ArticleCurrent medical imaging2026
Value of High Frame Rate Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Evaluating Vascular Morphology of Renal Cell Carcinoma
Article in Current medical imaging, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDifferent subtypes of Renal Cell Carcinoma (RCC) exhibit distinct tumor vascular morphological features. However, current imaging techniques still have limitations in delineating the vascular morphology of RCC.
objectiveThe study aims to evaluate the value of high-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (H-CEUS) in assessing the vascular morphology of RCC.
methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted on 163 RCC patients who were classified postoperatively into clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and non-clear cell RCC (nccRCC) groups. All patients underwent conventional US, conventional CEUS (C-CEUS), and H-CEUS preoperatively. Vascular morphology during the early phase of CEUS perfusion was categorized into five types (I-V). Differences in vascular morphology were compared using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test, and inter-observer agreement was evaluated using the Kappa coefficient. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: A significant difference in CDFI was observed between the ccRCC and nccRCC groups (χ2=11.755, P = 0.0088). In C-CEUS and H-CEUS, type III vascular morphology was most common in ccRCC. The proportion was significantly higher in H-CEUS than in C-CEUS (62.6% vs. 45.8%; χ2=6.099, P = 0.014). Type IV was the most common vascular morphology in nccRCC, with no significant difference between C-CEUS (58.9%) and H-CEUS (44.6%) (χ2=2.289, P = 0.130). H-CEUS revealed significant vascular morphological differences in ccRCC ≤4 cm (χ2=9.307, P = 0.038), but not in nccRCC ≤4 cm or in any tumors >4 cm. Inter-observer agreement for vascular morphology evaluation was substantial for both CCEUS (κ=0.751) and H-CEUS (κ=0.657) (both P<0.001).
conclusionH-CEUS offers superior visualization of vascular morphology in ccRCC lesions ≤4 cm, providing valuable insights into its potential as a noninvasive imaging modality for differentiating RCC subtypes and tailoring treatment strategies.
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.