Literature DB >> 15215544

Renal masses: quantitative analysis of enhancement with signal intensity measurements versus qualitative analysis of enhancement with image subtraction for diagnosing malignancy at MR imaging.

Elizabeth M Hecht1, Gary M Israel, Glenn A Krinsky, Winnie Y Hahn, Danny C Kim, Ilana Belitskaya-Levy, Vivian S Lee.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively compare quantitative and qualitative methods of assessing magnetic resonance (MR) imaging contrast enhancement as the basis for diagnosing renal malignancy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: MR imaging was performed by using a gadolinium-enhanced breath-hold fat-suppressed three-dimensional T1-weighted gradient-echo sequence in 71 patients (48 men and 23 women; mean age, 62 years; age range, 26-87 years) with 93 renal lesions for which pathologic correlation was available. For quantitative measurements of enhancement, the relative increase in signal intensity values was measured by one investigator with manually defined regions of interest, and the threshold of an increase of 15% or greater was used to distinguish malignant from benign masses. For qualitative assessment, two investigators independently reviewed the subtracted images of all lesions and subjectively determined whether enhancement was present or absent. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values for each method were calculated and compared. Mean (+/- standard deviation) and median values of relative enhancement were also calculated for benign and malignant lesions.
RESULTS: At pathologic analysis, 74 (80%) of the 93 lesions were malignant, and 19 (20%)-including seven oncocytomas-were benign. For diagnosing malignancy based on enhancement alone, sensitivity and specificity, respectively, were 95% (70 of 74 lesions) and 53% (10 of 19 lesions) at quantitative analysis and 99% (73 of 74 lesions) and 58% (11 of 19 lesions) at qualitative analysis. All seven oncocytomas were considered to be malignant with both methods. When the oncocytomas were excluded, specificities increased to 83% (10 of 12 lesions) and 92% (11 of 12 lesions) for the quantitative and qualitative evaluations, respectively. Three of the four malignant lesions incorrectly characterized as benign at quantitative assessment were hyperintense on unenhanced MR images; all were diagnosed correctly at qualitative evaluation.
CONCLUSION: Image subtraction enables accurate assessment of renal tumor enhancement, particularly in the setting of masses that are hyperintense on unenhanced MR images. Copyright RSNA, 2004

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15215544     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2322031209

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  35 in total

1.  Retroperitoneoscopic microwave ablation of renal hamartoma: middle-term results.

Authors:  Wei Guan; Jian Bai; Zhiquan Hu; Yaowu Su; Qianyuan Zhuang; Zhangqun Ye
Journal:  J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci       Date:  2010-11-10

2.  MR classification of renal masses with pathologic correlation.

Authors:  Ivan Pedrosa; Mary T Chou; Long Ngo; Ronaldo H Baroni; Elizabeth M Genega; Laura Galaburda; William C DeWolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2007-09-26       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 3.  Imaging renal cell carcinoma with ultrasonography, CT and MRI.

Authors:  Michael J Leveridge; Peter J Bostrom; George Koulouris; Antonio Finelli; Nathan Lawrentschuk
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-05-18       Impact factor: 14.432

Review 4.  Imaging angiogenesis of genitourinary tumors.

Authors:  Ying-Kiat Zee; James P B O'Connor; Geoff J M Parker; Alan Jackson; Andrew R Clamp; M Ben Taylor; Noel W Clarke; Gordon C Jayson
Journal:  Nat Rev Urol       Date:  2010-01-19       Impact factor: 14.432

5.  In vivo predictors of renal cyst pseudoenhancement at 120 kVp.

Authors:  Jeet Patel; Matthew S Davenport; Shokoufeh Khalatbari; Richard H Cohan; James H Ellis; Joel F Platt
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 6.  Imaging features of solid renal masses.

Authors:  Massimo Galia; Domenico Albano; Alberto Bruno; Antonino Agrusa; Giorgio Romano; Giuseppe Di Buono; Francesco Agnello; Giuseppe Salvaggio; Ludovico La Grutta; Massimo Midiri; Roberto Lagalla
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2017-07-13       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 7.  Solid renal masses: what the numbers tell us.

Authors:  Stella K Kang; William C Huang; Pari V Pandharipande; Hersh Chandarana
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  The role of imaging in the active surveillance of small renal masses.

Authors:  P G K Wagstaff; P J Zondervan; J J M C H de la Rosette; M P Laguna
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 9.  Diffusion-weighted imaging of focal renal lesions: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  E A Lassel; R Rao; C Schwenke; S O Schoenberg; H J Michaely
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2013-09-10       Impact factor: 5.315

10.  The role of quantitative measurement by acoustic radiation force impulse imaging in differentiating benign renal lesions from malignant renal tumours.

Authors:  Cemil Göya; Mansur Daggulli; Cihad Hamidi; Alpaslan Yavuz; Salih Hattapoglu; Mehmet Guli Cetincakmak; Memik Teke
Journal:  Radiol Med       Date:  2014-08-06       Impact factor: 3.469

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.