ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Contrast enhanced ultrasound evaluation of nephron sparing treatment for renal cell carcinoma.
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. 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine the accuracy of CEUS in identifying residual or recurrent tumor post nephron-sparing procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsCEUS studies performed post nephron sparing procedure (RFA, cryoablation, MWA, partial nephrectomy) from January 2018 to May 2025 were retrospectively reviewed at 2 centers. Informed consent was waived. Patient charts were reviewed for follow-up procedures and patient status. CEUS studies were performed on a Philips Epic ultrasound with a C5-1 transducer using Lumason with a dose of 1.0 to 2.0 cc. A 3-minute cine clip was saved. An examination was considered a true positive if there was contrast in the procedure site and either biopsy proven tumor or persistent enhancement for over 1 year. An examination was considered a true negative if there was no contrast enhancement in the procedure site.
resultsThere were 193 lesions in 188 patients. (mean age 68.0 years +/- 1.4 {SD} (range 33-90) ; 115 men). There were 16 radiofrequency ablation, 38 cryoablations, 4 microwave ablations, and 135 partial nephrectomies. The average lesion size was 2.9 cm (IQR 2.2,3.7; range 1.4-7.1 cm). There were 17 (8.8%) true positive cases and 176 (91.2%) true negative cases. Time of follow-up ranged from 1 to 336 months (mean 35.1, IQR 12, 70). There were no false positive or false negative cases based on biopsy and long-term follow-up. There were 92 (47.7%) that also had CECT. There was 96.7% concordance of CEUS with CT. There were 3 CEUS cases positive with a negative CECT.
conclusionsCEUS is an accurate method in determining residual or recurrent tumor in patients having nephron sparing procedures.
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.