ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2025
Is fat quantification based on proton density fat fraction useful for differentiating renal tumor types?
Article in Abdominal radiology (New York), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Correlation of ultrasound attenuation with proton density fat fraction across multiple organs in healthy volunteers.Medical physics · 2026Article
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
purposeThis study retrospectively assessed the diagnostic accuracy of fat quantification based on proton density fat fraction (PDFF) for differentiating renal tumors.
methodsIn this retrospective study, 98 histologically confirmed clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCCs), 35 papillary renal cell carcinomas (pRCCs), 14 renal oncocytomas, 16 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (chRCCs), 10 lymphomas, 19 uroepithelial tumors, 10 lipid-poor angiomyolipomas (AMLs), and 25 lipid-rich AMLs were identified in 226 patients (127 males and 99 females) over 5 years. All patients underwent multiparametric kidney MRI. The MRI protocol included an axial plane and a volumetric 3D fat fraction sequence known as mDIXON-Quant for PDFF measurement. Demographic data were recorded, and PDFF values were independently reviewed by two radiologists blinded to pathologic results. MRI examinations were performed using a 1.5 T system. MRI-PDFF measurements were obtained from the solid parts of all renal tumors. Fat quantification was performed using a standard region of interest for each tumor, compared to histopathological diagnoses. Sensitivity and specificity analyses were performed to calculate the diagnostic accuracy for each histopathological tumor type. Nonparametric variables were compared among the subgroups using the Kruskal-Wallis H test and Mann Whitney U test. P-values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant.
resultsIn all, 102 patients underwent partial nephrectomy, 70 patients underwent radical nephrectomy, and the remaining 54 had biopsies. Patient age (mean: 58.11 years; range: 18-87 years) and tumor size (mean: 29.5 mm; range: 14-147 mm) did not significantly differ across groups. All measurements exhibited good interobserver agreement. The mean ccRCC MRI-PDFF was 12.6 ± 5.06% (range: 11.58-13.61%), the mean pRCC MRI-PDFF was 2.72 ± 2.42% (range: 2.12-3.32%), and the mean chRCC MRI-PDFF was 1.8 ± 1.4% (range: 1.09-2.5%). Clear cell RCCs presented a significantly higher fat ratio than other RCC types, uroepithelial tumors, lymphomas, and lipid-poor AMLs (p < 0.05). Lipid-rich AMLs demonstrated a very high fat ratio.
conclusionMRI-PDFF facilitated accurate differentiation of ccRCCs from other renal tumors with high sensitivity and specificity.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39333411What 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.