A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

CT and clinical features for distinguishing endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma from urothelial carcinoma. | LitMetric

PURPOSE We aimed to characterize the clinical and multiphase computed tomography (CT) features of the distinguishing endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ECCRCC) from endophytic renal urothelial carcinoma (ERUC). METHODS Data from 44 patients (35 men and 9 women) with ECCRCC and 21 patients (17 men and 4 women) with ERUC were retrospectively assessed. The mean patient age was 55 years (48.25- 59.50 years) and 68 years (63.00-73.00 years), respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to determine independent predictors for ECCRCC and to construct a predictive model that comprised clinical and CT characteristics for the differential diagnosis of ECCRCC and ERUC. Differential diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). RESULTS The independent predictors of ECCRCC were heterogeneous enhancement (odds ratio [OR]=0.027, P=.005), hematuria (OR for gross hematuria=53.995, P=.003; OR for microscopic hematuria=31.126, P = .027), and an infiltrative growth pattern (OR=24.301, P = .022). The AUC of the predictive model was 0.938 (P < .001, sensitivity=84.10%, specificity=95.20%), which had a better diagnostic performance than heterogeneous enhancement (AUC=0.766, P=.001, sensitivity=81.82%, specificity=71.43%), hematuria (AUC=0.786, P < .001, sensitivity=81.82%, specificity=66.67%), and infiltrative growth pattern (AUC=0.748, P=.001, sensitivity=90.48%, specificity=59.09%). CONCLUSION The independent predictors, as well as the predictive model of CT and clinical characteristics, may assist in the differential diagnosis of ECCRCC and ERUC and provide useful information for clinical decision-making.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9682587PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.5152/dir.2022.211248DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

independent predictors
12
predictive model
12
features distinguishing
8
distinguishing endophytic
8
endophytic clear
8
clear cell
8
cell renal
8
renal cell
8
cell carcinoma
8
urothelial carcinoma
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!