ArticleThe British journal of radiology2024
Comparison of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma and renal oncocytoma: a preliminary study.
Article in The British journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveQuantitative comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of conventional diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) and intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM) in differentiating between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (ChRCC) from renal oncocytoma (RO).
methodsA total of 48 patients with renal tumours who had undergone DWI and IVIM were divided into two groups-ChRCC (n = 28) and RO (n = 20) groups, and the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), true diffusivity (D), pseudo-diffusion coefficient (D*), perfusion fraction (f) and their diagnostic efficacy were compared between the two groups.
resultsThe D* values were higher in the ChRCCs group compared to the RO groups (0.019 ± 0.003 mm2/s vs 0.008 ± 0.002 mm2/s, P < .05). Moreover, the ADC, D and f values were higher in ROs compared to ChRCCs (0.61 ± 0.08 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.51 ± 0.06 × 10-3 mm2/s, 1.02 ± 0.15 × 10-3 mm2/s vs 0.86 ± 0.07 × 10-3 mm2/s, 0.41 ± 0.05 vs 0.28 ± 0.02, P < .05). The areas of the ADC, D, D* and f values under the ROC curves in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs were 0.713, 0.839, 0.856 and 0.906, respectively. The cut-off values of ADC, D, D* and f were 0.54, 0.91, 0.013 and 0.31, respectively. The AUC, sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the f values were 0.906, 89.3%, 80.0% and 89.6%, respectively. For pairwise comparisons of ROC curves and diagnostic efficacy, IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs (P = .013, .016, and .008) with f having the highest diagnostic accuracy.
conclusionIVIM parameters presented better performance than ADC in differentiating ChRCCs from ROs. ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE: (1) D* values of ChRCCs were higher, while ADC, D and f values were lower than those of RO tumours. (2) f values had the highest diagnostic efficacy in differentiating ChRCC from RO. (3) IVIM parameters, that is, D, D* and f offered better diagnostic accuracy than ADC in differentiating ChRCC from RO (P=.013, .016, and .008).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.