Back to Authors

Cox, Kelly

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5996-4558

Mayo Clinic

Mayo Clinic in Florida

Citations 4

Contrast-enhanced US Evaluation of Indeterminate Focal Renal Masses
Desai, Madhura , Alexander, Lauren F. , Clingan, M. Jennings , Thompson, Cole P. , Patel, Neema , Barbee, Victoria, Cox, Kelly L., Agely, Ali , Gu, Chris N., Caserta, Melanie P. , Thompson, Cole P. , Desai, Madhura A , Clingan, Mary Jennings , Patel, Neema J, Barbee, Victoria V , Cox, Kelly L , Alexander, Lauren F , Cox, Kelly

RadioGraphics | February 19, 2026 | Volume: 46 | Issue: 3 | Pages: No page available

10.1148/rg.250103 Get It

CEUS is a safe and cost-effective means for characterization of indeterminate renal masses, with performance equal to or better than that of contrast-enhanced CT or MRI for stratification and surveillance of cystic renal masses and discrimination of benign avascular cysts from solid renal masses.
Imaging Patients with Kidney Failure
Clingan, M. Jennings , Zhang, Zhao , Caserta, Melanie P. , Cox, Kelly , Baumgarten, Deborah A. , Zhai, Qihui, Alexander, Lauren F. , Clingan, Mary Jennings , Cox, Kelly L , Baumgarten, Deborah A , Zhai, Qihui Jim, Alexander, Lauren F , Gupta, Vivek

RadioGraphics | April 13, 2023 | Volume: 43 | Issue: 5 | Pages: No page available

10.1148/rg.220116 Get It

Focal Nodular Hyperplasia and Focal Nodular Hyperplasia–like Lesions
LeGout, Jordan D. , Bolan, Candice W. , Bowman, Andrew W. , Caserta, Melanie P. , Chen, Frank K. , Cox, Kelly , Sanyal, Rupan , Toskich, Beau B. , Lewis, Jason T., Alexander, Lauren F. , Bowman, Andrew W , Alexander, Lauren F , Toskich, Beau , Lewis, Jason T.

RadioGraphics | June 10, 2022 | Volume: 42 | Issue: 4 | Pages: 1043-1061

10.1148/rg.210156 Get It

Comparative effectiveness of tumor response assessment methods: Standard-of-care versus computer-assisted response evaluation.
Florez, Edward , Sirous, Reza , Lirette, Seth T. , Griswold, Michael , Wang, Zhen J. , Bieszczad, Jacob, Cox, Kelly , Goenka, Ajit H. , Howard-Claudio, Candace M, Sanyal, Rupan , Henagen, J. Clark, Storrs, Judd , Allen, Brian C. , Remer, Erick M. , Howard, Candace M. , Kang, HyunSeon Christine , Nandwana, Sadhna B. , Shinagare, Atul Bhanudas , Davenport, Matthew S. , Rini, Brian I. , Smith, Andrew D. , Storrs, Judd M , Lirette, Seth

Journal of Clinical Oncology | March 29, 2017 | Volume: 35 | Issue: 6_suppl | Pages: 432-432

10.1200/jco.2017.35.6_suppl.432 Get It

432 Background: In clinical trials and clinical practice, tumor response assessment with computed tomography (CT) defines critical end points in patients with metastatic disease treated with systemic agents. Methods to reduce errors and improve efficiency in tumor response assessment could improve patient care. Methods: Eleven readers from 10 different institutions independently categorized tumor response according to three different therapeutic response criteria using paired baseline and initial post-therapy CT studies from 20 randomly selected patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma treated with sunitinib as part of a completed phase III multi-institutional study. Images were evaluated with a manual tumor response evaluation method (standard-of-care) and with computer-assisted response evaluation (CARE) that included stepwise guidance, interactive error-identification and correction methods, automated tumor metric extraction, calculations, response categorization, and data/image archival. A cross-over design, patient randomization, and two-week washout period were used to reduce recall bias. Comparative effectiveness metrics included error rate and mean patient evaluation time. Results: The standard-of-care method was on average associated with one or more errors in 30.5% (6.1/20) of patients while CARE had a 0.0% (0.0/20) error rate (p<0.001). The most common errors were related to data transfer and arithmetic calculation. In patients with errors, the median number of error types was 1 (range 1-3). Mean patient evaluation time with CARE was twice as fast as the standard-of-care method (6.4 vs. 13.1 minutes, p<0.001). Conclusions: Computer-assisted tumor response evaluation reduced errors and time of evaluation, indicating better overall effectiveness than manual tumor response evaluation methods that are the current standard-of-care.