Radiofrequency Ablation of Hepatocellular Carcinoma: Predicting Success Using Contrast-Enhanced Sonography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This pilot study compared the utility of immediate postprocedural contrast-enhanced sonography with that of delayed enhanced sonography and CT or MRI in assessing the success of radiofrequency ablation of hepatocellular carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Twenty-two lesions (1.5-3.7 cm) were studied in 19 patients. Enhanced sonography was performed before and within 1 hr after radiofrequency ablation. At routine 2-week follow-up CT or MRI, additional enhanced sonography was performed. The findings of preablation CT or MRI and enhanced sonography were compared with those of postprocedural and follow-up enhanced sonography by three radiologists experienced in these techniques. The reviewers were unaware of the follow-up CT or MRI results (reference standard). Technical adequacy, ablation zone targeting, and identification of residual disease were assessed by each reviewer, and the results were analyzed by consensus. RESULTS: One postprocedural sonographic study was considered technically inadequate. Postprocedural sonography predicted the follow-up CT or MRI results in 76% (16/21) of subjects (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 40%; positive predictive value [PPV], 82%; negative predictive value, [NPV] 50%). Follow-up CT or MRI identified accurate targeting in 17 of 22 subjects. Follow-up sonography agreed with CT or MRI in 82% (18/22) of subjects (sensitivity, 88%; specificity, 67%; PPV, 88%; NPV, 67%). Postprocedural sonography predicted the follow-up CT or MRI results in 81% (17/21) of subjects (sensitivity, 40%; specificity, 94%; PPV, 66%; NPV, 83%). Follow-up CT or MRI detected residual disease in six subjects. Follow-up sonography agreed with CT or MRI in 91% (20/22) of subjects (sensitivity, 83%; specificity, 94%; PPV, 83%; NPV, 94%). CONCLUSION: Postprocedural enhanced sonography has the potential to guide completion of radiofrequency ablation at the time of initial therapy when residual disease is detected. The procedure is less accurate in detection of residual disease than is either delayed enhanced sonography or CT or MRI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".