PURPOSE: To evaluate utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) to detect and predict the histological characteristics of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 20 suspicious lesions from 19 patients. MRI study included conventional sequences and DWI with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps calculated between b = 0 and b = 1,000. ADC values were measured within two different regions of interest (ROI): a small identical ROI placed in the most restrictive part of the tumour and a larger ROI covering two-thirds of the mass surface. The mean ADC values of the tumours were compared with that of normal renal parenchyma using an unpaired Student's t test. Association between ADC values and histological features was tested using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Overall, 18 tumours were confirmed histologically as UTUCs. DWI failed to detect two cases of UTUCs (one CIS and one small tumour of 5 mm). There was no statistically significant difference in ADC values measured with the small or large ROI (p = 0.134). The mean ADC value of UTUC was significantly lower than that of the normal renal parenchyma (p < 0.001). No statistical association was found between ADC values and pathological features (location, p = 0.35; grade, p = 0.98; muscle-invasive disease, p = 0.76 and locally advanced stage, p = 0.57). CONCLUSION: DWI may be interesting tool for detecting UTUCs regarding the difference of ADC values between the tumours and surrounding healthy tissues. In regard to low frequency of UTUCs, the association of ADC values and histological characteristics need further investigations in a large prospective multi-institutional study.
PURPOSE: To evaluate utility of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) to detect and predict the histological characteristics of upper urinary tract urothelial carcinomas (UTUCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 20 suspicious lesions from 19 patients. MRI study included conventional sequences and DWI with apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps calculated between b = 0 and b = 1,000. ADC values were measured within two different regions of interest (ROI): a small identical ROI placed in the most restrictive part of the tumour and a larger ROI covering two-thirds of the mass surface. The mean ADC values of the tumours were compared with that of normal renal parenchyma using an unpaired Student's t test. Association between ADC values and histological features was tested using non-parametric tests. RESULTS: Overall, 18 tumours were confirmed histologically as UTUCs. DWI failed to detect two cases of UTUCs (one CIS and one small tumour of 5 mm). There was no statistically significant difference in ADC values measured with the small or large ROI (p = 0.134). The mean ADC value of UTUC was significantly lower than that of the normal renal parenchyma (p < 0.001). No statistical association was found between ADC values and pathological features (location, p = 0.35; grade, p = 0.98; muscle-invasive disease, p = 0.76 and locally advanced stage, p = 0.57). CONCLUSION: DWI may be interesting tool for detecting UTUCs regarding the difference of ADC values between the tumours and surrounding healthy tissues. In regard to low frequency of UTUCs, the association of ADC values and histological characteristics need further investigations in a large prospective multi-institutional study.
Authors: Vitaly Margulis; Ramy F Youssef; Pierre I Karakiewicz; Yair Lotan; Christopher G Wood; Richard Zigeuner; Eiji Kikuchi; Alon Weizer; Jay D Raman; Mesut Remzi; Marco Roscigno; Francesco Montorsi; Christian Bolenz; Wassim Kassouf; Shahrokh F Shariat Journal: J Urol Date: 2010-06-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Pierre Colin; Adil Ouzzane; Géraldine Pignot; Emmanuel Ravier; Sébastien Crouzet; Mehdi M Ariane; Marie Audouin; Yann Neuzillet; Baptiste Albouy; Sophie Hurel; Fabien Saint; Julien Guillotreau; Laurent Guy; Pierre Bigot; Alexandre De La Taille; Frédéric Arroua; Charles Marchand; Alexandre Matte; Pierre O Fais; Morgan Rouprêt Journal: BJU Int Date: 2012-03-06 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Aytekin Oto; Cheng Yang; Arda Kayhan; Maria Tretiakova; Tatjana Antic; Christine Schmid-Tannwald; Scott Eggener; Gregory S Karczmar; Walter M Stadler Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ronan F J Browne; Conor P Meehan; Jane Colville; Raymond Power; William C Torreggiani Journal: Radiographics Date: 2005 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Naoki Takahashi; Akira Kawashima; James F Glockner; Robert P Hartman; Bohyun Kim; Bernard F King Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2008-11-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Doenja M J Lambregts; Geerard L Beets; Monique Maas; Luís Curvo-Semedo; Alfons G H Kessels; Thomas Thywissen; Regina G H Beets-Tan Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2011-08-07 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Hwang Sung Tae; Sung Deuk Jae; Yang Kyung Sook; Sim Ki Choon; Han Na Yeon; Park Beom Jin; Kim Min Ju; Cho Sung Bum Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-08-22 Impact factor: 3.039