ArticleBMC cancer2026
Radiological differentiation of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma from renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma.
Article in BMC cancer, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo characterize the imaging features of succinate dehydrogenase-deficient renal cell carcinoma (SDH-RCC) and compare them with those of renal oncocytoma (RO) and chromophobe RCC (chRCC).
methodsThis retrospective two-center study was approved by the institutional review board, and informed consent was waived. Patients with histologically confirmed SDH-RCC, RO, or chRCC who underwent pre-treatment contrast-enhanced CT between November 2015 and October 2024 were included. Imaging features were independently evaluated by two abdominal radiologists, with consensus in case of disagreement. Tumor size, location, margins, calcification, invasion, lymphadenopathy, distant metastases, and contrast enhancement parameters were analyzed and compared among groups.
resultsA total of 45 patients were enrolled, including 9 with SDH-RCC, 18 with RO and 18 with chRCC. SDH-RCC presented as relatively small (mean size, 3.4 cm), solitary masses without calcification, vascular invasion, or metastasis. Ill-defined margins were observed in 22.2% of SDH-RCC but rarely in the other groups (p = 0.015). The relative enhancement ratio in the corticomedullary phase differed significantly, with RO showing the highest values with 0.76 (p = 0.046). No significant differences were noted in the nephrographic or delayed phases. Among the SDH-RCC patients who underwent contrast MRI, two cases (66.7%, 2/3) demonstrated hemorrhagic features, which was another significant imaging sign that differed from RO and chRCC (p < 0.001).
conclusionSDH-RCC exhibits imaging features that partially overlap with RO and chRCC but also demonstrates distinctive characteristics, particularly ill-defined margins and hemorrhagic features. Awareness of these findings, integrated with clinical and genetic context, may assist radiologists in raising suspicion for SDH-RCC.
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.