Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35626364›Full record

ArticleDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Evaluation of Renal Masses with Histopathological Validation-Results from a Prospective Single-Center Study.

Antonio Tufano, Francesco Maria Drudi, Flavia Angelini, Eleonora Polito, Milvia Martino, Antonio Granata, Giovanni Battista Di Pierro, Eriselda Kutrolli, Matteo Sampalmieri, Vittorio Canale and 6 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

16 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Antonio TufanoDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Francesco Maria DrudiDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Flavia AngeliniDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Eleonora PolitoDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Milvia MartinoDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Antonio GranataNephrology and Dialysis Unit, "Cannizzaro" Hospital, 95122 Catania, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-7026-3952
Giovanni Battista Di PierroDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2321-0548
Eriselda KutrolliDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Matteo SampalmieriDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Vittorio CanaleDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Rocco Simone FlammiaDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-3129-0544
Daniele FresilliDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Michele BertolottoDepartment of Radiology, University of Trieste, 34127 Trieste, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-5583-350X
Costantino LeonardoDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Giorgio FrancoDepartment of Urology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Vito CantisaniDepartment of Radiology, Oncology and Pathology, University La Sapienza, 00185 Roma, Italy.
Sapienza University of Rome · ITOspedale Cannizzaro · ITUniversity of Trieste · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in characterizing between malignant and benign renal lesions confirmed by histological examination.

methodsOverall, 110 patients, for a total of 118 renal masses previously identified at CT and MRI underwent CEUS. An expert radiologist evaluated morphological, qualitative and quantitative parameters. Acquired data were analyzed to assess the value of each parameter to differentiate between malignant and benign lesions.

resultsHistological results of 118 renal masses showed 88 (75%) malignant lesions and 30 (25%) benign lesions. Among morphological features, inhomogeneous echogenicity was the best predictor of malignancy depicting a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 76%, 76%, 88% and 57%, respectively. Among qualitative parameters, the most reliable parameter was the presence of pseudo-capsule. Here, sensitivity, specificity, positive PPV and NPV were 85%, 86%, 94% and 71%, respectively. Among quantitative parameters, the most reliable parameters were peak intensity (PI) and the area under the (AUC) with sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV values of 94%, 92%, 96% and 87% and 99%, 92%, 97% and 97%, respectively. Finally, the most reliable parameters were combined to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. The best combination obtained was restricted to CEUS parameters (PI and AUC). Here, sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy rate were 93%, 100%, 100%, 83% and 93%, respectively.

conclusionsCEUS increases the US accuracy to discriminate between benign and malignant renal lesions.

Indexed as

contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)perfusionquantitative analysisrenal cancerrenal masses

Identifiers

PMID35626364
PMCPMC9140371
OpenAlexW4280516765

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.