ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2024
Efficacy of
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Percutaneous thermal ablation for renal cell carcinoma: a comprehensive review of current evidence and future directions.La Radiologia medica · 2026Review
- Advances in renal cancer: diagnosis, treatment, and emerging technologies.La Radiologia medica · 2025Review
- Role ofJapanese journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Generative AI and large language models in nuclear medicine: current status and future prospects.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeDialysis patients are at an increased risk of developing renal cell carcinoma (RCC); however, differentiating between RCC and benign cysts can sometimes be difficult using modalities, such as computed tomography (CT) and ultrasonography. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective study recruited 150 participants from 2012 to 2016 who were on dialysis or underwent renal transplantation and were on dialysis until transplantation. FDG-PET/CT was performed to screen for RCC. Three radiologists independently evaluated the images. No protocol was defined for the additional management of positive examinations, leaving decisions to the discretion of each participant. Negative examinations were observed until the end of 2019.
resultsIn total, 150 participants (mean age, 58 ± 13 years; 105 men) underwent FDG-PET/CT. Twenty patients (13.4%) were diagnosed as positive. Fifteen patients underwent additional examinations and/or procedures, and RCC was found in seven patients. Of the four patients who underwent surgical resection, the pathological results were clear cell RCC in one, papillary RCC in one, and acquired cystic disease-associated RCC in two. Two participants were diagnosed with RCC on bone biopsy, and one was diagnosed on dynamic CT but opted for observation. The sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value were 100%, 93.9%, and 100%, respectively.
conclusionFDG-PET/CT was useful for detecting RCC in patients with end-stage renal disease. Our findings show the potential use of FDG-PET/CT as a screening tool for RCC in this patient population.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.