BACKGROUND: Patients with metanephric adenoma have a good prognosis after undergoing total nephrectomy or local resection with kidney preservation. Accurate diagnosing is important for guiding clinical treatment. Only few previous case reports have been found focusing on the imaging findings of metanephric adenoma. PURPOSE: To evaluate the multislice computed tomography (MSCT) imaging characteristics of metanephric adenoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The imaging findings in eight patients with metanephric adenoma were studied retrospectively. MSCT was undertaken to investigate tumor location, size, attenuation, cystic or solid appearance, calcification, capsule sign, and enhancement pattern. RESULTS: Tumors (mean diameter, 3.3 ± 1.0 cm) were solitary (8/8), solid (7/8) with cystic components (2/8), no calcifications (7/8), had a poorly-defined margin (8/8), were centered in the renal medulla (7/8), compressed the renal pelvis (3/8), and none had retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis. The attenuation of metanephric adenoma tumors was less or equal compared to the renal cortex or medulla on unenhanced CT (30.6 ± 2.6 vs. 36.3 ± 4.6 vs. 33.2 ± 3.9, P > 0.05), while tumor enhancement after administration of an contrast agent was lower than that of normal renal cortex and medulla during all phases (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Metanephric adenoma tends to be a solitary, poorly defined margin, isodense or hypodense mass arising from the renal medulla with enhancement less than the cortex and medulla during all phases.
BACKGROUND:Patients with metanephric adenoma have a good prognosis after undergoing total nephrectomy or local resection with kidney preservation. Accurate diagnosing is important for guiding clinical treatment. Only few previous case reports have been found focusing on the imaging findings of metanephric adenoma. PURPOSE: To evaluate the multislice computed tomography (MSCT) imaging characteristics of metanephric adenoma. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The imaging findings in eight patients with metanephric adenoma were studied retrospectively. MSCT was undertaken to investigate tumor location, size, attenuation, cystic or solid appearance, calcification, capsule sign, and enhancement pattern. RESULTS:Tumors (mean diameter, 3.3 ± 1.0 cm) were solitary (8/8), solid (7/8) with cystic components (2/8), no calcifications (7/8), had a poorly-defined margin (8/8), were centered in the renal medulla (7/8), compressed the renal pelvis (3/8), and none had retroperitoneal lymph node metastasis. The attenuation of metanephric adenoma tumors was less or equal compared to the renal cortex or medulla on unenhanced CT (30.6 ± 2.6 vs. 36.3 ± 4.6 vs. 33.2 ± 3.9, P > 0.05), while tumor enhancement after administration of an contrast agent was lower than that of normal renal cortex and medulla during all phases (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Metanephric adenoma tends to be a solitary, poorly defined margin, isodense or hypodense mass arising from the renal medulla with enhancement less than the cortex and medulla during all phases.