Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32914197›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2021

Effect of phase of enhancement on texture analysis in renal masses evaluated with non-contrast-enhanced, corticomedullary, and nephrographic phase-enhanced CT images.

Kathleen Nguyen, Nicola Schieda, Nick James, Matthew D F McInnes, Mark Wu, Rebecca E Thornhill

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing 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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Development of modified multi-parametric CT algorithms for diagnosing clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in small solid renal masses.Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
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.

Kathleen NguyenDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Nicola SchiedaDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. nschieda@toh.ca.
Nick JamesSoftware Solutions, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Matthew D F McInnesDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Mark WuDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada.
Rebecca E ThornhillDepartment of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare texture analysis (TA) features of solid renal masses on renal protocol (non-contrast enhanced [NECT], corticomedullary [CM], nephrographic [NG]) CT. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 177 consecutive solid renal masses (116 renal cell carcinoma [RCC]; 51 clear cell [cc], 40 papillary, 25 chromophobe, and 61 benign masses; 49 oncocytomas, 12 fat-poor angiomyolipomas) with three-phase CT between 2012 and 2017 were studied. Two blinded radiologists independently assessed tumor heterogeneity (5-point Likert scale) and segmented tumors. TA features (N = 25) were compared between groups and between phases. Accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]) for RCC versus benign and cc-RCC versus other masses was compared.

resultsSubjectively, tumor heterogeneity differed between phases (p < 0.01) and between tumors within the same phase (p = 0.03 [NECT] and p < 0.01 [CM, NG]). Inter-observer agreement was moderate to substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.55-0.73). TA differed in 92.0% (23/25) features between phases (p < 0.05) except for GLNU and f6. More TA features differed significantly on CM (80.0% [20/25]) compared with NG (40.0% [10/25]) and NECT (16.0% [4/25]) (p < 0.01). For RCC versus benign, AUCs of texture features did not differ comparing CM and NG (p > 0.05), but were higher for 20% (5/25) and 28% (7/25) of features comparing CM and NG with NECT (p < 0.05). For cc-RCC versus other, 36% (9/25) and 40% (10/25) features on CM had higher AUCs compared with NECT and NG images (p < 0.05).

conclusionTexture analysis of renal masses differs, when evaluated subjectively and quantitatively, by phase of CT enhancement. The corticomedullary phase had the highest discriminatory value when comparing masses and for differentiating cc-RCC from other masses. KEY POINTS: • Subjectively evaluated renal tumor heterogeneity on CT differs by phase of enhancement. • Quantitative CT texture analysis features in renal tumors differ by phases of enhancement with the corticomedullary phase showing the highest number and most significant differences compared with non-contrast-enhanced and nephrographic phase images. • For diagnosis of clear cell RCC, corticomedullary phase texture analysis features had improved accuracy of classification in approximately 40% of features studied compared with non-contrast-enhanced and nephrographic phase images.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialHumansRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast MediaCarcinomaRenal cellSpiral computedTomography

Identifiers

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.