Literature DB >> 26682139

Comparison between computed tomography multislice and high-field magnetic resonance in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with renal masses.

Diana Baldari1, Sergio Capece1, Pier Paolo Mainenti1, Anna Giacoma Tucci1, Michele Klain1, Immacolata Cozzolino1, Marco Salvatore1, Simone Maurea1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Renal masses are a common finding in diagnostic imaging; these lesions usually are solid or cystic, benign or malignant, and the correct diagnosis may be difficult. The aim of our study was the comparison of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) and high-field magnetic resonance (MR) in the diagnostic evaluation of renal masses.
METHODS: We studied 29 patients, 16 men and 13 women aged 8-85 years (mean 61±17 years) with histo-cytological diagnosis of renal masses (n=31), of which the majority (74%; n=23) was represented by malignant lesions [renal cell carcinoma (Ca) =16, chromophobe renal cell Ca =2, squamous cell Ca =1, urothelial Ca =2, lymphoma =1, Wilms tumor =1]; the remaining 8 masses (26%) were benign (pyelonephritis =2, simple cyst =1, hematic cyst =1, lipoma =1 and oncocytoma =3). All patients underwent MSCT and MR (3.0 Tesla) before and after contrast injection; the images were evaluated in double-blind by two expert radiologists. The results of the images were then compared with the histo-cytological data to calculate the values of diagnostic accuracy for both methods in the identification and characterization of renal masses. The benign or malignant nature of the lesions was established according to the regularity of the margins, presence or absence of significant contrast enhancement, infiltration of perirenal fat and vascular invasion. The concordance of the results of the two imaging techniques was then calculated using the coefficient Kappa Cohen.
RESULTS: For both identification and characterization of renal masses, MSCT and MR showed comparable values of diagnostic accuracy with a significant concordance (k=1); in particular, the diagnostic accuracy of MSCT/MR was 100%/100% for lesion identification, 90%/90% for lesion characterization in terms of benign or malignant nature, 97%/97% for the evaluation of lesion edges, 90%/90% for the assessment of lesion contrast enhancement, 93%/93% for the evaluation of peri-renal fat infiltration and 96%/96% for the evaluation of vascular infiltration. Only in three cases of oncocytoma the two imaging methods were both inaccurate for diagnosis of benignity classifying the lesions as probably malignant on the basis of the absence of central scar and of dynamic contrast enhancement pattern.
CONCLUSIONS: The results of our study show comparable diagnostic accuracy of computed tomography (CT) and MR for the identification and characterization of expansive renal lesions. High-field MR is, therefore, a valid alternative to MSCT in the evaluation of renal masses avoiding exposure to ionizing radiation.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT); characterization; identification; magnetic resonance (MR); renal masses

Year:  2015        PMID: 26682139      PMCID: PMC4671966          DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2223-4292.2015.07.03

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Quant Imaging Med Surg        ISSN: 2223-4306


  14 in total

Review 1.  From the RSNA refresher courses: a practical approach to the cystic renal mass.

Authors:  David S Hartman; Peter L Choyke; Matthew S Hartman
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2004-10       Impact factor: 5.333

2.  Renal medullary carcinoma: CT and MRI features.

Authors:  Netta M Blitman; Robert G Berkenblit; Alla M Rozenblit; Terry L Levin
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 3.  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

4.  MR imaging of renal masses interpreted on CT to be suspicious.

Authors:  R Tello; B D Davison; M O'Malley; H Fenlon; K R Thomson; D J Witte; L Harewood
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 5.  Transitional cell carcinoma of the upper urinary tract: spectrum of imaging findings.

Authors:  Ronan F J Browne; Conor P Meehan; Jane Colville; Raymond Power; William C Torreggiani
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2005 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 5.333

6.  Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT.

Authors:  Jonathan R Young; Daniel Margolis; Steven Sauk; Allan J Pantuck; James Sayre; Steven S Raman
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2013-02-04       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Correlation of radiographic renal cell carcinoma tumor volume utilizing computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging compared with pathological tumor volume.

Authors:  Jacob Jorns; David D Thiel; Michelle L Arnold; Nancy Diehl; Joseph C Cernigliaro; Kevin J Wu; Alexander S Parker
Journal:  Scand J Urol       Date:  2014-07-03       Impact factor: 1.612

8.  Cystic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  D S Hartman; C J Davis; T Johns; S M Goldman
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1986-08       Impact factor: 2.649

Review 9.  Management of the incidental renal mass.

Authors:  Stuart G Silverman; Gary M Israel; Brian R Herts; Jerome P Richie
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 11.105

Review 10.  MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis.

Authors:  Ivan Pedrosa; Maryellen R Sun; Matthew Spencer; Elizabeth M Genega; Aria F Olumi; William C Dewolf; Neil M Rofsky
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2008 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.333

View more
  4 in total

Review 1.  Body MR angiography in children: how we do it.

Authors:  Rajesh Krishnamurthy; LaDonna Malone; Karen Lyons; Pamela Ketwaroo; Nicholas Dodd; Daniel Ashton
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2016-05-26

2.  Diagnostic value and clinical significance of ultrasound combined with CT in cystic renal cell carcinoma.

Authors:  Minghui Sun; Chao Wang; Fei Jiang; Xiuhong Fang; Bingcheng Guo
Journal:  Oncol Lett       Date:  2019-05-30       Impact factor: 2.967

Review 3.  Painless Visible Haematuria in Adults: An Algorithmic Approach Guiding Management.

Authors:  Gurjeet Dulku; Arjun Shivananda; Aron Chakera; Richard Mendelson; Dickon Hayne
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2019-11-13

Review 4.  State of the art in abdominal MRI structured reporting: a review.

Authors:  Arnaldo Stanzione; Francesca Boccadifuoco; Renato Cuocolo; Valeria Romeo; Pier Paolo Mainenti; Arturo Brunetti; Simone Maurea
Journal:  Abdom Radiol (NY)       Date:  2020-09-16
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.