ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Head-to-head comparison of quantitative perfusion parameters derived from DECT, IVIM, and DCE-MRI for renal mass characterization: a within-patient, prospective 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeAccurate characterization of solid renal masses is essential because management and outcomes differ substantially by histologic subtype. Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the most common and aggressive RCC subtype, is also the most responsive to targeted anti-angiogenic therapies. Quantitative perfusion imaging may enable a noninvasive "virtual biopsy" approach, but the comparative performance of dual-energy CT (DECT), intravoxel incoherent motion (IVIM), and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) remains unclear. This study compared perfusion biomarkers from these modalities for differentiating ccRCC from other solid renal masses.
methodsIn this prospective single-center study, adults with solid renal masses underwent preoperative DECT, IVIM, and DCE-MRI, with postoperative histopathology as the reference standard. DECT-derived iodine concentration (IC) and iodine ratio (IR), IVIM-derived perfusion fraction (f) and pseudodiffusivity (D*), and DCE-MRI-derived wash-in rate (WIR), wash-out rate (WOR), and area under the time-intensity curve (AUTIC) were evaluated. Diagnostic performance for differentiating ccRCC from other solid renal masses was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and multivariable logistic regression.
resultsThirty-three patients (mean age, 49.8 ± 11.9 years; 21 men) were included. Compared with other solid renal masses, ccRCC demonstrated significantly higher IC and IR (p < 0.02) and higher AUTIC and WIR (p < 0.05). IVIM parameters did not differ significantly (p > 0.05). IC achieved the highest diagnostic performance across readers (AUC, 0.79-0.83). After exclusion of benign tumors, IC demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.89-1.00). Multivariable models did not improve performance over the best individual parameter.
conclusionDECT and DCE-MRI perfusion biomarkers showed comparable performance for differentiating ccRCC from other solid renal masses, whereas IVIM provided limited diagnostic value. The lack of incremental benefit from multiparametric modeling suggests that DECT-derived iodine concentration alone may be sufficient for clinical virtual biopsy workflows, particularly when MRI is unavailable or contraindicated.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42841922What 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.