ArticleUltrasonography (Seoul, Korea)2026
Predictors of tumor conspicuity on Kupffer-phase Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography in liver tumors: implications for fusion-guided ablation.
Article in Ultrasonography (Seoul, Korea), 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to evaluate the utility of the Kupffer phase in Sonazoid-enhanced ultrasonography (SZUS) for liver tumor ablation and to identify factors influencing tumor conspicuity on the Kupffer phase.
methodsEighty-one patients with 128 liver tumors (95 hepatocellular carcinomas [HCCs] and 33 non-HCCs) who underwent gadoxetic acid-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), B-mode planning ultrasonography (B-US), and SZUS-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) were included. Two radiologists scored tumor conspicuity on the hepatobiliary phase (HBP) of MRI, B-US, and the Kupffer phase using a 4-point scale. Tumor echogenicity on B-US was classified as hypoechoic or non-hypoechoic. This study analyzed tumor conspicuity across modalities, correlations between modalities, RFA technical success rates, and predictors of high Kupffer phase conspicuity.
resultsThe mean tumor diameter was 14.2±7.0 mm, with no differences in size or location between HCCs and non-HCCs. Conspicuity scores on the Kupffer phase were significantly higher than those on B-US for both HCCs (2.87±0.85 vs. 1.79±0.71) and non-HCCs (3.06±0.79 vs. 2.00±0.75) (both P<0.001). The technical success rate of RFA under Kupffer phase guidance was 97.7%. Tumor conspicuity on the Kupffer phase showed a moderate correlation with that on HBP (r=0.436, P<0.001), and this correlation was stronger in non-HCCs (r=0.630, P<0.001). Multivariable analysis identified B-US hypoechogenicity (odds ratio [OR], 1.424; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.176 to 1.724; P<0.001) and good HBP conspicuity (OR, 1.317; 95% CI, 1.087 to 1.596; P=0.005) as independent predictors of good Kupffer phase conspicuity.
conclusionB-US hypoechogenicity and good HBP conspicuity are independent predictors of favorable tumor conspicuity on the Kupffer phase. Identifying these features may facilitate optimal patient selection for effective SZUS-guided RFA of tumors that are inconspicuous on B-US.
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.