OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate the ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to differentiate renal tumours. METHODS: MR images from 100 consecutive pathologically proven solid renal tumours without macroscopic fat [57 clear cell, 16 papillary and 7 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 16 oncocytomas and 4 minimal fat angiomyolipomas (AMLs)] between 2009 and 2012 were evaluated. Two radiologists blinded to pathology results independently reviewed double-echo chemical shift, dynamic contrast-enhanced T1- and T2-weighted images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Signal intensity index (SII), tumour-to-spleen SI ratio (TSR), ADC ratio, wash-in (WiI) and wash-out indices (WoI) between different phases were calculated. RESULTS: There were significant differences between papillary RCCs and other renal tumours for arterial WiI (P < 0.001), initial WoI (P = 0.006) and ADC ratio (P < 0.001); between chromophobe RCCs and oncocytomas for TSR (P = 0.02), parenchymal WiI (P = 0.03), late WiI (P = 0.02), initial WoI (P = 0.03) and late WoI (P = 0.04); and between clear cell RCCs and oncocytomas for SII (P = 0.01) and parenchymal WiI (P = 0.01). Papillary RCCs were distinguished from other tumours (sensitivity 37.5 %, specificity 100 %) and oncocytomas from chromophobe RCCs (sensitivity 25 %, specificity 100 %) and clear cell RCCs (sensitivity 100 %, specificity 94.2 %). CONCLUSION: MR imaging provides criteria able to accurately distinguish papillary RCCs from other tumours and oncocytomas from chromophobe and clear cell RCCs. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MR parameters accurately distinguish papillary RCCs with high specificity (100 %). • Oncocytomas can be distinguished from chromophobe RCCs with high specificity (100 %). • Oncocytomas can be distinguished from clear cell RCCs with high specificity (94.2 %). • In oncocytomatosis, imaging follow-up with such parameters analysis could be promoted.
OBJECTIVES: To retrospectively evaluate the ability of multiparametric magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to differentiate renal tumours. METHODS: MR images from 100 consecutive pathologically proven solid renal tumours without macroscopic fat [57 clear cell, 16 papillary and 7 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (RCCs), 16 oncocytomas and 4 minimal fat angiomyolipomas (AMLs)] between 2009 and 2012 were evaluated. Two radiologists blinded to pathology results independently reviewed double-echo chemical shift, dynamic contrast-enhanced T1- and T2-weighted images and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Signal intensity index (SII), tumour-to-spleen SI ratio (TSR), ADC ratio, wash-in (WiI) and wash-out indices (WoI) between different phases were calculated. RESULTS: There were significant differences between papillary RCCs and other renal tumours for arterial WiI (P < 0.001), initial WoI (P = 0.006) and ADC ratio (P < 0.001); between chromophobe RCCs and oncocytomas for TSR (P = 0.02), parenchymal WiI (P = 0.03), late WiI (P = 0.02), initial WoI (P = 0.03) and late WoI (P = 0.04); and between clear cell RCCs and oncocytomas for SII (P = 0.01) and parenchymal WiI (P = 0.01). Papillary RCCs were distinguished from other tumours (sensitivity 37.5 %, specificity 100 %) and oncocytomas from chromophobe RCCs (sensitivity 25 %, specificity 100 %) and clear cell RCCs (sensitivity 100 %, specificity 94.2 %). CONCLUSION: MR imaging provides criteria able to accurately distinguish papillary RCCs from other tumours and oncocytomas from chromophobe and clear cell RCCs. KEY POINTS: • Multiparametric MR parameters accurately distinguish papillary RCCs with high specificity (100 %). • Oncocytomas can be distinguished from chromophobe RCCs with high specificity (100 %). • Oncocytomas can be distinguished from clear cell RCCs with high specificity (94.2 %). • In oncocytomatosis, imaging follow-up with such parameters analysis could be promoted.
Authors: Jeff L Zhang; Eric E Sigmund; Hersh Chandarana; Henry Rusinek; Qun Chen; Pierre-Hugues Vivier; Bachir Taouli; Vivian S Lee Journal: Radiology Date: 2010-01-20 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: John Milner; Brian McNeil; Joe Alioto; Kevin Proud; Tara Rubinas; Maria Picken; Terrence Demos; Thomas Turk; Kent T Perry Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Nicole Hindman; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Jonathan Melamed; Jesse Wei; Julia M Braza; Neil M Rofsky; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-09-25 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alberto Breda; Eric G Treat; Leah Haft-Candell; John T Leppert; Jonathan D Harper; Jonathan Said; Steven Raman; Robert B Smith; Arie S Belldegrun; Peter G Schulam Journal: BJU Int Date: 2009-11-02 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Marta E Heilbrun; Ronald J Zagoria; A Julian Garvin; M Craig Hall; Kyle Krehbiel; Andrew Southwick; Peter E Clark Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 3.959
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
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: 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
Authors: Mohammad H Bagheri; Mark A Ahlman; Liza Lindenberg; Baris Turkbey; Jeffrey Lin; Ali Cahid Civelek; Ashkan A Malayeri; Piyush K Agarwal; Peter L Choyke; Les R Folio; Andrea B Apolo Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2017-05-12 Impact factor: 3.498
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: Brett A Johnson; Sandy Kim; Ryan L Steinberg; Alberto Diaz de Leon; Ivan Pedrosa; Jeffrey A Cadeddu Journal: Urol Oncol Date: 2019-09-17 Impact factor: 3.498