ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2021
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Advances in renal cancer: diagnosis, treatment, and emerging technologies.La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
- Role of Textural Analysis Parameters Derived from FDG PET/CT in Diagnosing Cardiac Sarcoidosis.World journal of nuclear medicine · 2024Article
- The value of radiomics based on 2-[18 F]FDG PET/CT in predicting WHO/ISUP grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma.EJNMMI research · 2024Article
- Radiomics in Oncological PET Imaging: A Systematic Review-Part 2, Infradiaphragmatic Cancers, Blood Malignancies, Melanoma and Musculoskeletal Cancers.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issuedCorrection to:2022
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis article analyzes the image heterogeneity of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) based on positron emission tomography (PET) and positron emission tomography-computed tomography (PET/CT) texture parameters, and provides a new objective quantitative parameter for predicting pathological Fuhrman nuclear grading before surgery.
methodsA retrospective analysis was performed on preoperative PET/CT images of 49 patients whose surgical pathology was ccRCC, 27 of whom were low grade (Fuhrman I/II) and 22 of whom were high grade (Fuhrman III/IV). Radiological parameters and standard uptake value (SUV) indicators on PET and computed tomography (CT) images were extracted by using the LIFEx software package. The discriminative ability of each texture parameter was evaluated through receiver operating curve (ROC). Binary logistic regression analysis was used to screen the texture parameters with distinguishing and diagnostic capabilities and whose area under curve (AUC) > 0.5. DeLong's test was used to compare the AUCs of PET texture parameter model and PET/CT texture parameter model with traditional maximum standardized uptake value (SUVmax) model and the ratio of tumor SUVmax to liver SUVmean (SUL)model. In addition, the models with the larger AUCs among the SUV models and texture models were prospectively internally verified.
resultsIn the ROC curve analysis, the AUCs of SUVmax model, SUL model, PET texture parameter model, and PET/CT texture parameter model were 0.803, 0.819, 0.873, and 0.926, respectively. The prediction ability of PET texture parameter model or PET/CT texture parameter model was significantly better than SUVmax model (P = 0.017, P = 0.02), but it was not better than SUL model (P = 0.269, P = 0.053). In the prospective validation cohort, both the SUL model and the PET/CT texture parameter model had good predictive ability, and the AUCs of them were 0.727 and 0.792, respectively.
conclusionPET and PET/CT texture parameter models can improve the prediction ability of ccRCC Fuhrman nuclear grade; SUL model may be the more accurate and easiest way to predict ccRCC Fuhrman nuclear grade.
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.