Literature DB >> 19380690

T1 hyperintense renal lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

Sooah Kim1, Monica Jain, Andrew B Harris, Vivian S Lee, James S Babb, Eric E Sigmund, Laura E Rueff, Bachir Taouli.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement obtained with diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the characterization of non-fat-containing T1 hyperintense renal lesions with that of contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, with histopathologic analysis and follow-up imaging as the reference standards.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, and the informed consent requirement was waived. Two independent observers retrospectively assessed MR images obtained in 41 patients with non-fat-containing T1 hyperintense renal lesions. The MR examination included acquisition of DW and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. For each index lesion, the observers assessed the (a) mean (+/- standard deviation) of ADC, (b) enhancement ratio, and (c) subtracted images for the presence of enhancement (confidence score, 1-5). Histopathologic analysis of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) and follow-up imaging for benign lesions were the reference standards. ADCs of benign lesions and RCCs were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of DW imaging, enhancement ratio, and subtraction for the diagnosis of RCC.
RESULTS: A total of 64 lesions (mean diameter, 3.9 cm), including 38 benign T1 hyperintense cysts and 26 RCCs, were assessed. Mean ADCs of RCCs were significantly lower than those of benign cysts ([1.75 +/- 0.57] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec vs [2.50 +/- 0.53] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, P < .0001). ADCs of solid and cystic portions of complex cystic RCCs were significantly different ([1.37 +/- 0.55] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec vs [2.45 +/- 0.63] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, P < .0001). When data from both observers were pooled, area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.846, 71%, and 91%, respectively, for DW imaging; 0.865, 65%, and 96%, respectively, for enhancement ratio (at the excretory phase); and 0.861, 83%, and 89%, respectively, for subtraction (P = .48 and P = .85, respectively). The combination of DW imaging and subtraction resulted in area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.893, 87%, and 92%, respectively, with significantly improved reader confidence compared with subtraction alone (P = .041).
CONCLUSION: The performance of DW imaging was equivalent to that of enhancement ratio in the characterization of T1 hyperintense renal lesions, with both methods having lower sensitivity than image subtraction without reaching significance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19380690     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2513080724

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


  24 in total

Review 1.  Diffusion-weighted MRI of renal cell carcinoma, upper tract urothelial carcinoma, and renal infection: a pictorial review.

Authors:  Jonathan R Cogley; Dustin D Nguyen; Peter M Ghobrial; Dmitry Rakita
Journal:  Jpn J Radiol       Date:  2013-09-03       Impact factor: 2.374

2.  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

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

4.  Diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging predicts survival in patients with liver-predominant metastatic colorectal cancer shortly after selective internal radiation therapy.

Authors:  Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Birgit Simon; Amir Sabet; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Frank Träber; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Samer Ezziddin; Hans Heinz Schild; Dariusch Reza Hadizadeh
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2016-06-07       Impact factor: 5.315

5.  Prognostic value of pretreatment diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for outcome prediction of colorectal cancer liver metastases undergoing 90Y-microsphere radioembolization.

Authors:  Frederic Carsten Schmeel; Birgit Simon; Julian Alexander Luetkens; Frank Träber; Carsten Meyer; Leonard Christopher Schmeel; Amir Sabet; Samer Ezziddin; Hans Heinz Schild; Dariusch Reza Hadizadeh
Journal:  J Cancer Res Clin Oncol       Date:  2017-03-19       Impact factor: 4.553

Review 6.  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 7.  Renal imaging in patients with renal impairment.

Authors:  Jason A Poff; Elizabeth M Hecht; Parvati Ramchandani
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.092

8.  Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Distinguishes Malignancy in T1-Hyperintense Small Renal Masses.

Authors:  Daniel R Ludwig; David H Ballard; Anup S Shetty; Cary L Siegel; Motoyo Yano
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-10-01       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 9.  Advanced renal mass imaging: diffusion and perfusion MRI.

Authors:  Anthony G Gilet; Stella K Kang; Danny Kim; Hersh Chandarana
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2012-02       Impact factor: 3.092

Review 10.  DW-MRI of the urogenital tract: applications in oncology.

Authors:  G Petralia; H C Thoeny
Journal:  Cancer Imaging       Date:  2010-10-04       Impact factor: 3.909

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.