ReviewCancers2024
WFUMB Review Paper. Incidental Findings in Otherwise Healthy Subjects, How to Manage: Liver.
Review in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Screening Sonography Detection of Liver Masses: Assessing the Non-emergent Nature of Focal Nodular Hyperplasia.Cureus · 2026Article
- Challenges in Diagnosing Focal Liver Lesions Using Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comments and illustrations on the complementary use of contrast-enhanced (endoscopic) ultrasound in cardiac tumors.Endoscopic ultrasoundReview
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An incidental focal liver lesion (IFLL) is defined as a hepatic lesion identified in a patient imaged for an unrelated reason. They are frequently encountered in daily practice, sometimes leading to unnecessary, invasive and potentially harmful follow-up investigations. The clinical presentation and the imaging aspects play an important role in deciding if, and what further evaluation, is needed. In low-risk patients (i.e., without a history of malignant or chronic liver disease or related symptoms), especially in those younger than 40 years old, more than 95% of IFLLs are likely benign. Shear Wave liver Elastography (SWE) of the surrounding liver parenchyma should be considered to exclude liver cirrhosis and for further risk stratification. If an IFLL in a low-risk patient has a typical appearance on B-mode ultrasound of a benign lesion (e.g., simple cyst, calcification, focal fatty change, typical hemangioma), no further imaging is needed. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) should be considered as the first-line contrast imaging modality to differentiate benign from malignant IFLLs, since it has a similar accuracy to contrast-enhanced (CE)-MRI. On CEUS, hypoenhancement of a lesion in the late vascular phase is characteristic for malignancy. CE-CT should be avoided for characterizing probable benign FLL and reserved for staging once a lesion is proven malignant. In high-risk patients (i.e., with chronic liver disease or an oncological history), each IFLL should initially be considered as potentially malignant, and every effort should be made to confirm or exclude malignancy. US-guided biopsy should be considered in those with unresectable malignant lesions, particularly if the diagnosis remains unclear, or when a specific tissue diagnosis is needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.