FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2016809276> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2016809276 abstract "You have accessJournal of UrologyKidney Cancer: Evaluation & Staging (II)1 Apr 2013736 RCC GRADE PREDICTION USING CONTRASTED COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY Luck Hee Sung, Choong Hee Noh, Jae Yong Chung, and Ji Hyung Yu Luck Hee SungLuck Hee Sung seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , Choong Hee NohChoong Hee Noh seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , Jae Yong ChungJae Yong Chung seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author , and Ji Hyung YuJi Hyung Yu seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.299AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Nuclear grade (Fuhrman) is an independent prognostic factor in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Contrasted CT is one of the most important tools in the diagnosis and staging of (RCC). The amount of enhancement on contrasted CT to predict high grade tumours can be useful. Our objective was to identify if tumour enhancement was associated to RCC grade. METHODS Medical charts of all patients with histologic diagnosis of RCC and a preoperative contrasted CT on a patient archive communication system (PACS) were analyzed. All CT were performed on a 64-slice Siemens CT. Variables analyzed during contrast and non-contrast CT were Hounsfield units (HU) of renal parenchyma and tumour. During contrast CT special attention was payed to both the points of highest enhancement and to average enhancement of the whole tumour at the point of greatest necrosis (WTH), if applicable. Pathological variables as well as size and stage were analyzed. Student's T test was used for statistical analysis, using commercially available software. RESULTS 30 patients were included. Average tumour enhancement was 86.67 and 56 HU for low-grade (Fuhrman 1 and 2) and high-grade (Fuhrman 3 and 4) tumours, respectively (p=0.022). When considering the average enhancement WTH, low- and high-grade tumours enhanced 89.2 and 51.3 HU (p=0.002). High-grade tumours were also larger than low-grade tumours (89.2 cm vs. 51.3 cm, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS High-grade RCC was associated to lower enhancement on contrast CT. Lower average enhancement may correlate to the degree of necrosis and could be a useful tool in prediction of higher nuclear grade and worse prognosis. Larger prospective studies are necessary to confirm this association. © 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 189Issue 4SApril 2013Page: e303 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2013 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Luck Hee Sung seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Choong Hee Noh seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Jae Yong Chung seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Ji Hyung Yu seoul, Korea, Republic of More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ..." @default.
• W2016809276 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2016809276 creator A5005301507 @default.
• W2016809276 creator A5031541721 @default.
• W2016809276 creator A5034191029 @default.
• W2016809276 creator A5086569923 @default.
• W2016809276 date "2013-04-01" @default.
• W2016809276 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2016809276 title "736 RCC GRADE PREDICTION USING CONTRASTED COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY" @default.
• W2016809276 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.02.299" @default.
• W2016809276 hasPublicationYear "2013" @default.
• W2016809276 type Work @default.
• W2016809276 sameAs 2016809276 @default.
• W2016809276 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2016809276 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2016809276 hasAuthorship W2016809276A5005301507 @default.
• W2016809276 hasAuthorship W2016809276A5031541721 @default.
• W2016809276 hasAuthorship W2016809276A5034191029 @default.
• W2016809276 hasAuthorship W2016809276A5086569923 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C126838900 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C187954543 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C207886595 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C2777472916 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C2989005 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C544519230 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C126322002 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C126838900 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C187954543 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C207886595 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C2777472916 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C2989005 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C544519230 @default.
• W2016809276 hasConceptScore W2016809276C71924100 @default.
• W2016809276 hasIssue "4S" @default.
• W2016809276 hasLocation W20168092761 @default.
• W2016809276 hasOpenAccess W2016809276 @default.
• W2016809276 hasPrimaryLocation W20168092761 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2022231328 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2042307088 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2066429881 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2132870022 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2298920692 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2408133128 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2470947571 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2764299427 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W4312876555 @default.
• W2016809276 hasRelatedWork W2262438184 @default.
• W2016809276 hasVolume "189" @default.
• W2016809276 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2016809276 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2016809276 magId "2016809276" @default.
• W2016809276 workType "article" @default.