Observational studyWorld journal of urology2015
Diagnosis of renal tumors by in vivo proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy.
Observational study in World journal of urology, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Potential of Metabolic MRI to Address Unmet Clinical Needs in Localised Kidney Cancer.Cancers · 2025Review
- Review
- In Vivo Renal Lipid Quantification by Accelerated Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopic Imaging at 3T: Feasibility and Reliability Study.Metabolites · 2022Article
- Renal carcinoma CD105-/CD44- cells display stem-like properties in vitro and form aggressive tumors in vivo.Scientific reports · 2020Article
- Choosing The Right Animal Model for Renal Cancer Research.Translational oncology · 2020Review
- Magnetic resonance spectroscopy may serve as a presurgical predictor of somatostatin analog therapy response in patients with growth hormone-secreting pituitary macroadenomas.Journal of endocrinological investigation · 2019Article
- [Noninvasive phenotyping of renal tumors-current state of the art].Der Radiologe · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the diagnostic potential of choline measurements by in vivo magnetic resonance spectroscopy (MR spectroscopy) for diagnosis of renal masses.
methodsTwenty-eight patients with 29 renal lesions underwent prospectively preoperative 3 T MR spectroscopy of renal masses before diagnostic tissue confirmation. A respiratory-triggered single-voxel MR spectroscopy was performed in these masses using the point-resolved spectroscopy (TR, 2,000 ms, TE, 135 ms) sequence. The spectra were analyzed for choline resonances at 3.23 ppm, which were normalized by the noise outside the diagnostic range of the spectra. Image and spectra analyses were conducted blinded to all patient-related data. Histological results of the surgical resection or image-guided biopsy specimen were defined as the standard of reference. Appropriate statistical tests were used.
resultsSeventeen lesions were histopathologically malignant, and 12 lesions were benign. Mean choline SNR in malignant lesions was 2.9 and 1.33 in benign lesions (P = 0.019). ROC analysis revealed an area under the curve of 0.721 and SE 0.0763 with a P value of 0.0038. A Cho SNR ≥2 as cutoff for malignancy resulted in a sensitivity and specificity of 52.9 % (95 % CI 27.8-77.0 %) and 91.7 % (61.5-99.8 %), respectively. Although not significant, choline was observed more regularly in G3 (4 out of 5) compared with G2 (5 out of 12) RCC (P > 0.05).
conclusionsWe could demonstrate the potential role of in vivo MR spectroscopy as a tool for differentiating benign from malignant masses with a high positive predictive value of 90 %. Furthermore, choline may be a biomarker of RCC aggressiveness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.