Literature DB >> 23012463

Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques?

Nicole Hindman1, Long Ngo, Elizabeth M Genega, Jonathan Melamed, Jesse Wei, Julia M Braza, Neil M Rofsky, Ivan Pedrosa.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To retrospectively assess whether magnetic resonance (MR) imaging with opposed-phase and in-phase gradient-echo (GRE) sequences and MR feature analysis can differentiate angiomyolipomas (AMLs) that contain minimal fat from clear cell renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), with particular emphasis on small (<3-cm) masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval and a waiver of informed consent were obtained for this HIPAA-compliant study. MR images from 108 pathologically proved renal masses (88 clear cell RCCs and 20 minimal fat AMLs from 64 men and 44 women) at two academic institutions were evaluated. The signal intensity (SI) of each renal mass and spleen on opposed-phase and in-phase GRE images was used to calculate an SI index and tumor-to-spleen SI ratio. Two radiologists who were blinded to the pathologic results independently assessed the subjective presence of intravoxel fat (ie, decreased SI on opposed-phase images compared with that on in-phase images), SI on T1-weighted and T2-weighted images, cystic degeneration, necrosis, hemorrhage, retroperitoneal collaterals, and renal vein thrombosis. Results were analyzed by using the Wilcoxon rank sum test, two-tailed Fisher exact test, and multivariate logistic regression analysis for all renal masses and for small masses. A P value of less than .05 was considered to indicate a statistically significant difference.
RESULTS: There were no differences between minimal fat AMLs and clear cell RCCs for the SI index (8.05%±14.46 vs 14.99%±19.9; P=.146) or tumor-to-spleen ratio (-8.96%±16.6 and -15.8%±22.4; P=.227) when all masses or small masses were analyzed. Diagnostic accuracy (area under receiver operating characteristic curve) for the SI index and tumor-to-spleen ratio was 0.59. Intratumoral necrosis and larger size were predictive of clear cell RCC (P<.001) for all lesions, whereas low SI (relative to renal parenchyma SI) on T2-weighted images, smaller size, and female sex correlated with minimal fat AML (P<.001) for all lesions.
CONCLUSION: The diagnostic accuracy of opposed-phase and in-phase GRE MR imaging for the differentiation of minimal fat AML and clear cell RCC is poor. In this cohort, low SI on T2-weighted images relative to renal parenchyma and small size suggested minimal fat AML, whereas intratumoral necrosis and large size argued against this diagnosis. © RSNA, 2012

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23012463      PMCID: PMC3480813          DOI: 10.1148/radiol.12112087

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


  33 in total

1.  Shortening MR image acquisition time for volumetric interpolated breath-hold examination with a recently developed parallel imaging reconstruction technique: clinical feasibility.

Authors:  Charles A McKenzie; Daniel Lim; Bernard J Ransil; Martina Morrin; Ivan Pedrosa; Ernest N Yeh; Daniel K Sodickson; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2003-12-29       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 2.  MR techniques for renal imaging.

Authors:  Jingbo Zhang; Ivan Pedrosa; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 2.303

3.  Lipid in renal clear cell carcinoma: detection on opposed-phase gradient-echo MR images.

Authors:  E K Outwater; M Bhatia; E S Siegelman; M A Burke; D G Mitchell
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 4.  Body MR imaging at 3.0 T: understanding the opportunities and challenges.

Authors:  Mara M Barth; Martin P Smith; Ivan Pedrosa; Robert E Lenkinski; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.333

5.  Breath-hold single-dose gadolinium-enhanced three-dimensional MR aortography: usefulness of a timing examination and MR power injector.

Authors:  J P Earls; N M Rofsky; D R DeCorato; G A Krinsky; J C Weinreb
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1996-12       Impact factor: 11.105

6.  Renal epithelial neoplasms: the diagnostic implications of electron microscopic study in 55 cases.

Authors:  Bhuvaneswari Krishnan; Luan D Truong
Journal:  Hum Pathol       Date:  2002-01       Impact factor: 3.466

7.  CT diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma: the importance of detecting small amounts of fat.

Authors:  M A Bosniak; A J Megibow; D H Hulnick; S Horii; B N Raghavendra
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  1988-09       Impact factor: 3.959

8.  Angiomyolipoma: imaging findings in lesions with minimal fat.

Authors:  M Jinzaki; A Tanimoto; Y Narimatsu; K Ohkuma; T Kurata; H Shinmoto; K Hiramatsu; M Mukai; M Murai
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1997-11       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 9.  Detection of lipid in abdominal tissues with opposed-phase gradient-echo images at 1.5 T: techniques and diagnostic importance.

Authors:  E K Outwater; R Blasbalg; E S Siegelman; M Vala
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  1998 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 10.  Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation.

Authors:  Stuart G Silverman; Koenraad J Mortele; Kemal Tuncali; Masahiro Jinzaki; Edmund S Cibas
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2007 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.333

View more
  63 in total

Review 1.  Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI?

Authors:  Robert S Lim; Trevor A Flood; Matthew D F McInnes; Luke T Lavallee; Nicola Schieda
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2017-08-04       Impact factor: 5.315

2.  MRI evaluation of small (<4cm) solid renal masses: multivariate modeling improves diagnostic accuracy for angiomyolipoma without visible fat compared to univariate analysis.

Authors:  Nicola Schieda; Marc Dilauro; Bardia Moosavi; Taryn Hodgdon; Gregory O Cron; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 5.315

3.  Angiomyolipoma (AML) without visible fat: Ultrasound, CT and MR imaging features with pathological correlation.

Authors:  Shaheed W Hakim; Nicola Schieda; Taryn Hodgdon; Matthew D F McInnes; Marc Dilauro; Trevor A Flood
Journal:  Eur Radiol       Date:  2015-06-03       Impact factor: 5.315

Review 4.  Imaging for Screening and Surveillance of Patients with Hereditary Forms of Renal Cell Carcinoma.

Authors:  Yuval Freifeld; Lakshmi Ananthakrishnan; Vitaly Margulis
Journal:  Curr Urol Rep       Date:  2018-08-16       Impact factor: 3.092

5.  Discordance about the use of the term minimal fat angiomyolipoma.

Authors:  Teresa Pusiol; Irene Piscioli; Alice Morini; Ivan Pedrosa; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 6.  Review of renal cell carcinoma and its common subtypes in radiology.

Authors:  Gavin Low; Guan Huang; Winnie Fu; Zaahir Moloo; Safwat Girgis
Journal:  World J Radiol       Date:  2016-05-28

Review 7.  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 8.  Imaging of Solid Renal Masses.

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

9.  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

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.