ArticleCardiovascular and interventional radiology2023
MRI- Versus CT-Guided Renal Tumor Cryoablation: Is There a Difference?
Article in Cardiovascular and interventional radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive review of current evidence and future directions.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Percutaneous Image-Guided Ablation of Renal Cancer: Traditional and Emerging Indications, Energy Sources, Techniques, and Future Developments.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Review
- Clinical diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with microflow imaging in benign and malignant renal tumors: A retrospective cohort study.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2024Article
- Ablation of Kidney Tumors in Patients with Substantial Kidney Impairment: Current Status.Current oncology reports · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare procedure-related variables, safety, renal function, and oncologic outcomes in patients undergoing percutaneous cryoablation (CA) of renal tumors with MRI- or CT-guidance. MATERIALS AND
methodsPatient, tumour, procedure, and follow-up data were collected and analysed. MRI and CT groups were matched using a coarsened exact approach according to patient's gender and age, tumour grade, size and location. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
resultsTwo-hundred fifty-three patients (266 tumors) were retrospectively selected. Following the coarsened exact matching 46 patients (46 tumors) in the MRI group and 42 patients (42 tumors) in the CT group were matched. There were no significant baseline differences between the two populations except for the duration of follow-up (P = 0.002) and renal function (P = 0.002). On average MRI-guided CA lasted 21 min longer than CT-guided ones (P = 0.005). Following CA, complication rates (6.5% for MRI vs 14.3% for CT; P = 0.30) and GFR decline (mean - 13.1 ± 15.8%; range - 64.5-15.0 for MRI; mean - 8.1 ± 14.8%; range - 52.5-20.4; for CT; P = 0.13) were similar in both groups. The 5-year local progression-free, cancer-specific and overall survivals in the MRI and CT groups were 94.0% (95% CI 86.3%-100.0%) and 90.8% (95% CI 81.3%-100.0%; P = 0.55), 100.0% (95% CI 100.0%-100.0%) and 100.0% (95% CI 100.0%-100.0%; P = 1), and 83.7% (95% CI 64.0%-100.0%) and 76.2% (95% CI 62.0%-93.6%; P = 0.41), respectively.
conclusionsApart from increased procedural times associated with MRI-guided CA of renal tumors compared to CT-guidance, both modalities demonstrate similar safety, GFR decline and oncologic outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37225969What 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.