Literature DB >> 22267588

Prediction of growth rate of solid renal masses: utility of MR imaging features--preliminary experience.

Katerina Dodelzon1, Thais C Mussi, James S Babb, Samir S Taneja, Andrew B Rosenkrantz.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess the relationships between a number of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging features and growth rate of solid renal masses in patients undergoing active surveillance.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was institutional review board approved, with waiver of informed consent. This study was HIPAA compliant. Forty-four patients (mean age, 70 years ± 13 [standard deviation]; 31 men, 13 women) with 47 solid renal masses measuring at least 1 cm who underwent two contrast material-enhanced MR imaging studies at least 3 months apart were included. The initial MR imaging study was evaluated independently by two radiologists for an array of imaging features, with differences resolved by consensus. Later, the two readers in consensus measured tumor volume on the first and last study to calculate tumor doubling time (DT). Associations between MR imaging features and DT were assessed by using generalized estimating equations and mixed model analyses. Interreader agreement was assessed with k coefficients.
RESULTS: κ coefficients ranged from 0.62 to 0.92. Mean DT of the 47 masses was 530 days. Five (11%) masses decreased in size. Twenty-five of 47 masses were classified as slow growing on the basis of a DT of more than 2 years. There was significantly slower growth among masses showing homogeneity on T2-weighted images (P = .036) and a nearly significant slower growth rate among masses showing homogeneity on postcontrast images (P = .065) and hypointensity on T2-weighted images (P = .074). There was a significant correlation between initial volume and growth rate among lesions larger than 3 cm (r = 0.79, P = .041) but not among smaller lesions (r = -0.02, P = .911). Multivariate analysis identified age (odds ratio = 0.92, P = .015) and homogeneity on T2-weighted images (odds ratio = 4.47, P = .037) as independent predictors of slow growth.
CONCLUSION: The results suggest MR imaging features may have a role in predicting growth rate of solid renal masses during active surveillance. © RSNA, 2012.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22267588     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.11111074

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


  9 in total

1.  Society of Abdominal Radiology disease-focused panel on renal cell carcinoma: update on past, current, and future goals.

Authors:  Matthew S Davenport; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole E Curci; Ankur Doshi; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Ivan Pedrosa; Erick M Remer; Nicola Schieda; Atul B Shinagare; Andrew D Smith; Zhen J Wang; Shane A Wells; Stuart G Silverman
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2018-09

2.  Role of Virtual Biopsy in the Management of Renal Masses.

Authors:  Alberto Diaz de Leon; Matthew S Davenport; Stuart G Silverman; Nicola Schieda; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2019-04-17       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Whole-lesion apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) metrics as a marker of breast tumour characterization-comparison between ADC value and ADC entropy.

Authors:  Haralambos Bougias; Abraham Ghiatas; Dimitrios Priovolos; Konstantia Veliou; Alexandra Christou
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2016-10-10       Impact factor: 3.039

4.  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

5.  Tumor necrosis on magnetic resonance imaging correlates with aggressive histology and disease progression in clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Peter Beddy; Elizabeth M Genega; Long Ngo; Nicole Hindman; Jesse Wei; Andrea Bullock; Rupal S Bhatt; Michael B Atkins; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2013-10-19       Impact factor: 2.872

Review 6.  MRI phenotype in renal cancer: is it clinically relevant?

Authors:  Naomi Campbell; Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Top Magn Reson Imaging       Date:  2014-04

Review 7.  Natural history of small renal masses.

Authors:  Lei Zhang; Xue-Song Li; Li-Qun Zhou
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2015-05-05       Impact factor: 2.628

8.  Association of Clear Cell Likelihood Score on MRI and Growth Kinetics of Small Solid Renal Masses on Active Surveillance.

Authors:  Robert G Rasmussen; Yin Xi; R Carson Sibley; Christopher J Lee; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2021-07-21       Impact factor: 6.582

Review 9.  Imaging Advances in the Management of Kidney Cancer.

Authors:  Katherine M Krajewski; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2018-10-29       Impact factor: 44.544

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.