ArticleThe Indian journal of radiology & imaging2026
Assessment of Kupffer Cell-Specific Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Characterization of Suspicious Malignant Focal Liver Lesions.
Article in The Indian journal of radiology & imaging, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This article aims to assess the diagnostic accuracy of Kupffer cell-specific contrast-enhanced ultrasound (Sonazoid) for characterization of suspicious malignant focal liver lesions and the diagnostic accuracy of Sonazoid in differentiating tumoral thrombosis of the portal vein from bland thrombosis. Materials and Methods: This was a single-center, prospective, cross-sectional study conducted in the Department of Radiology. Baseline gray-scale ultrasound, along with contrast-enhanced imaging, was performed in patients who met the inclusion criteria. CEUS images were read by two radiologists with an experience of 3 and 15 years, respectively. Interobserver agreement between two observers was calculated. CECT and CEMRI images were read by a third radiologist with an experience of around 7 years; he was also blinded to the histopathology and CEUS results. CECT/CEMRI was taken as a gold standard for HCC (based on the evidence-based practice/AASLD guidelines); for non-HCC lesions, histopathology was taken as a gold standard. Diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, and positive predictive value (PPV) of CEUS were then calculated with respect to the gold standard. In eight cases included in our study, portal vein thrombosis was present, and so the diagnostic accuracy of CEUS with Sonazoid for differentiating tumoral and bland thrombosis was also calculated. Results: CEUS with Sonazoid has a sensitivity of 90%, an accuracy of 87%, and a PPV of 96% for characterizing focal liver lesions. CEUS with Sonazoid (with respect to histopathology) has a sensitivity of 87.5%, specificity of 87.5%, and diagnostic accuracy of 77.8% for the characterization of lesions. In a limited number of patients included in our study, CEUS had a sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, and PPV of 100% for differentiating between tumoral and bland thrombus. Conclusion: CEUS is an excellent modality for differentiating tumoral from bland thrombus, and it can be safely used for lesion characterization in patients where CT/MRI contrast agent is contraindicated. In cases of diagnostic dilemma, CEUS can be used as an alternative modality. Since it is radiation free, it can be used in regular surveillance of high-risk patients.
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.