ReviewCurrent urology reports2015
Renal angiomyolipoma: preoperative identification of atypical fat-poor AML.
Review in Current urology reports, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pseudopapillary and micropapillary-like changes in classical renal angiomyolipoma: a multi-institutional series of 60 cases.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Diagnostic accuracy of signal loss in in-phase gradient-echo images for differentiation between small renal cell carcinoma and lipid-poor angiomyolipomas.The British journal of radiology · 2020Article
- Article
- A CT-based radiomics nomogram for differentiation of renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat from homogeneous clear cell renal cell carcinoma.European radiology · 2020Article
- Impact of a fast free-breathing 3-T abdominal MRI protocol on improving scan time and image quality for pediatric patients with tuberous sclerosis complex.Pediatric radiology · 2019Article
- Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI?European radiology · 2018Review
- Angiomyolipoma of the scrotum: report of a rarely seen case and review of the literature.Turkish journal of urology · 2017Article
- Imaging and Management of Incidental Renal Lesions.BioMed research international · 2017Review
- Review of renal cell carcinoma and its common subtypes in radiology.World journal of radiology · 2016Review
- Angiomyolipoma being surgically excised for presumed kidney carcinoma.International urology and nephrology · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The preoperative distinction between benign and malignant renal masses is a well-known radiographic diagnostic challenge. With angiomyolipoma (AML) and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) representing the most common benign and malignant renal parenchymal lesions, respectively, differentiating these two entities is especially important due to their vastly different treatments and prognoses. Renal AML is typically composed of smooth muscle cells, dysmorphic blood vessels, and varying amounts of adipose tissue. In most cases, "typical" AML can be diagnosed by identifying macroscopic fat with ultrasound, computed tomography, or magnetic resonance imaging. However, approximately 4-5 % of AML tumors have fat that is grossly undetectable by conventional techniques, precluding a straightforward diagnosis. The overlapping radiographic features between "atypical" or "fat-poor" AML and RCC, especially in smaller (<3-4 cm) lesions, lead many patients with benign AML to undergo unnecessary surgery for suspected RCC when the diagnosis is not established beforehand. This review presents the most recent studies and developments in preoperative evaluation of fat-poor AML.
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.