Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38499727›Full record

ArticleInternational urology and nephrology2024

Renal mass imaging modalities: does body mass index (BMI) matter?

Young Son, Mark E Quiring, Raeann M Dalton, Brian Thomas, Noah Davidson, Dayna DeVincentz, Collin Payne, Sahil H Parikh, Benjamin A Fink, Thomas Mueller and 1 more

Abstract readMulticenter StudyComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in International urology and nephrology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Correlation of Kidney Lenght and Body Parameters in CT Scans.International braz j urol : official journal of the Brazilian Society of Urology
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Young SonDepartment of Urology, Jefferson Health New Jersey, 18 E Laurel Rd, Stratford, NJ, 08084, USA. youngso@pcom.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6730-7697
Mark E QuiringTexas College of Osteopathic Medicine, University of North Texas Health Science Center, Fort Worth, TX, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4127-3756
Raeann M DaltonSchool of Osteopathic Medicine, Rowan University, Stratford, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5946-4991
Brian ThomasSchool of Osteopathic Medicine, Rowan University, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Noah DavidsonLake Erie College of Osteopathic Medicine, Erie, PA, USA.
Dayna DeVincentzCollege of Science and Mathematics, Rowan University, Glassboro, NJ, USA.
Collin PayneCollege of Osteopathic Medicine, Nova Southeastern University, Tampa Bay, FL, USA.
Sahil H ParikhSchool of Osteopathic Medicine, Rowan University, Stratford, NJ, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7561-3544
Benjamin A FinkSchool of Osteopathic Medicine, Rowan University, Stratford, NJ, USA.
Thomas MuellerDepartment of Urology, Jefferson Health New Jersey, 18 E Laurel Rd, Stratford, NJ, 08084, USA.
Gordon BrownDepartment of Urology, Jefferson Health New Jersey, 18 E Laurel Rd, Stratford, NJ, 08084, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAccurate measurement of renal mass size is crucial in the management of renal cancer. With the burdensome cost of imaging yet its need for management, a better understanding of the variability among patients when determining mass size remains of urgent importance. Current guidelines on optimal imaging are limited, especially with respect to body mass index (BMI). The aim of this study is to discern which modalities accurately measure renal mass size and whether BMI influences such accuracy.

methodsA multi-institutional chart review was performed for adult patients undergoing partial or radical nephrectomy between 2018 and 2021, with 236 patients ultimately included. Patients were categorized by BMI (BMI 1: 18.5-24.9, BMI 2: 25-29.9, BMI 3: 30-34.9, and BMI 4: ≥ 35). The greatest mass lengths were compared between the pathology report and the following: computerized tomography (CT), renal ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

resultsThe difference between greatest length on CT with contrast and MRI were significantly different when compared to pathologic measurement. BMI groups 3 and 4 were found to have a significant difference in size estimates compared to BMI 2 for CT with contrast. No difference was found between size estimates by BMI group for any other imaging modality.

conclusionCT with contrast becomes less accurate at estimating mass size for patients with BMI > 30. While contrast-enhanced CT remains a vital imaging modality for tissue enhancement in the context of unknown renal masses, caution must be used for mass size estimation in the obese population.

Indexed as

Body Mass IndexKidney NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOrgan SizeRetrospective StudiesUltrasonographyBody mass indexImaging modalityRenal cell carcinomaRenal massSize estimation

Identifiers

PMID38499727
PMCPMC11266215

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.