ArticleEuropean radiology2021
The added value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluation of indeterminate small solid renal masses and risk stratification of cystic renal lesions.
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 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Diagnostic performance of the Bosniak classification, version 2019 for cystic renal masses: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Pooled it
- Diagnostic Role and Clinical Impact of Zr-Girentuximab PET-CT for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Clear-Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- ChatGPT-4V prompt: A tool to enhance junior radiologists' diagnostic capabilities in cystic renal masses to senior-level accuracy.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a CT prediction model for precise stratification of renal cystic tumors: a multicenter retrospective study based on the BOSNIAK classification.European radiology · 2025Article
- Clinical Utility of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Urology: A Multisystem Review.Cureus · 2025Review
- Contrast-enhanced US Bosniak Classification: intra- and inter-rater agreement, confounding features, and diagnostic performance.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Imaging modalities for characterising T1 renal tumours: A systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy.BJUI compass · 2024Review
- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in the Diagnosis of Solid Renal Lesions.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Review
- Review
- CEUS Bosniak Classification-Time for Differentiation and Change in Renal Cyst Surveillance.Cancers · 2023Review
- 2023 UPDATE - Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of cystic renal lesions Prior to original publication (March 2017), this guideline underwent review by the CUA Guidelines Committee, CUA members at large, and the CUA Executive Board. The 2023 updates were app roved by the CUA Guidelines Committee and CUA Executive Board.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2023Article
- Ultrasound-based "CEUS-Bosniak"classification for cystic renal lesions: an 8-year clinical experience.World journal of urology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo investigate accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) to characterize indeterminate small solid renal masses (sSRMs), excluding lipid-rich AMLs, and cystic renal masses (CRMs) according to the proposed Bosniak Classification 2019 MATERIALS AND
methodsCEUS of pathology-proven CRMs and sSRMs (without definite enhancement or macroscopic fat on CT/MRI), and CRMs with ≥18 months follow-up were retrospectively reviewed. Two radiologists blindly categorized CRMs according to new Bosniak Classification on CT/MRI. On CEUS, two other radiologists evaluated arterial-phase enhancement of sSRMs relative to renal cortex and categorized CRMs following new Bosniak Classification. Fisher's exact/chi-squared test was used to compare categorical variables, and Cohen κ statistics for inter-observer agreement
resultsA total of 237 patients had 241 lesions: 161 pathology-proven sSRMs (122 malignant and 39 benign), 29 pathology-proven CRMs, 51 CRMs with adequate follow-up. Arterial-phase enhancement < renal cortex predicted malignancy with specificity of 97.4% (38/39) (CI 85.6-99.9%), and positive predictive value (PPV) of 98.2% (54/55) (CI 90.4-99.9%). Inter-observer kappa was 0.95. In pathology-proven CRMS, sensitivity of CEUS vs CT/MRI was 100% (15/15) (CI 79.6-100%) vs 60% (9/15) (CI 35.8-80.1%) (p value = .002) and negative predictive value (NPV) 100% (2/2) (CI 17.8-100%) vs 25% (2/8 ) (CI 4.4-59.1%) (p value < 0.0001), with similar specificity (50%) and PPV- 88.2% (15/17) (CI 65.7-97.9%) vs 81.8% (9/11) (CI 52.3-96.8%) ( p value = 0.586). Bosniak Classification inter-observer kappa was 0.92 for CEUS vs 0.68 for CT/MRI (p value = 0.009).
conclusionIn our cohort, CEUS had high specificity and PPV to diagnose RCC in sSRMs excluding lipid-rich AML. CEUS had significantly higher sensitivity/NPV to diagnose malignancy in CRMs as compared to CT/MRI. KEY POINTS: • Once lipid-rich AML is excluded by the other modalities, sSRM arterial phase hypo-enhancement relative to renal cortex on CEUS yielded high specificity (97.4%) and PPV (98.2%) to diagnose RCC. • When applying the proposed Bosniak Classification 2019, CEUS showed higher sensitivity compared to CT/MRI (100% vs 60%), p value=.0024, in the stratification of cystic renal masses to diagnose malignancy. • CEUS may reduce the number of CT/MRI Bosniak IIF lesions by assigning them to either II or III/IV categories.
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.