ArticleBJUI compass2025
Peak early-phase enhancement ratio on contrast-enhanced MRI to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from oncocytoma.
Article in BJUI compass, 2025. 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.
- Peak early-phase enhancement ratio on contrast-enhanced MRI to differentiate chromophobe renal cell carcinoma from oncocytoma.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Optimizing outcomes of partial nephrectomy in patients with tumors in solitary kidneys: a non-systematic review.Journal of medicine and life · 2025Review
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
Objectives: To evaluate the feasibility of using the peak early-phase enhancement ratio (PEER) of tumour to renal cortex measured on contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to distinguish between chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC) and oncocytoma, which are difficult to differentiate on renal mass biopsy. Patients and Methods: A consecutive case-control study was conducted of patients with chRCC or oncocytoma based on surgical pathology (2006-2020). Two radiologists blinded to pathology results independently measured PEER values on MRI for each tumour. PEER values were compared with surgical pathology results. Results: For the 18 renal tumours evaluated, PEER values were higher for the 7 oncocytomas than for the 11 chRCCs (median 1.33 versus 0.55, p < 0.001). Agreement between the image interpreters was high (Pearson's: 0.90). PEER cutoff values ranging from 0.98 to 1.05 provided high performance in identifying chRCC. A PEER cutoff value of ≤1.05 had sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% for the averaged PEER measurements between the two radiologists. High accuracy in identifying chRCC was also achieved for each individual image interpreter using the cutoff value of ≤1.05, with sensitivity of 100%, specificity of 85.7%, PPV of 91.7% and NPV of 100% for radiologist #1 and sensitivity of 90.9%, specificity of 85.7%, PPV of 90.9% and NPV of 85.7% for radiologist #2. Conclusion: Differentiating chRCCs from oncocytomas using PEER measurements obtained from contrast-enhanced MRI is feasible and reproducible between radiologists. We identified an accurate range for PEER cutoff values (0.98 to 1.05) requiring validation and adjustment in additional cohorts to maintain high sensitivity for detecting chRCC and negative predictive value. Using MRI PEER to evaluate oncocytic tumours with a differential diagnosis of chRCC versus oncocytoma based on biopsy pathology may help avoid unnecessary intervention for oncocytomas.
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.