The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Liver Tumor Characterization: Comparison Between Liver-specific Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-enhanced MRI and Biphasic CT-A Multicenter Trial
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In our multi center trial we compared the potentials of biphasic contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and a novel tissue-specific magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) contrast agent gadoxetic acid disodium in liver lesion characterization. METHODS: A total of 176 patients with 252 liver lesions were analyzed. There were 104 malignant and 148 benign lesions. High-field strength (1.0 T or 1.5 T) MR systems with T1-and T2-weighted sequences were used with and without fat suppression. After gadoxetic acid disodium injection, dynamic imaging and hepatocyte phase MR imaging were performed. Biphasic with 150 mg I/kg of body weight (100-200 mL) spiral CT was also performed. Image reading consisted of on-site (by study investigators) and fully blinded off-site (by E.S.P; C.R; and A.S) evaluations. The classification (benign or malignant) and characterization (lesion type) outcomes of both techniques were assessed. All imaging results were verified against a standard of reference. RESULTS: Both on-site and off-site evaluations demonstrated increases in the lesion classification accuracy with gadoxetic acid disodium-enhanced MRI when compared with spiral CT. This improvement was also shown for characterization. Gadoxetic acid disodium was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Gadoxetic acid disodium offers a safe and diagnostically powerful tool for the evaluation of patients with focal liver lesions with a reliable assessment of lesion classification and characterization.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Clinical intravoxel incoherent motion and diffusion MR imaging: Past, present, and future
Iima, M., & Le Bihan, D. (2016) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2015150244 · Cited by 498
Ringe, K. I., Husarik, D. B., Sirlin, C. B., & Merkle, E. M. (2010) · American Journal of Roentgenology · doi:10.2214/ajr.10.4392 · Cited by 388
Floriani, I., Torri, V., Rulli, E., Garavaglia, D., Compagnoni, A., Salvolini, L., & Giovagnoni, A. (2010) · Journal of Magnetic Resonance Imaging · doi:10.1002/jmri.22010 · Cited by 277
Di Martino, M., Marin, D., Guerrisi, A., Baski, M., Galati, F., Rossi, M., Brozzetti, S., Masciangelo, R., Passariello, R., & Catalano, C. (2010) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.10091334 · Cited by 259
Gadoxetate acid-enhanced MR imaging for HCC: A review for clinicians
Chanyaputhipong, J., Low, S.-C. A., & Chow, P. K. H. (2011) · International Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.4061/2011/489342 · Cited by 41
Metadata
- Authors
- Halavaara, J., Breuer, J., Ayuso, C., Balzer, T., Bellin, M.-F., Blomqvist, L., Carter, R., Grazioli, L., Hammerstingl, R., Huppertz, A., Jung, G., Krause, D., Laghi, A., Leen, E., Lupatelli, L., Marsili, L., Martin, J., Pretorius, E. S., Reinhold, C., Stiskal, M., & Stolpen, A. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography
- Published
- 2006-05
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 345-354
- ISSN
- 0363-8715 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2091148531
- Cited by
- 174
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 8.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Liver Tumor Characterization: Comparison Between Liver-specific Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-enhanced MRI and Biphasic CT-A Multicenter Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/00004728-200605000-00001
- The paper
- Halavaara, J., Breuer, J., Ayuso, C., Balzer, T., Bellin, M.-F., Blomqvist, L., Carter, R., Grazioli, L., Hammerstingl, R., Huppertz, A., Jung, G., Krause, D., Laghi, A., Leen, E., Lupatelli, L., Marsili, L., Martin, J., Pretorius, E. S., Reinhold, C., . . . Stolpen, A. H. (2006). Liver Tumor Characterization: Comparison Between Liver-specific Gadoxetic Acid Disodium-enhanced MRI and Biphasic CT-A Multicenter Trial. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200605000-00001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.