ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Renal CT algorithm for evaluating clear cell carcinoma in solid renal masses ≤ 4 cm: a retrospective chinese two-center validation study.
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. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo externally validate a renal CT algorithm for diagnosing clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) in solid renal masses ≤ 4 cm and assess inter-reader agreement according to reader experience and across institutions.
methodsThis retrospective study included 217 patients (217 masses ≤ 4 cm) from two Chinese centers enrolled between January 2023 and December 2025. Histopathology served as the reference standard for final diagnosis. At each center, three radiologists independently evaluated attenuation ratio, heterogeneity, and CT score. Fleiss' weighted kappa was used to assess inter-reader agreement. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed on original ordinal CT scores to calculate AUC, and sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated at the cutoff CT score ≥ 4.
resultsCenter 1 included 121 patients (62 with ccRCC and 59 with non-ccRCC), and Center 2 included 96 patients (48 with ccRCC and 48 with non-ccRCC). Inter-reader agreement was almost perfect for attenuation ratio and CT scores (κ = 0.82-0.85) and substantial for heterogeneity score (κ = 0.72-0.76). Based on ordinal scores, the area under the curve (AUC) ranged from 0.823 to 0.837 (95% CI: 0.753-0.904) in Center 1 and from 0.830 to 0.856 (95% CI: 0.752-0.927) in Center 2, with overall AUC 0.829-0.842 (95% CI: 0.778-0.891). At CT score ≥ 4, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV ranged from 68.8% to 75.0% (95% CI: 53.7%-86.4%), 72.9% to 83.3% (95% CI: 59.7%-92.5%), 71.9% to 79.2% (95% CI: 63.0%-86.8%), 73.3% to 81.8% (95% CI: 60.3%-91.8%), and 70.5% to 76.9% (95% CI: 57.4%-87.5%), respectively. No significant differences in AUC were found among readers with different experience levels (all P > 0.05).
conclusionThe renal CT score offers favorable specificity and reproducibility for diagnosing ccRCC in small (≤ 4 cm) renal masses. The CT cutoff of ≥ 4 yields stable diagnostic performance across readers and centers. This low-cost algorithm shows promise as a potential tool for primary healthcare settings, pending prospective validation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42371022What 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.