ArticleUrology practice2025
Higher Risk Renal Angiomyolipomas: Surveillance Remains a Safe Management Option.
Article in Urology practice, 2025. 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.
- Development and validation of a machine learning-based radiomics model using 45-keV virtual monoenergetic images for differentiating fat-poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma.Translational andrology and urology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis retrospective study furthers our understanding of risk factors associated with hemorrhage and intervention in renal angiomyolipomas (R-AMLs), particularly in larger tumors (≥4 cm) and in childbearing-age (CBA; younger than 50 years) women. The objective was to refine risk stratification and optimize patient management.
methodsReview of our institutional database identified patients with radiographic R-AML from 1997 to 2023. Patient characteristics, R-AML characteristics, and clinical course were collected. Patients were grouped by management trajectories and analyzed across R-AML size, sex, and CBA woman status. Growth rates were modeled using linear mixed-effects regression.
resultsOf the 162 patients in this cohort, 22% had large R-AMLs (≥4 cm), of which the majority (66%) were managed with surveillance and a substantial portion (43%) never underwent intervention. The 23% of the cohort who were CBA women were similarly primarily managed with surveillance (74%), and more than half never underwent intervention (53%). The median follow-up on surveillance was 5.4 years. There was a significantly higher modeled growth rate with larger baseline tumor size, but growth rate was not affected by CBA woman status. Most cases of bleeding were in patients with markedly enlarged R-AMLs with multiple risk factors, but there were no serious adverse events.
conclusionsThis study is enriched for large R-AMLs and uniquely focuses on CBA women. It reinforces the notion that most large R-AMLs are treated asymptomatically and do not necessarily represent the bleeding risk historically ascribed to them. It suggests that CBA woman status alone should not motivate R-AML treatment.
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.