Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33413681›Full record

ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2021

Magnetic resonance diffusion kurtosis imaging in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant renal tumors.

Jianxiong Fu, Jing Ye, Wenrong Zhu, Jingtao Wu, Wenxin Chen, Qingqiang Zhu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. 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.

Jianxiong FuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, No 98 West Nantong Road, Yangzhou, 225001, China.
Jing YeDepartment of Medical Imaging, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, No 98 West Nantong Road, Yangzhou, 225001, China.
Wenrong ZhuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, No 98 West Nantong Road, Yangzhou, 225001, China.
Jingtao WuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, No 98 West Nantong Road, Yangzhou, 225001, China.
Wenxin ChenDepartment of Medical Imaging, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, No 98 West Nantong Road, Yangzhou, 225001, China.
Qingqiang ZhuDepartment of Medical Imaging, Clinical Medical College, Yangzhou University, No 98 West Nantong Road, Yangzhou, 225001, China. zhuqingqiang1983@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1753-5154

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBenign and malignant renal tumors share similar some imaging findings.

methodsSixty-six patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC), 13 patients with renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat (RAMF) and 7 patients with renal oncocytoma (RO) were examined. For diffusion kurtosis imaging (DKI), respiratory triggered echo-planar imaging sequences were acquired in axial plane (3 b-values: 0, 500, 1000s/mm

resultsFor MD, a significant higher value was shown in CCRCC (3.08 ± 0.23) than the rest renal tumors (2.93 ± 0.30 for RO, 1.52 ± 0.24 for AML, P < 0.05). The MD values were higher for RO than for AML (2.93 ± 0.30 vs.1.52 ± 0.24, P < 0.05), while comparable MD values were found between CCRCC and RO (3.08 ± 0.23 vs. 2.93 ± 0.30, P > 0.05). For MK, KA and RK, a significant higher value was shown in AML (1.32 ± 0.16, 1.42 ± 0.23, 1.41 ± 0.29) than CCRCC (0.43 ± 0.08, 0.57 ± 0.16, 0.37 ± 0.11) and RO (0.81 ± 0.08, 0.86 ± 0.16, 0.69 ± 0.08) (P < 0.05). The MK, KA and RK values were higher for RO than for CCRCC (0.81 ± 0.08 vs. 0.43 ± 0.08, 0.86 ± 0.16 vs. 0.57 ± 0.16, 0.69 ± 0.08 vs. 0.37 ± 0.11, P < 0.05). Using MD values of 2.86 as the threshold value for differentiating CCRCC from RO and AML, the best result obtained had a sensitivity of 76.1%, specificity of 72.6%. Using MK, KA and RK values of 1.19,1.13 and 1.11 as the threshold value for differentiating AML from CCRCC and RO, the best result obtained had a sensitivity of 91.2, 86.7, 82.1%, and specificity of 86.7, 83.2, 72.8%.

conclusionDKI can be used as another noninvasive biomarker for benign and malignant renal tumors' differential diagnosis.

Indexed as

Adenoma, OxyphilicAdultAngiomyolipomaAnisotropyCarcinoma, Renal CellDiagnosis, DifferentialDiffusion Magnetic Resonance ImagingDiffusion Tensor ImagingFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance SpectroscopyMaleMiddle AgedSensitivity and SpecificityAnisotropyDifferential diagnosisDiffusion magnetic resonance imagingKidneyRenal neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33413681
PMCPMC7791668

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.