 40 cases (80.0%). Of these, 22 were benign and 18 were malignant. In 10 (20.0%) discrepant cases, the most frequent misclassification (14.0%, 7/50) involved imaging diagnosis of malignancy found to be benign on pathology. In three (6.0%) cases, imaging suggested a benign lesion (hepatocellular adenoma, regenerative nodule, and indeterminate benign lesion) while biopsy revealed neuroendocrine tumor, hepatocellular carcinoma, and hepatoblastoma, respectively. Conclusion: Overall, imaging and biopsy diagnoses differed in tumor classification (benign vs. malignant) in 20% in this real world series. In a few cases, imaging suggested a benign lesion without specific diagnostic features, but pathology confirmed malignancy; in others, tumors read as malignant on imaging were benign on biopsy. These findings highlight the importance of biopsy or close follow-up where imaging is not diagnostic.
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.