OBJECTIVES: Segmental enhancement inversion (SEI) is a controversial imaging finding reportedly specific for the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate SEI using biphasic CT and multiphase MRI. METHODS: With research ethics board approval, a retrospective analysis of patients with resection or biopsy of oncocytoma or chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (Ch-RCC) between 2008-2012 was performed. Twenty-four patients with oncocytoma and 13 patients with Ch-RCC underwent CT, while 13 patients with oncocytoma and 10 patients with Ch-RCC underwent MRI. Two blinded radiologists reviewed the CT and MRI studies independently in separate sessions to assess for SEI. A third radiologist established consensus. Interobserver variability was calculated and diagnostic accuracy was compared using ROC and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: There was no difference in detection of SEI between oncocytoma and Ch-RCC at CT [both readers (p = 0.65, 0.5) and consensus review (p = 0.29)] or MRI [both readers (p = 0.64, 0.74) and consensus review (p = 0.53)]. The interobserver variability at CT (K = 0.28-0.33) and MRI (K = 0.25-0.44) was fair. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of oncocytoma were 21 % and 92 % at CT and 15 % and 90 % at MRI. CONCLUSION: SEI is not useful for the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma with CT or MRI. KEY POINTS: • SEI was detected in a minority of renal oncocytomas and chromophobe RCC. • Interobserver agreement for segmental enhancement inversion was only fair. • SEI is not useful for diagnosing renal oncocytoma with CT or MRI.
OBJECTIVES: Segmental enhancement inversion (SEI) is a controversial imaging finding reportedly specific for the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma. The purpose of this study was to re-evaluate SEI using biphasic CT and multiphase MRI. METHODS: With research ethics board approval, a retrospective analysis of patients with resection or biopsy of oncocytoma or chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (Ch-RCC) between 2008-2012 was performed. Twenty-four patients with oncocytoma and 13 patients with Ch-RCC underwent CT, while 13 patients with oncocytoma and 10 patients with Ch-RCC underwent MRI. Two blinded radiologists reviewed the CT and MRI studies independently in separate sessions to assess for SEI. A third radiologist established consensus. Interobserver variability was calculated and diagnostic accuracy was compared using ROC and the Fisher exact test. RESULTS: There was no difference in detection of SEI between oncocytoma and Ch-RCC at CT [both readers (p = 0.65, 0.5) and consensus review (p = 0.29)] or MRI [both readers (p = 0.64, 0.74) and consensus review (p = 0.53)]. The interobserver variability at CT (K = 0.28-0.33) and MRI (K = 0.25-0.44) was fair. The sensitivity and specificity for diagnosis of oncocytoma were 21 % and 92 % at CT and 15 % and 90 % at MRI. CONCLUSION: SEI is not useful for the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma with CT or MRI. KEY POINTS: • SEI was detected in a minority of renal oncocytomas and chromophobe RCC. • Interobserver agreement for segmental enhancement inversion was only fair. • SEI is not useful for diagnosing renal oncocytoma with CT or MRI.
Authors: B Perez-Ordonez; G Hamed; S Campbell; R A Erlandson; P Russo; P B Gaudin; V E Reuter Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 1997-08 Impact factor: 6.394
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
Authors: Steffen Durinck; Eric W Stawiski; Andrea Pavía-Jiménez; Zora Modrusan; Payal Kapur; Bijay S Jaiswal; Na Zhang; Vanina Toffessi-Tcheuyap; Thong T Nguyen; Kanika Bajaj Pahuja; Ying-Jiun Chen; Sadia Saleem; Subhra Chaudhuri; Sherry Heldens; Marlena Jackson; Samuel Peña-Llopis; Joseph Guillory; Karen Toy; Connie Ha; Corissa J Harris; Eboni Holloman; Haley M Hill; Jeremy Stinson; Celina Sanchez Rivers; Vasantharajan Janakiraman; Weiru Wang; Lisa N Kinch; Nick V Grishin; Peter M Haverty; Bernard Chow; Julian S Gehring; Jens Reeder; Gregoire Pau; Thomas D Wu; Vitaly Margulis; Yair Lotan; Arthur Sagalowsky; Ivan Pedrosa; Frederic J de Sauvage; James Brugarolas; Somasekar Seshagiri Journal: Nat Genet Date: 2014-11-17 Impact factor: 38.330
Authors: Robert S Lim; Matthew D F McInnes; Mahadevaswamy Siddaiah; Trevor A Flood; Luke T Lavallee; Nicola Schieda Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2018-02-28 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andrew R Leone; Laura C Kidd; Gregory J Diorio; Kamran Zargar-Shoshtari; Pranav Sharma; Wade J Sexton; Philippe E Spiess Journal: BMC Urol Date: 2017-01-12 Impact factor: 2.264