Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41273440›Full record

ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026

Measurement of renal tumor size: the impact of 2D versus 3D methods on the T-stage.

Saar Vermijs, Joris Vangeneugden, Pieter De Visschere, Pieter De Backer, Karel Decaestecker, Charles Van Praet, Charlotte Debbaut

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Saar VermijsIBiTech-BioMMedA, Department of Electronics and Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium. saar.vermijs@ugent.be.
Joris VangeneugdenDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter De VisschereDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Ghent University Hospital, Ghent, Belgium.
Pieter De BackerCancer Research Institute Ghent, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Karel DecaesteckerDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Charles Van PraetDepartment of Human Structure and Repair, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Charlotte DebbautIBiTech-BioMMedA, Department of Electronics and Information Systems, Faculty of Engineering and Architecture, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.

Funding

Bijzonder Onderzoeksfonds UGent BOFSTA201909015Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek 1S64423NStichting Tegen Kanker Organ Saving Treatment Grant 2022
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate the influence of different tumor diameter measurement methods on the clinical T-staging of renal masses and compare this with the pathological T-staging.

methodsFour two-dimensional (2D) and two three-dimensional (3D) measurement methods (2D axial, 2D perpendicular, 2D oblique, 2D ellipsoid*, 3D diameter* and 3D volume* (*newly proposed methods)) were used to calculate the tumor diameter in 173 patient cases. 3D models of the tumors were segmented on the preoperative computed tomography (CT) scans. PyRadiomics was used to automatically analyze the 3D models for the six different measurement methods. Paired t-tests were performed to compare the tumor diameter over the different methods. Operation time (OT) and estimated blood loss (EBL) were compared between the T1a and T1b tumors for all methods using unpaired t-tests.

resultsMaximal tumor diameter results depend on the measurement method. The 3D diameter method gave the highest value, on average 16.9% larger than the pathological diameter. The 3D volume method distinguished best between T1a and T1b with regard to OT and EBL, followed by the 2D axial method. The biggest limitations are the small number of large tumors included and the single-observer measurements.

conclusionThe renal tumor diameter measured on imaging is influenced by the measurement technique and is larger than the pathological diameter. The newly proposed 3D volume method distinguishes surgical complexity best between T1a and T1b. However, when no 3D model is available, the simple diameter measurement on the axial plane could be sufficient.

Indexed as

Imaging, Three-DimensionalKidney NeoplasmsTomography, X-Ray ComputedAdultAgedAged, 80 and overContrast MediaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasm StagingRadiographic Image Interpretation, Computer-AssistedTumor BurdenContrast MediaComputed tomographyPartial nephrectomyPatient-specific modelingRenal cell carcinomaTNM staging

Identifiers

PMID41273440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.