Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30456180›Full record

ReviewTranslational andrology and urology2018

Assessing lymph node status in patients with kidney cancer.

Ashkan Tadayoni, Anna K Paschall, Ashkan A Malayeri

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Translational andrology and urology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma: MRI features and their association with survival.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Long Non-CodingNon-coding RNA · 2021
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ashkan TadayoniNational Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Anna K PaschallNational Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
Ashkan A MalayeriNational Institutes of Health, Clinical Center, Radiology and Imaging Sciences, Bethesda, MD 20814, USA.
National Institutes of Health Clinical Center · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accurate detection of lymph node involvement on pre-operative imaging in patients diagnosed with renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is critical for determination of disease stage, one of the most significant prognostic factors in RCC. The presence of lymph node involvement in RCC doubles a patient's risk of distant metastasis and significantly reduces their 5-year survival. Currently, lymph node involvement in patients with RCC is evaluated with numerous modalities, with rapid advancements occurring across these modalities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of each modality and utilize sensitivities and specificities to determine the highest performing modalities for accurate lymph node involvement in renal cancer. A comprehensive computer-based literature search of full-length original research English language studies of human subjects with biopsy-proven RCC was performed to evaluate publications on the diagnostic performance of color Doppler sonography (CDS), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), lymphotrophic nanoparticle enhanced MRI (LNMRI), multidetector-row computed tomography (MDCT), F-fluoro-2-deoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG-PET), and PET/CT for evaluation of lymph node status in kidney cancers in articles that were published prior to May 2018. Limited studies were available for evaluating CDS performance for determination of lymph node involvement in renal cancer. While CT is the most common modality for nodal staging, due to its availability and relatively low expense, it did not demonstrate the highest performance of the modalities examined for determination of lymph node status in patients with RCC. Of the modalities examined, MRI demonstrated the highest sensitivity (92-95.7%) for detection of lymph node involvement in RCC. Studies of lymph node involvement in RCC using both MRI and CT indicated that using the current diameter criteria (greater than 1 cm) for determination of positive lymph nodes should be re-evaluated as micro-metastases are frequently overlooked. Studies evaluating lymph node involvement with FDG-PET had the highest specificity (100%), indicating FDG-PET is the preferred modality for confirming lymph node involvement and extent of involvement. However, due to the low sensitivity of FDG-PET, clinicians should be skeptical of negative reports of lymph node involvement in RCC patients. Further studies examining determination of lymph node involvement in renal cancer across modalities are greatly needed, current literature suggests utilizing a combination of MRI and FDG-PET may offer the highest accuracy.

Indexed as

Imagingkidney cancermetastatic lymph noderenal cell carcinoma (RCC)

Identifiers

PMID30456180
PMCPMC6212621
OpenAlexW2887234964

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.