Ankur M Doshi1, Justin M Ream1, Andrea S Kierans2, Matthew Bilbily1, Henry Rusinek1, William C Huang3, Hersh Chandarana1. 1. 1 Department of Radiology, Center for Biomedical Imaging, NYU School of Medicine, NYU Langone Medical Center, 660 First Ave, 3rd Fl, New York, NY 10016. 2. 2 Department of Radiology, New York-Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical Center, New York, NY. 3. 3 Department of Urology, Division of Urologic Oncology, NYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether qualitative and quantitative MRI feature analysis is useful for differentiating type 1 from type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 21 type 1 and 17 type 2 PRCCs evaluated with preoperative MRI. Two radiologists independently evaluated various qualitative features, including signal intensity, heterogeneity, and margin. For the quantitative analysis, a radiology fellow and a medical student independently drew 3D volumes of interest over the entire tumor on T2-weighted HASTE images, apparent diffusion coefficient parametric maps, and nephrographic phase contrast-enhanced MR images to derive first-order texture metrics. Qualitative and quantitative features were compared between the groups. RESULTS: For both readers, qualitative features with greater frequency in type 2 PRCC included heterogeneous enhancement, indistinct margin, and T2 heterogeneity (all, p < 0.035). Indistinct margins and heterogeneous enhancement were independent predictors (AUC, 0.822). Quantitative analysis revealed that apparent diffusion coefficient, HASTE, and contrast-enhanced entropy were greater in type 2 PRCC (p < 0.05; AUC, 0.682-0.716). A combined quantitative and qualitative model had an AUC of 0.859. Qualitative features within the model had interreader concordance of 84-95%, and the quantitative data had intraclass coefficients of 0.873-0.961. CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative features can help discriminate between type 1 and type 2 PRCC. Quantitative analysis may capture useful information that complements the qualitative appearance while benefiting from high interobserver agreement.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether qualitative and quantitative MRI feature analysis is useful for differentiating type 1 from type 2 papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 21 type 1 and 17 type 2 PRCCs evaluated with preoperative MRI. Two radiologists independently evaluated various qualitative features, including signal intensity, heterogeneity, and margin. For the quantitative analysis, a radiology fellow and a medical student independently drew 3D volumes of interest over the entire tumor on T2-weighted HASTE images, apparent diffusion coefficient parametric maps, and nephrographic phase contrast-enhanced MR images to derive first-order texture metrics. Qualitative and quantitative features were compared between the groups. RESULTS: For both readers, qualitative features with greater frequency in type 2 PRCC included heterogeneous enhancement, indistinct margin, and T2 heterogeneity (all, p < 0.035). Indistinct margins and heterogeneous enhancement were independent predictors (AUC, 0.822). Quantitative analysis revealed that apparent diffusion coefficient, HASTE, and contrast-enhanced entropy were greater in type 2 PRCC (p < 0.05; AUC, 0.682-0.716). A combined quantitative and qualitative model had an AUC of 0.859. Qualitative features within the model had interreader concordance of 84-95%, and the quantitative data had intraclass coefficients of 0.873-0.961. CONCLUSION: Qualitative and quantitative features can help discriminate between type 1 and type 2 PRCC. Quantitative analysis may capture useful information that complements the qualitative appearance while benefiting from high interobserver agreement.
Authors: Massimo Galia; Domenico Albano; Alberto Bruno; Antonino Agrusa; Giorgio Romano; Giuseppe Di Buono; Francesco Agnello; Giuseppe Salvaggio; Ludovico La Grutta; Massimo Midiri; Roberto Lagalla Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2017-07-13 Impact factor: 3.039
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: Daniel R Ludwig; David H Ballard; Anup S Shetty; Cary L Siegel; Motoyo Yano Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2019-10-01 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Ana Lúcia Franco Ricardo; Gabriel Araújo da Silva; Celso Massahiro Ogawa; Amanda D Nussi; Catharina Simione De Rosa; Jaqueline Serra Martins; Sérgio Lúcio Pereira de Castro Lopes; Simone Appenzeller; Paulo Henrique Braz-Silva; Andre Luiz Ferreira Costa Journal: Oral Radiol Date: 2022-08-10 Impact factor: 1.882
Authors: Anna K Paschall; Moozhan Nikpanah; Faraz Farhadi; Elizabeth C Jones; Paul G Wakim; Andrew J Dwyer; Rabindra Gautam; Maria J Merino; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; W Marston Linehan; Ashkan A Malayeri Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2020-06-09 Impact factor: 1.605