Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36725722›Full record

ArticleEuropean radiology2023

Comparative diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Ping Zhao, Jianing Zhu, Lanke Wang, Nan Li, Xinghua Zhang, Jinfeng Li, Yukun Luo, Qiuyang Li

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European radiology, 2023. 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
5.9field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Imaging in Renal Cell Carcinoma Detection.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ping ZhaoSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China.
Jianing ZhuDepartment of Ultrasound, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Lanke WangDepartment of Ultrasound, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Nan LiDepartment of Ultrasound, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Xinghua ZhangDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Jinfeng LiDepartment of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China.
Yukun LuoSchool of Medicine, Nankai University, Tianjin, 300071, China. lyk301@163.com.
Qiuyang LiDepartment of Ultrasound, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, 100853, China. liqiuyang0925@163.com.
Chinese PLA General Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic efficiency of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with that of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for the differential diagnosis of clear and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, as confirmed by subsequent pathology.

methodsA total of 181 patients with 184 renal lesions diagnosed by both CEUS and DCE-MRI were enrolled in the study, including 136 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and 48 non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) tumors. All lesions were confirmed by histopathologic diagnosis after surgical resection. Interobserver agreement was estimated using a weighted kappa statistic. Diagnostic efficiency in evaluating ccRCC and non-ccRCC was compared between CEUS and DCE-MRI.

resultsThe weighted kappa value for interobserver agreement was 0.746 to 0.884 for CEUS diagnosis and 0.764 to 0.895 for DCE-MRI diagnosis. Good diagnostic performance in differential diagnosis of ccRCC and non-ccRCC was displayed by both CEUS and DCE-MRI: sensitivity was 89.7% and 91.9%, respectively; specificity was 77.1% and 68.8%, respectively; and area under the receiver operating curve was 0.834 and 0.803, respectively. No statistically significant differences were present between the two methods (p = 0.54).

conclusionsBoth CEUS and DCE-MRI imaging are effective for the differential diagnosis of ccRCC and non-ccRCC. Thus, CEUS could be an alternative to DCE-MRI as a first test for patients at risk of renal cancer, particularly where DCE-MRI cannot be carried out. KEY POINTS: • CEUS and DCE-MRI features can help differentiate ccRCC and non-ccRCC. • The differential diagnosis of ccRCC and non-ccRCC by CEUS is comparable to that of DCE-MRI. • Interobserver agreement is generally high using CEUS and DCE-MRI.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsContrast MediaHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyContrast MediaDifferential diagnosisMagnetic resonance imagingRenal cell carcinomaUltrasound imaging

Identifiers

PMID36725722
OpenAlexW4318829771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.