Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39078524›Full record

ArticleMolecular imaging and biology2024

Imaging of Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma with

Steven P Rowe, Salikh Murtazaliev, Jorge D Oldan, Basil Kaufmann, Amna Khan, Mohammad E Allaf, Nirmish Singla, Christian P Pavlovich, Angelo M De Marzo, Ezra Baraban and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Molecular imaging and biology, 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. Review
  2. 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

12 authors.

Steven P Rowe *Molecular Imaging and Therapeutics, Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, 101 Manning Dr, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA. steven_rowe@med.unc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2897-4694
Salikh Murtazaliev *Department of Medical Imaging, The University of Arizona College of Medicine, Tuscon, AZ, USA.
Jorge D OldanMolecular Imaging and Therapeutics, Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina, 101 Manning Dr, Chapel Hill, NC, 27514, USA.
Basil KaufmannMilton and Carroll Petrie Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Amna KhanDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mohammad E AllafThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Nirmish SinglaThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Christian P PavlovichThe James Buchanan Brady Urological Institute and Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Angelo M De MarzoDepartment of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ezra Baraban *Department of Pathology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Michael A Gorin *Milton and Carroll Petrie Department of Urology, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA.
Lilja B Solnes *The Russell H. Morgan Department of Radiology and Radiological Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeIndeterminate renal masses are increasingly incidentally found on cross-sectional imaging. PROCEDURE: Patients imaged with renal sestamibi scans between 2014 and 2023 were reviewed. Those patients with solitary tumors that were originally classified as chRCC were included in the analysis. Imaging with SPECT/CT from the liver dome down had been carried out 75 min after the administration of 925 MBq of

resultA total of 18 patients with solitary tumors were included in the final analysis. 13/18 (72.2%) tumors in this cohort remained classified as chRCC, with 4/18 (22.2%) being eosinophilic-variant chRCC. The reclassified tumors (5/18 [27.8%]) included 2/18 (11.1%) low-grade oncocytic tumor (LOT), 1/18 (5.5%) eosinophilic vacuolated tumor (EVT), and 2/18 (11.1%) unclassified low-grade oncocytic neoplasms. As such, only 2/9 (22.2%) qualitatively "hot" tumors were chRCC other than eosinophilic-variant and only 1/9 (11.1%) "cold" tumors was a histology other than chRCC.

conclusionBased on current histopathologic classification methods, it is likely that the "false-positive" rate of uptake on renal sestamibi scans with chRCC has been over-stated. Further study is warranted to better refine the optimal utility of renal sestamibi scans for non-invasive risk stratification of indeterminate renal masses.

Indexed as

Carcinoma, Renal CellKidney NeoplasmsSingle Photon Emission Computed Tomography Computed TomographyTechnetium Tc 99m SestamibiAdultAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentTechnetium Tc 99m SestamibiMolecular imagingRenal massRenal tumorRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID39078524

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.