ArticleFrontiers in oncology2024
Determinants of conventional and contrast-enhanced ultrasound diagnosis of fat-poor angiomyolipoma <5 cm.
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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differentiation of Fat-Poor Renal Angiomyolipoma From Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma: Diagnostic Performance of a Novel Type of Color Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Renal Epithelioid Angiomyolipomas: Clinicopathological Features, Diagnosis, and Management.Cancer diagnosis & prognosisReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to assess the diagnostic efficacy of conventional ultrasound (CUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in detecting fat-poor angiomyolipomas(AML) with dimensions less than 5 cm. Additionally, the study seeks to identify independent indicators for predicting the presence of fat-poor AML. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with renal AML and renal cell carcinoma, who were admitted and underwent surgery at Fujian Provincial Hospital from January 2013 to October 2023. A total of 154 renal tumors were included (104 renal cell carcinomas and 50 fat-poor AMLs). Prior to radical or partial nephrectomy, these patients underwent both CUS and CEUS examinations. We systematically analyzed the features observed in CUS and CEUS, identified independent factors through multifactorial regression analysis, and evaluated diagnostic efficacy by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Univariate analysis revealed significant distinctions in fat-poor AML concerning gender, age, morphology, internal hyperechoic features (starry-sky sign, crescent sign), enhancement uniformity, and delayed enhancement, all displaying significance compared to renal cell carcinoma (RCC) ( Conclusion: This study suggests that both CUS and CEUS possess discriminative value in differentiating fat-poor AMLs from RCCs. Notably, internal hyperechoic features (starry-sky sign, crescent sign) and uniform enhancement within renal tumors emerge as potential independent indicators for predicting fat-poor AML.
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.