| Literature DB >> 25184133 |
Francesco Giuseppe Mazzei1, Maria Antonietta Mazzei2, Nevada Cioffi Squitieri2, Chiara Pozzessere2, Lorenzo Righi3, Alfredo Cirigliano2, Susanna Guerrini2, Domenico D'Elia2, Maria Raffaella Ambrosio4, Aurora Barone4, Maria Teresa del Vecchio5, Luca Volterrani2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To prospectively evaluate if computed tomography perfusion (CTp) could be a useful tool in addition to multiphasic CT in renal lesion characterisation.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25184133 PMCID: PMC4145536 DOI: 10.1155/2014/135013
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
Characteristics of patients, renal lesions, and CT examination.
| Characteristics | All lesions | Clear cell RCC | Chromophobe RCC | Papillary RCC | Oncocytoma |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 41 | 26∗ | 5 | 5∗ | 6 |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 26 (63) | 16 (62) | 3 (60) | 5 (100) | 3 (50) |
| Female | 15 (37) | 10 (38) | 2 (40) | 0 | 3 (50) |
| Mean age | 60.76 (39–86) | 65.29 (39–86) | 53.4 (39–60) | 58.16 (42–63) | 64.5 (44–80) |
|
| 49 | 27 (55) | 10 (21) | 6 (12) | 6 (12) |
| Side | |||||
| Right | 25 (51) | 14 (52) | 6 (60) | 3 (50) | 2 (33) |
| Left | 24 (49) | 13 (48) | 4 (40) | 3 (50) | 4 (67) |
| Location | |||||
| UP | 10 (20) | 6 (22) | 2 (20) | 2 (33) | 0 |
| UP-MR | 5 (10) | 3 (11) | 1 (10) | 0 | 1 (17) |
| MR | 15 (31) | 7 (26) | 4 (40) | 3 (50) | 1 (17) |
| LP-MR | 7 (14) | 6 (22) | 0 | 0 | 1 (17) |
| LP | 12 (25) | 5 (19) | 3 (30) | 1 (17) | 3 (49) |
| Mean lesion diameter (mm) | 45.62 (10–128) | 51.25 (20–128) | 44.2 (10–110) | 26.66 (17–40) | 48.5 (20–116) |
| Pathologic tumour stage | |||||
| T1a | 20 (46) | 9 (33) | 5 (50) | 6 (100) | — |
| T1b | 8 (19) | 6 (22) | 2 (20) | 0 | — |
| T2a | 2 (5) | 0 | 2 (20) | 0 | — |
| T2b | 2 (5) | 1 (4) | 1 (10) | 0 | — |
| T3a | 8 (19) | 8 (30) | 0 | 0 | — |
| T3b | 3 (6) | 3 (11) | 0 | 0 | — |
| T3c | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| T4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | — |
| Fuhrman grade | |||||
| 1 | 4 (12) | 3 (11) | — | 1 (17) | — |
| 2 | 21 (64) | 17 (63) | — | 4 (66) | — |
| 3 | 6 (18) | 5 (19) | — | 1 (17) | — |
| 4 | 2 (6) | 2 (7) | — | 0 | — |
| MVD | |||||
| Lesion | 439.20 (105–1230) | 488.66 (238–1230) | 412 (105–769) | 256 (108–482) | 444.3 (288–492) |
| Parenchyma | 266.97 (71–537) | 222.29 (80–238) | 506.3 (80–537) | 240.16 (71–458) | 262.6 (162–322) |
| Perfusion1 CT study type | |||||
| Cine | 13 (26) | 8 (30) | 1 (10) | 2 (34) | 2 (34) |
| Shuttle | 36 (74) | 19 (70) | 9 (90) | 4 (66) | 4 (66) |
| Multiphase CT study type | |||||
| B-CM-NG-E | 40 (82) | 22 (81) | 8 (80) | 4 (66) | 6 (100) |
| B-CM-NG | 9 (18) | 5 (19) | 2 (20) | 2 (34) | 0 |
| CT characteristics | |||||
| Hypervascular | 25 (51) | 17 (63) | 2 (20) | 2 (34) | 4 (66) |
| H with necrosis | 14 (29) | 10 (37) | 2 (20) | 0 | 2 (34) |
| Hypovascular | 10 (20) | 0 | 6 (60) | 4 (40) | 0 |
There were 49 lesions in 41 patients; ∗one patient had two different histologic types of lesions: one clear cell RCC and one papillary RCC. Oncocytomas were not staged because the staging criteria only applied to RCCs. RCC: renal cell carcinoma; N: number; UP: upper pole; MR: mesorenal region; LP: lower pole; MVD: microvascular density; B: baseline phase; CM: corticomedullary phase; NG: nephrographic phase; E: excretory phase; H: hypervascular.
Comparison among the CTp parameters: lesions versus normal cortex.
| CTp parameters | MLs | NRC |
| Oncocytomas | NRC |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS | 14.21 | 38.47 | <0.001 | 35.98 | 37.74 | 0.6002 |
| MTT | 6.73 | 4.19 | 0.011 | 2.57 | 2.72 | 0.7532 |
| BV | 15.57 | 17.08 | 0.29 | 18.90 | 15.02 | 0.7532 |
| BF | 302.87 | 351.72 | 0.17 | 477.02 | 434.21 | 0.3454 |
MLs: malignant lesions; NRC: normal renal cortex; PS: permeability surface; MTT: mean transit time; BV: blood volume; BF: blood flow; a P value less than 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.
Figure 1CTp of clear cell RCC: ROI 1, ROI 2, and ROI 3 were drawn in the aorta, tumour, and healthy ipsilateral renal cortex, respectively (a-b). The PS values of the tumour and normal cortex were 42.90 mL/100 g/min and 67.64 mL/100 g/min, respectively, whereas MTT values were 13.73 sec and 3.59 sec, respectively (b). Lesion size was 20 mm. Histopathology: morphology, haematoxylin, and eosin (c) and CD34 stain (d); original magnification: 50x.
Figure 2CTp of oncocytoma: ROI 1, ROI 2, and ROI 3 were drawn in the aorta, tumour, and healthy ipsilateral renal cortex, respectively (a-b). The PS values of the tumour and normal cortex were 56.39 mL/100 g/min and 57.28 mL/100 g/min, respectively, whereas MTT values were 10.48 sec and 9.65 sec, respectively (b). Lesion size was 20 mm. Histopathology: morphology, haematoxylin, and eosin (c) and CD34 stain (d); original magnification: 50x.
Comparison among the CTp parameters: malignant lesions versus oncocytomas.
| CTp parameters | Oncocytomas | All MLs |
| Oncocytomas | MHLs |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PS | 35.98 | 14.21 | <0.001 | 35.98 | 13.91 | 0.009 |
| MTT | 2.57 | 6.73 | 0.0109 | 2.57 | 6.08 | 0.0279 |
| BV | 18.90 | 15.57 | 0.2111 | 18.90 | 17.10 | 0.4596 |
| BF | 477.02 | 302.87 | 0.0240 | 477.02 | 344.55 | 0.0868 |
MLs: malignant lesions; MHLs: malignant hypervascular lesions; PS: permeability surface; MTT: mean transit time; BV: blood volume; BF: blood flow; a P value less than 0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference.
Figure 3Box whiskers graphics: permeability surface values in different histological type of renal lesions (a); difference of permeability surface values between lesion and normal cortex in different histological type of renal lesions (b). The boxes display the interquartile range (the 25th and 75th percentile) and the median of CTp measurements for the four histologic subtypes. The whiskers display the upper and lower values within 1.5 times the interquartile range beyond the 25th and 75th percentile. Any outliers beyond those limits get their own markers (dot mark).
Figure 4Patterns of enhancement on multiphasic imaging of 49 renal masses by tumour histology.
(a) ROC analysis using difference between normal cortex and tumoural PS values
| Oncocytomas versus MHLs | Oncocytomas versus all MLs | |
|---|---|---|
| Area under ROC curve | 0.85 (C.I. 0.59–1) | 0.85 (C.I. 0.60–1) |
| Threshold value(s) | NC PS-tumour PS >2.5 | NC PS-tumour PS >2.5 |
| Sensitivity | 100% | 100% |
| Specificity | 66.67% | 66.67% |
| Accuracy | 94.87% | 95.92% |
(b) ROC analysis using absolute enhancement in corticomedullary phase
| Oncocytomas versus MHLs | Oncocytomas versus all MLs | |
|---|---|---|
| Area under ROC curve | 0.79 (C.I. 0.61–0.96) | 0.83 (C.I. 0.69–0.97) |
| Threshold value(s) | <160 | <160 |
| Sensitivity | 93.94% | 95.35% |
| Specificity | 50% | 50% |
| Accuracy | 87.18% | 89.80% |
Results of ROC curve analysis in predicting RCCs in relation to oncocytomas using difference in PS values and absolute enhancement in corticomedullary phase. PS: permeability surface; MHLs: malignant hypervascular lesions; MLs: malignant lesions; NC PS: normal cortex permeability surface.