ArticleCancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society2024
Qualitative and quantitative analysis of solid renal tumors by high-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
Article in Cancer imaging : the official publication of the International Cancer Imaging Society, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Features of Renal Hemangiomas: A Retrospective Descriptive Study.Current medical imaging · 2026Article
- Clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with quantitative analysis in Bosniak ≥ II cystic renal masses.Abdominal radiology (New York) · 2025Article
- Preliminary Study on the Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Enhancing Early Vascular Architecture for the Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Endometrial Lesions.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCUArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the characteristics of high-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (H-CEUS) in solid renal tumors using qualitative and quantitative methods.
methodsSeventy-five patients who underwent preoperative conventional ultrasound (US), conventional contrast-enhanced ultrasound (C-CEUS), and H-CEUS examination of renal tumors were retrospectively analyzed, with a total of 89 renal masses. The masses were divided into the benign (30 masses) and malignant groups (59 masses) based on the results of enhanced computer tomography and pathology. The location, diameter, shape, border, calcification, and color doppler blood flow imaging (CDFI) of the lesions were observed by US, and the characteristics of the C-CEUS and H-CEUS images were qualitatively and quantitatively analyzed. The χ² test or Fisher's exact probability method was used to compare the US image characteristics between the benign and malignant groups, and the image characteristics of C-CEUS and H-CEUS between the benign and malignant groups. Moreover, the nonparametric Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the differences in C-CEUS and H-CEUS time-intensity curve (TIC) parameters.
resultsSignificant differences in gender, surgical approach, echogenicity, and CDFI were observed between the malignant and benign groups (p = 0.003, < 0.001, < 0.001, = 0003). Qualitative analysis also revealed significant differences in the mode of wash-out and fill-in direction between C-CEUS and H-CEUS in the malignant group (p = 0.041, 0.002). In addition, the homogeneity of enhancement showed significant differences between the two contrast models in the benign group (p = 0.009). Quantitative analysis indicated that the TIC parameters peak intensity (PI), deceleration time (DT) /2, area under the curve (AUC), and mean transition time (MTT) were significantly lower in the H-CEUS model compared to the C-CEUS model in both the benign and malignant groups. (all p < 0.001). In contrast, ascending slope of rise curve (AS) was significantly higher in the H-CEUS model compared to the C-CEUS model in the malignant group (p = 0.048).
conclusionsIn renal tumors, H-CEUS shows clearer internal enhancement of the mass and the changes in the wash-out period. The quantitative TIC parameters PI, DT/2, AUC, and MTT were lower in H-CEUS compared to C-CEUS. Both the quantitative and qualitative analyses indicated that H-CEUS better displays the characteristics of solid renal masses compared with C-CEUS.
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.