Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36731307›Full record

ArticleTranslational oncology2023

A CT-based radiomics nomogram for differentiation of benign and malignant small renal masses (≤4 cm).

Shengxing Feng, Mancheng Gong, Dongsheng Zhou, Runqiang Yuan, Jie Kong, Feng Jiang, Lijie Zhang, Weitian Chen, Yueming Li

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Translational oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. The Use of Radiomic Tools in Renal Mass Characterization.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Shengxing FengThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Mancheng GongDepartment of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China. Electronic address: gongmancheng@126.com.
Dongsheng ZhouThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Runqiang YuanDepartment of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Jie KongThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Feng JiangThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Lijie ZhangThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Weitian ChenThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Yueming LiThe First Clinical School of Medicine, Guangdong Medical University, Zhanjiang, China; Department of Urology, The People's Hospital of Zhongshan, Zhongshan, China.
Zhongshan People's Hospital · CNGuangdong Medical College · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

RATIONALE AND

objectivesBased on radiomics signature and clinical data, to develop and verify a radiomics nomogram for preoperative distinguish between benign and malignant of small renal masses (SRM). MATERIALS AND

methodsOne hundred and fifty-six patients with malignant (n = 92) and benign (n = 64) SRM were divided into the following three categories: category A, typical angiomyolipoma (AML) with visible fat; category B, benign SRM without visible fat, including fat-poor angiomyolipoma (fp-AML), and other rare benign renal tumors; category C, malignant renal tumors. At the same time, one hundred and fifty-six patients included in the study were divided into the training set (n = 108) and test set (n = 48). Respectively from corticomedullary phase (CP), nephrogram phase (NP) and excretory phase (EP) CT images to extract the radiomics features, and the optimal features were screened to establish the logistic regression model and decision tree model, and computed the radiomics score (Rad-score). Demographics and CT findings were evaluated and statistically significant factors were selected to construct a clinical factors model. The radiomics nomogram was established by merging Rad-score and selected clinical factors. The Akaike information criterion (AIC) values and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to compare model discriminant performance, and decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to assess clinical usefulness.

resultsSeven, fifteen, nineteen, and seventeen distinguishing features were obtained in the CP, NP, EP, and three-phase joint, respectively, and the logistic regression and decision tree models were built based on this features. In the training set, the logistic regression model works better than the decision tree model for distinguishing categories A and B from category C, with the AUC of CP, NP, EP and three-phase joint were 0.868, 0.906, 0.937 and 0.975, respectively. The radiomics nomogram constructed based on the three-phase joint Rad-score and selected clinical factor performed well on the training set (AUC, 0.988; 95% CI, 0.974-1.000) for differentiation of categories A and B from category C. In the test set, the AUC of clinical factors model, radiomics signature and radiomics nomogram for discriminating categories A and B from category C were 0.814, 0.954 and 0.968, respectively; for the identification of category A from category C, the AUC of the three models were 0.789, 0.979, 0.985, respectively; for discriminating category B from category C, the AUC of the three models were 0.853, 0.915, 0.946, respectively. The radiomics nomogram had better discriminative than the clinical factors model in both training and test sets (P < 0.05). The radiomics nomogram (AIC = 40.222) with the lowest AIC value was considered the best model compared with that of the clinical factors model (AIC = 106.814) and the radiomics signature (AIC = 44.224). The DCA showed that the radiomics nomogram have better clinical utility than the clinical factors model and radiomics signature.

conclusionsThe logistic regression model has better discriminative performance than the decision tree model, and the radiomics nomogram based on Rad-score of three-phase joint and clinical factors has a good predictive effect in differentiating benign from malignant of SRM, which may help clinicians develop accurate and individualized treatment strategies.

Indexed as

DifferentialKidney neoplasmsRadiomicsSmall renal massesTomography

Identifiers

PMID36731307
PMCPMC9937807
OpenAlexW4319063757

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.