Literature DB >> 19244046

Renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes--correlation with pathologic findings.

Maryellen R M Sun1, Long Ngo, Elizabeth M Genega, Michael B Atkins, Myra E Finn, Neil M Rofsky, Ivan Pedrosa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively evaluate whether the enhancement patterns of pathologically proved clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) measured on clinical dynamic contrast agent-enhanced magnetic resonance (MR) images permit accurate diagnosis of RCC subtype.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was Institutional Review Board approved and HIPAA compliant; informed consent was waived. One hundred twelve patients (76 men, 36 women; age range, 25-88 years; mean age, 58.1 years) underwent MR imaging of 113 renal masses (mean diameter, 5.4 cm) with pathologic diagnoses of clear cell (n = 75), papillary (n = 28), or chromophobe (n = 10) RCC. A 1.5-T clinical MR protocol was used before and after (corticomedullary and nephrographic phases) intravenous administration of contrast agent. Region-of-interest measurements within tumor and uninvolved renal cortex were used to calculate percentage signal intensity change and tumor-to-cortex enhancement index. Subtype groups were compared by using linear mixed-effects models. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed for the comparison of clear cell and papillary RCCs.
RESULTS: On both the corticomedullary and nephrographic phase images, clear cell RCCs showed greater signal intensity change (205.6% and 247.1%, respectively) than did papillary RCCs (32.1% and 96.6%, respectively) (P < .001). Chromophobe RCCs showed intermediate change (109.9% and 192.5%, respectively). The tumor-to-cortex enhancement indexes at corticomedullary and nephrographic phases were largest for clear cell RCCs (1.4 and 1.2, respectively), smallest for papillary RCCs (0.2 and 0.4, respectively), and intermediate for chromophobe RCCs (0.6 and 0.8, respectively). Signal intensity changes on corticomedullary phase images were the most effective parameter for distinguishing clear cell and papillary RCC (area under ROC curve, 0.99); a threshold value of 84% permitted distinction with 93% sensitivity and 96% specificity.
CONCLUSION: Clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe RCCs demonstrate different patterns of enhancement on two-time point clinical dynamic contrast-enhanced MR images, allowing their differentiation with high sensitivity and specificity. RSNA, 2009

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19244046     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2503080995

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


  88 in total

1.  Association of Prevalence of Benign Pathologic Findings After Partial Nephrectomy With Preoperative Imaging Patterns in the United States From 2007 to 2014.

Authors:  Jae Heon Kim; Shufeng Li; Yash Khandwala; Kyung Jin Chung; Hyung Keun Park; Benjamin I Chung
Journal:  JAMA Surg       Date:  2019-03-01       Impact factor: 14.766

Review 2.  Preclinical lymphatic imaging.

Authors:  Fan Zhang; Gang Niu; Guangming Lu; Xiaoyuan Chen
Journal:  Mol Imaging Biol       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.488

Review 3.  [Functional magnetic resonance imaging of the kidneys].

Authors:  R S Lanzman; M Notohamiprodjo; H J Wittsack
Journal:  Radiologe       Date:  2015-12       Impact factor: 0.635

4.  Diffusion-weighted imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging for the differentiation of renal oncocytomas and chromophobe renal cell carcinomas.

Authors:  Yan Zhong; Haiyi Wang; Yanguang Shen; Aitao Guo; Jia Wang; Suhai Kang; Lu Ma; Jingjing Pan; Huiyi Ye
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Assessment of multiphasic contrast-enhanced MR textures in differentiating small renal mass subtypes.

Authors:  Uyen N Hoang; S Mojdeh Mirmomen; Osorio Meirelles; Jianhua Yao; Maria Merino; Adam Metwalli; W Marston Linehan; Ashkan A Malayeri
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-12

Review 6.  Imaging of Solid Renal Masses.

Authors:  Fernando U Kay; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.241

7.  Diagnostic Performance and Interreader Agreement of a Standardized MR Imaging Approach in the Prediction of Small Renal Mass Histology.

Authors:  Fernando U Kay; Noah E Canvasser; Yin Xi; Daniella F Pinho; Daniel N Costa; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Gaurav Khatri; John R Leyendecker; Takeshi Yokoo; Aaron H Lay; Nicholas Kavoussi; Ersin Koseoglu; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2018-02-01       Impact factor: 11.105

8.  Routinely performed multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging helps to differentiate common subtypes of renal tumours.

Authors:  F Cornelis; E Tricaud; A S Lasserre; F Petitpierre; J C Bernhard; Y Le Bras; M Yacoub; M Bouzgarrou; A Ravaud; N Grenier
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2014-02-21       Impact factor: 5.315

9.  Diagnostic performance of prospectively assigned clear cell Likelihood scores (ccLS) in small renal masses at multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging.

Authors:  Brett A Johnson; Sandy Kim; Ryan L Steinberg; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Ivan Pedrosa; Jeffrey A Cadeddu
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2019-09-17       Impact factor: 3.498

10.  Prognostic implications of the magnetic resonance imaging appearance in papillary renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Aarti Sekhar; Elizabeth M Genega; Jonathan Melamed; James S Babb; Amish D Patel; Andy Lo; Robert M Najarian; Muneeb Ahmed; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2012-08-21       Impact factor: 5.315

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.