Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 408

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis

Sangiovanni, A., Manini, M. A., Iavarone, M., Romeo, R., Forzenigo, L. V., Fraquelli, M., Massironi, S., Della Corte, C., Ronchi, G., Rumi, M. G., Biondetti, P., Colombo, M.·2010·Gut

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CE-US), contrast CT scan and gadolinium dynamic MRI are recommended for the characterisation of liver nodules detected during surveillance of patients with cirrhosis with US. AIM: To assess the sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic accuracy and economic impact of all possible sequential combinations of contrast imaging techniques in patients with cirrhosis with 1-2 cm liver nodules undergoing US surveillance. PATIENTS/METHODS: 64 patients with 67 de novo liver nodules (55 with a size of 1-2 cm) were consecutively examined by CE-US, CT, MRI, and a fine-needle biopsy (FNB) as diagnostic standard. Undiagnosed nodules were re-biopsied; non-malignant nodules underwent enhanced imaging follow-up. The typical radiological feature of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) was arterial phase hypervascularisation followed by portal/venous phase washout. RESULTS: HCC was diagnosed in 44 (66%) nodules (2, <1 cm; 34, 1-2 cm; 8, >2 cm). The sensitivity of CE-US, CT and MRI for 1-2 cm HCC was 26, 44 and 44%, with 100% specificity, the typical vascular pattern of HCC being identified in 22 (65%) by a single technique versus 12 (35%) by at least two techniques carried out at the same time point (p=0.028). Compared with the cheapest dual examination (CE-US+CT), the cheapest single technique of stepwise imaging diagnosis of HCC was equally expensive (euro 26 440 vs euro 28 667), but led to a 23% reduction of FNB procedures (p=0.031). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cirrhosis with a 1-2 cm nodule detected during surveillance, a single imaging technique showing a typical contrast pattern confidently permits the diagnosis of HCC, thereby reducing the need for FNB examinations.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/gut.2009.187286

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 408

Metadata

Authors
Sangiovanni, A., Manini, M. A., Iavarone, M., Romeo, R., Forzenigo, L. V., Fraquelli, M., Massironi, S., Della Corte, C., Ronchi, G., Rumi, M. G., Biondetti, P., & Colombo, M.
Venue
Gut
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2009-12-01
Volume
59
Issue
5
Pages
638-644
ISSN
0017-5749 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2128551196
Cited by
408
References
0
FWCI
17.85
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: The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/gut.2009.187286
The paper
Sangiovanni, A., Manini, M. A., Iavarone, M., Romeo, R., Forzenigo, L. V., Fraquelli, M., Massironi, S., Della Corte, C., Ronchi, G., Rumi, M. G., Biondetti, P., & Colombo, M. (2010). The diagnostic and economic impact of contrast imaging techniques in the diagnosis of small hepatocellular carcinoma in cirrhosis. Gut. https://doi.org/10.1136/gut.2009.187286

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.