Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25875306›Full record

ArticlePloS one2015

The value of blood oxygenation level-dependent (BOLD) MR imaging in differentiation of renal solid mass and grading of renal cell carcinoma (RCC): analysis based on the largest cross-sectional area versus the entire whole tumour.

Guang-Yu Wu, Shi-Teng Suo, Qing Lu, Jin Zhang, Wan-Qiu Zhu, Jian-Rong Xu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. EARLY ASSESSMENT OF RENAL TRANSPLANTS USING BOLD-MRI: PROMISING RESULTS.Proceedings. International Conference on Image Processing · 2019
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Correlation between BOLD-MRI and HIF expression level in renal carcinoma.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 2015
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Guang-Yu WuDepartment of Radiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Shi-Teng SuoDepartment of Radiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Qing LuDepartment of Radiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Jin ZhangDepartment of Urology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Wan-Qiu ZhuDepartment of Radiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Jian-Rong XuDepartment of Radiology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiao Tong University School of Medicine, Pudong, Shanghai, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo study the value of assessing renal masses using different methods in parameter approaches and to determine whether BOLD MRI is helpful in differentiating RCC from benign renal masses, differentiating clear-cell RCC from renal masses other than clear-cell RCC and determining the tumour grade.

methodsNinety-five patients with 139 renal masses (93 malignant and 46 benign) who underwent abdominal BOLD MRI were enrolled. R2* values were derived from the largest cross-section (R2*largest) and from the whole tumour (R2*whole). Intra-observer and inter-observer agreements were analysed based on two measurements by the same observer and the first measurement from each observer, respectively, and these agreements are reported with intra-class correlation coefficients and 95% confidence intervals. The diagnostic value of the R2* value in the evaluation was assessed with receiver-operating characteristic analysis.

resultsThe intra-observer agreement was very good for R2*largest and R2*whole (all > 0.8). The inter-observer agreement of R2*whole (0.75, 95% confidence interval: 0.69~0.79) was good and was significantly improved compared with the R2*largest (0.61, 95% confidence interval: 0.52~0.68), as there was no overlap in the 95% confidence interval of the intra-class correlation coefficients. The diagnostic value in differentiating renal cell carcinoma from benign lesions with R2*whole (AUC=0.79/0.78[observer1/observer2]) and R2*largest (AUC=0.75[observer1]) was good and significantly higher (p=0.01 for R2*largest[observer2] vs R2*whole[observer2], p<0.01 for R2*whole[observer1] vs R2*largest[observer2]) than R2*largest for observer 2 (AUC=0.64). For the grading of clear-cell RCC, both R2*whole and R2*largest were good (all > 0.7) and were not significantly different (p=0.89/0.93 for R2*largest vs R2*whole[observer1/observer2], 0.96 for R2*whole[observer1] vs R2*largest[observer2] and 0.96 for R2*whole [observer2] vs R2*largest[observer1]).

conclusionsBOLD MRI could provide a feasible parameter for differentiating renal cell carcinoma from benign renal masses and for predicting clear-cell renal cell carcinoma grading. Compared with the largest cross-section, assessing the whole tumour provides better inter-observer agreement in parameter measurement for differentiating renal cell carcinoma from benign renal masses.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCarcinoma, Renal CellDiagnosis, DifferentialDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingFemaleHemoglobinsHumansKidneyKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm GradingNeoplasmsObserver VariationHemoglobinsOxygen

Identifiers

PMID25875306
PMCPMC4398373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.