Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39114306›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024

Prediction of clear cell renal cell carcinoma ≤ 4cm: visual assessment of ultrasound characteristics versus ultrasonographic radiomics analysis.

Fan Yang, Dai Zhang, Li-Hui Zhao, Yi-Ran Mao, Jie Mu, Hai-Ling Wang, Liang Pang, Shi-Qiang Yang, Xi Wei, Chun-Wei Liu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
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

10 authors.

Fan YangDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Dai ZhangDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Li-Hui ZhaoDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Yi-Ran MaoDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Jie MuDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Hai-Ling WangDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Liang PangDepartment of Urology, Tianjin Occupational Diseases Precaution and Therapeutic Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Shi-Qiang YangDepartment of Urology, Tianjin First Central Hospital, Tianjin, China.
Xi WeiDepartment of Ultrasound Diagnosis and Treatment, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center for Cancer, Tianjin, China.
Chun-Wei LiuDepartment of Cardiology, Tianjin Chest Hospital, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of the clinical ultrasound imaging model, ultrasonographic radiomics model, and comprehensive model based on ultrasonographic radiomics for the differentiation of small clear cell Renal Cell Carcinoma (ccRCC) and Renal Angiomyolipoma (RAML). Methods: The clinical, ultrasound, and contrast-enhanced CT(CECT) imaging data of 302 small renal tumors (maximum diameter ≤ 4cm) patients in Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital from June 2018 to June 2022 were retrospectively analyzed, with 182 patients of ccRCC and 120 patients of RAML. The ultrasound images of the largest diameter of renal tumors were manually segmented by ITK-SNAP software, and Pyradiomics (v3.0.1) module in Python 3.8.7 was applied to extract ultrasonographic radiomics features from ROI segmented images. The patients were randomly divided into training and internal validation cohorts in the ratio of 7:3. The Random Forest algorithm of the Sklearn module was applied to construct the clinical ultrasound imaging model, ultrasonographic radiomics model, and comprehensive model. The efficacy of the prediction models was verified in an independent external validation cohort consisting of 69 patients, from 230 small renal tumor patients in two different institutions. The Delong test compared the predictive ability of three models and CECT. Calibration Curve and clinical Decision Curve Analysis were applied to evaluate the model and determine the net benefit to patients. Results: 491 ultrasonographic radiomics features were extracted from 302 small renal tumor patients, and 9 ultrasonographic radiomics features were finally retained for modeling after regression and dimensionality reduction. In the internal validation cohort, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the clinical ultrasound imaging model, ultrasonographic radiomics model, comprehensive model, and CECT were 0.75, 76.7%, 60.0%, 70.0%; 0.80, 85.6%, 61.7%, 76.0%; 0.88, 90.6%, 76.7%, 85.0% and 0.90, 92.6%, 88.9%, 91.1%, respectively. In the external validation cohort, AUC, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the three models and CECT were 0.73, 67.5%, 69.1%, 68.3%; 0.89, 86.7%, 80.0%, 83.5%; 0.90, 85.0%, 85.5%, 85.2% and 0.91, 94.6%, 88.3%, 91.3%, respectively. The DeLong test showed no significant difference between the clinical ultrasound imaging model and the ultrasonographic radiomics model (Z=-1.287, P=0.198). The comprehensive model showed superior diagnostic performance than the ultrasonographic radiomics model (Z=4. 394, P<0.001) and the clinical ultrasound imaging model (Z=4. 732, P<0.001). Moreover, there was no significant difference in AUC between the comprehensive model and CECT (Z=-0.252, P=0.801). Both in the internal and external validation cohort, the Calibration Curve and Decision Curve Analysis showed a better performance of the comprehensive model. Conclusion: It is feasible to construct an ultrasonographic radiomics model for distinguishing small ccRCC and RAML based on ultrasound images, and the diagnostic performance of the comprehensive model is superior to the clinical ultrasound imaging model and ultrasonographic radiomics model, similar to that of CECT.

Indexed as

clear cell renal cell carcinomaradiomicsrenal angiomyolipomasmall renal tumorultrasound

Identifiers

PMID39114306
PMCPMC11304449

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.