ArticleBMC medical imaging2025
Usefulness of the internal-to-external circle area ratio in contrast-enhanced CT to differentiate small (< 3 cm) fat-poor angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma.
Article in BMC medical imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThis study aimed to assess the use of morphological parameters, including the internal-to-external circle area ratio (IECR), in contrast-enhanced CT to distinguish small (< 3 cm) fat-poor angiomyolipoma (AML) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC).
methodsA total of 212 tumors (35 fat-poor AMLs and 177 RCCs) in the initial cohort were retrospectively evaluated using contrast-enhanced CT. Morphological characteristics (angular interface sign [AIS] score, overflowing beer sign [OBS] score, tumor diameter, circularity index, and IECR) were compared between RCC and fat-poor AML. The diagnostic performance of the significant parameters was evaluated via the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared via the DeLong test. Logistic regression was used to determine the main factors for distinguishing fat-poor AML from RCC. Three prediction models were constructed and evaluated: one omitting circularity index and IECR, one incorporating circularity index, and one incorporating IECR. The effectiveness of the prediction models was then confirmed through a validation cohort (19 fat-poor AMLs and 99 RCCs).
resultsThere were significant differences between RCC and fat-poor AML in both sex (P < 0.001) and all morphological parameters, including AIS score (P = 0.003), OBS score (P < 0.001), any sign for AML (P < 0.001), tumor diameter (P = 0.008), circularity index (P < 0.001), and IECR (P < 0.001), with AUC values ranging from 0.619 to 0.899. The diagnostic performance of IECR (AUC, 0.899) was significantly better than that of other parameters (Z range, 2.128-8.582; all P < 0.05). To distinguish fat-poor AML from RCC, the AUC values of the prediction model omitting circularity index and IECR, prediction model incorporating circularity index, and prediction model incorporating IECR were 0.873, 0.921, and 0.951 in the initial cohort, as well as 0.867, 0.891, and 0.933 in the validation cohort, respectively. The prediction model that used the IECR outperformed the models without the IECR.
conclusionsThe IECR can be used as a simple and practical quantitative morphological factor to distinguish fat-poor AML from RCC. Adding IECR can increase the diagnostic performance of prediction models on the basis of morphological characteristics in the differential diagnosis of fat-poor AML and RCC. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.