ArticleAbdominal radiology (New York)2026
Agreement of axial T2-MRI versus Contrast-Enhanced CT for solid renal mass active surveillance.
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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeActive surveillance (AS) of small renal masses (SRMs) typically relies on contrast-enhanced CT for serial size measurement. Non-contrast (NC) MRI protocols may provide an alternative. To assess the agreement of maximum axial tumor diameter and tumor nearness between NC MRI and contrast-enhanced CT for SRM surveillance, and to compare diagnostic confidence in tumor delineation across modalities.
methodsWe retrospectively identified 50 patients (mean age, 62.9 years; 44% women) who underwent both contrast-enhanced CT and axial T2-weighted MRI within 3 months as part of AS protocol. Nine radiologists from five hospitals independently assessed maximum tumor diameter (axial plane) and tumor nearness to the collecting system (TN, three-tier scale) and subjectively graded their diagnostic confidence in delineating the tumor contour (DC, 5-point scale) in 50 CT and MRI scans across four randomized reading sessions. Observer agreement for diameter assessment was quantified using the limits of agreement with the mean (LOAM), whereas TN and DC were analyzed using Gwet's AC2.
resultsMean tumor diameters were 19.9 mm for CT and 19.5 mm for MRI (mean difference, 0.4 mm; p = 0.051). Reproducibility LOAMs were ± 2.9 [2.7-3.2] mm (CT) and ± 3.1 [2.9-3.4] mm (MRI), with overlapping confidence intervals. TN ratings and agreement were similar for CT and MRI (p = 0.61; p = 0.86, respectively), whereas DC ratings were higher and interobserver agreement was better for CT (p < 0.001 and p = 0.009, respectively)..
conclusionNC axial T2-weighted MRI demonstrated tumor diameter agreement comparable to contrast-enhanced CT, along with comparable TN ratings and agreement, whereas CT yielded higher DC and better interobserver agreement for DC.
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.