OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively describe the MRI features of the pathologically related entities renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight cases of histologically proven renal oncocytoma and 15 of chromophobe RCC evaluated with preoperative MRI from January 2003 through June 2009 at our institution were independently reviewed for an array of MRI features by two radiologists blinded to the final histopathologic diagnosis. These features were tabulated and compared between chromophobe RCC and renal oncocytoma by use of the Mann-Whitney test and binary logistic regression. RESULTS: Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC showed no significant difference in size or any of 16 qualitative imaging features (p = 0.0842-1.0, reader 1; p = 0.0611-1.0, reader 2). Microscopic fat, hemorrhage, cysts, infiltrative margins, perinephric fat invasion, renal vein invasion, enhancement homogeneity, and hypervascularity were each observed in less than 20% of cases by both readers. A central scar and segmental enhancement inversion (a recently described finding in which early contrast-enhanced images show relatively more enhanced and less enhanced intralesional components with inversion of their relative enhancement on later images) were observed by both readers in at least 10% of cases of both renal oncocytoma and of chromophobe RCC with no significant difference between the two entities (p = 0.2092-0.2960). CONCLUSION: We have presented the largest series to date of the MRI features of both renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. These related entities exhibited similar findings, and no MRI features were reliable in distinguishing between them.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to retrospectively describe the MRI features of the pathologically related entities renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-eight cases of histologically proven renal oncocytoma and 15 of chromophobe RCC evaluated with preoperative MRI from January 2003 through June 2009 at our institution were independently reviewed for an array of MRI features by two radiologists blinded to the final histopathologic diagnosis. These features were tabulated and compared between chromophobe RCC and renal oncocytoma by use of the Mann-Whitney test and binary logistic regression. RESULTS:Renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC showed no significant difference in size or any of 16 qualitative imaging features (p = 0.0842-1.0, reader 1; p = 0.0611-1.0, reader 2). Microscopic fat, hemorrhage, cysts, infiltrative margins, perinephric fat invasion, renal vein invasion, enhancement homogeneity, and hypervascularity were each observed in less than 20% of cases by both readers. A central scar and segmental enhancement inversion (a recently described finding in which early contrast-enhanced images show relatively more enhanced and less enhanced intralesional components with inversion of their relative enhancement on later images) were observed by both readers in at least 10% of cases of both renal oncocytoma and of chromophobe RCC with no significant difference between the two entities (p = 0.2092-0.2960). CONCLUSION: We have presented the largest series to date of the MRI features of both renal oncocytoma and chromophobe RCC. These related entities exhibited similar findings, and no MRI features were reliable in distinguishing between them.
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
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
Authors: Albert El Hajj; Ruban Thanigasalam; Isabelle Boulay; Vincent Molinié; Bernard Escudier; Hervé Baumert Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2014 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 1.862
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
Authors: Ryan L Brunsing; Natalie M Schenker-Ahmed; Nathan S White; J Kellogg Parsons; Christopher Kane; Joshua Kuperman; Hauke Bartsch; Andrew Karim Kader; Rebecca Rakow-Penner; Tyler M Seibert; Daniel Margolis; Steven S Raman; Carrie R McDonald; Nikdokht Farid; Santosh Kesari; Donna Hansel; Ahmed Shabaik; Anders M Dale; David S Karow Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2016-08-16 Impact factor: 4.813
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