ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2024
Factors that Affect Outcome of Ultrasound-Guided Radiofrequency Ablation of Renal Masses.
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Image-guided percutaneous ablation techniques for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: a primer for radiologists.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2026Review
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
The purpose of this study was to examine the factors influencing the efficacy and safety of the ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors. Between January 2010 and December 2018, 159 patients with renal tumors treated with ultrasound-guided percutaneous radiofrequency ablation at our institution were included in this study. Biopsies were performed for histopathological analysis prior to each ablation. Patients underwent computed tomography follow-ups at 3, 6, and 12 months and were subsequently observed on an annual basis. The primary efficacy rate (i.e., residual tumor), local tumor progression, morbidity and mortality, and possible outcome predictors (age, body mass index, gender, tumor size, tumor location, tumor characteristics, ablation temperature, and reported technical problems) were analyzed using binary logistic regression. At the first follow-up, 3 months after ablation, the primary efficacy rate was 79%. Two percent of the tumors showed local tumor progression during the whole follow-up. Tumor proximity to the collecting system and the final temperature in the ablation region were associated with the occurrence of residual tumor (OR = 2.85,
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.