Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34225784›Full record

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

Differentiation of renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat from small clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using specific region of interest on contrast-enhanced CT: a new combination of quantitative tools.

Xu Wang, Ge Song, Haitao Jiang

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 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  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. Review
  9. Article
  10. The Use of Radiomic Tools in Renal Mass Characterization.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. 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.

Xu WangDepartment of Radiology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), No 1, Banshan East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310022, People's Republic of China. wangxu@zjcc.org.cn.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3389-5851
Ge SongDepartment of Radiology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), No 1, Banshan East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310022, People's Republic of China.
Haitao JiangDepartment of Radiology, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), No 1, Banshan East Road, Hangzhou, Zhejiang Province, 310022, People's Republic of China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo investigate the value of using specific region of interest (ROI) on contrast-enhanced CT for differentiating renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat (AML.wovf) from small clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC).

methodsFour-phase (pre-contrast phase [PCP], corticomedullary phase [CMP], nephrographic phase [NP], and excretory phase [EP]) contrast-enhanced CT images of AML.wovf (n = 31) and ccRCC (n = 74) confirmed by histopathology were retrospectively analyzed. The CT attenuation value of tumor (AVT), net enhancement value (NEV), relative enhancement ratio (RER), heterogeneous degree of tumor (HDT) and standardized heterogeneous ratio (SHR) were obtained by using different ROIs [small: ROI (1), smaller: ROI (2), large: ROI (3)], and the differences of these quantitative data between AML.wovf and ccRCC were statistically analyzed. Multivariate regression was used to screen the main factors for differentiation in each scanning phase, and the prediction models were established and evaluated.

resultsAmong the quantitative parameters determined by different ROIs, the degree of enhancement measured by ROI (2) and the enhanced heterogeneity measured by ROI (3) performed better than ROI (1) in distinguishing AML.wovf from ccRCC. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves showed that the area under the curve (AUC) of RER_CMP (2), RER_NP (2) measured by ROI (2) and HDT_CMP and SHR_CMP measured by ROI (3) were higher (AUC = 0.876, 0.849, 0.837 and 0.800). Prediction models that incorporated demographic data, morphological features and quantitative data derived from the enhanced phase were superior to quantitative data derived from the pre-contrast phase in differentiating between AML.wovf and ccRCC. Among them, the model in CMP was the best prediction model with the highest AUC (AUC = 0.986).

conclusionThe combination of quantitative data obtained by specific ROI in CMP can be used as a simple quantitative tool to distinguish AML.wovf from ccRCC, which has a high diagnostic value after combining demographic data and morphological features.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAngiomyolipomaCarcinoma, Renal CellContrast MediaDiagnosis, DifferentialFemaleHumansKidney NeoplasmsMaleMiddle AgedRadiographic Image EnhancementRetrospective StudiesTomography, X-Ray ComputedContrast Media

Identifiers

PMID34225784
PMCPMC8259143

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.