Reiko Nakajima1, Sayumi Nozaki2, Tsunenori Kondo3, Yoji Nagashima4, Koichiro Abe2, Shuji Sakai2. 1. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. nakajima.reiko@twmu.ac.jp. 2. Department of Diagnostic Imaging and Nuclear Medicine, Tokyo Women's Medical University, 8-1 Kawada-cho, Shinjuku-ku, Tokyo, 162-8666, Japan. 3. Department of Urology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan. 4. Department of Surgical Pathology, Tokyo Women's Medical University, Tokyo, Japan.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake by renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) to determine whether different histological subtypes and Fuhrman grades can be distinguished. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records and maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of 147 patients with 154 RCCs who underwent FDG-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) prior to tumour resection. RESULTS: The SUVmax was significantly lower in chromophobe RCC (chRCC) tumours than in clear cell RCC (ccRCC; p = 0.003) and papillary RCC (pRCC; p = 0.034) tumours. The mean tumour SUVmax was 4.58 ± 4.1 (range, 1.29-30.4) for ccRCC, 3.98 ± 1.9 (range, 0.49-6.72) for pRCC, and 1.93 ± 0.9 (range, 0.89-3.41) for chRCC. The SUVmax was not significantly different between the ccRCC and pRCC groups. In ccRCC and pRCC tumours, high-grade tumours had a significantly greater SUVmax (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05) than low-grade tumours by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Mann-Whitney U test. In ccRCC, multivariate regression analysis indicated that the SUVmax was a significant indicator of Fuhrman grade. No significant differences in uptake were observed between high- and low-grade chRCC tumours. CONCLUSIONS: The SUVmax obtained using FDG-PET/CT may be an important indicator for predicting tumour grade in ccRCC and pRCC. KEY POINTS: • FDG accumulation reflects tumour aggressiveness and correlates with Fuhrman grade. • FDG-PET/CT enables the differentiation of high- and low-grade ccRCC and pRCCs. • FDG-PET/CT may valuable in the identification of some high-grade RCCs.
OBJECTIVES: We evaluated 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) uptake by renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) to determine whether different histological subtypes and Fuhrman grades can be distinguished. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed the records and maximum standardised uptake value (SUVmax) of 147 patients with 154 RCCs who underwent FDG-positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) prior to tumour resection. RESULTS: The SUVmax was significantly lower in chromophobe RCC (chRCC) tumours than in clear cell RCC (ccRCC; p = 0.003) and papillary RCC (pRCC; p = 0.034) tumours. The mean tumour SUVmax was 4.58 ± 4.1 (range, 1.29-30.4) for ccRCC, 3.98 ± 1.9 (range, 0.49-6.72) for pRCC, and 1.93 ± 0.9 (range, 0.89-3.41) for chRCC. The SUVmax was not significantly different between the ccRCC and pRCC groups. In ccRCC and pRCCtumours, high-grade tumours had a significantly greater SUVmax (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05) than low-grade tumours by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Mann-Whitney U test. In ccRCC, multivariate regression analysis indicated that the SUVmax was a significant indicator of Fuhrman grade. No significant differences in uptake were observed between high- and low-grade chRCC tumours. CONCLUSIONS: The SUVmax obtained using FDG-PET/CT may be an important indicator for predicting tumour grade in ccRCC and pRCC. KEY POINTS: • FDG accumulation reflects tumour aggressiveness and correlates with Fuhrman grade. • FDG-PET/CT enables the differentiation of high- and low-grade ccRCC and pRCCs. • FDG-PET/CT may valuable in the identification of some high-grade RCCs.
Authors: Jennifer S Isaacs; Yun Jin Jung; David R Mole; Sunmin Lee; Carlos Torres-Cabala; Yuen-Li Chung; Maria Merino; Jane Trepel; Berton Zbar; Jorge Toro; Peter J Ratcliffe; W Marston Linehan; Len Neckers Journal: Cancer Cell Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 31.743
Authors: P H Maxwell; M S Wiesener; G W Chang; S C Clifford; E C Vaux; M E Cockman; C C Wykoff; C W Pugh; E R Maher; P J Ratcliffe Journal: Nature Date: 1999-05-20 Impact factor: 49.962
Authors: Nathan E Hoffmann; Michael D Gillett; John C Cheville; Christine M Lohse; Bradley C Leibovich; Michael L Blute Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: N A Alam; A J Rowan; N C Wortham; P J Pollard; M Mitchell; J P Tyrer; E Barclay; E Calonje; S Manek; S J Adams; P W Bowers; N P Burrows; R Charles-Holmes; L J Cook; B M Daly; G P Ford; L C Fuller; S E Hadfield-Jones; N Hardwick; A S Highet; M Keefe; S P MacDonald-Hull; E D A Potts; M Crone; S Wilkinson; F Camacho-Martinez; S Jablonska; R Ratnavel; A MacDonald; R J Mann; K Grice; G Guillet; M S Lewis-Jones; H McGrath; D C Seukeran; P J Morrison; S Fleming; S Rahman; D Kelsell; I Leigh; S Olpin; I P M Tomlinson Journal: Hum Mol Genet Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 6.150
Authors: Joseph R Grajo; Nikhil V Batra; Shahab Bozorgmehri; Laura L Magnelli; Padraic O'Malley; Russell Terry; Li-Ming Su; Paul L Crispen Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-08-31
Authors: Moozhan Nikpanah; Anna K Paschall; Mark A Ahlman; Ali Cahid Civelek; Faraz Farhadi; S Mojdeh Mirmomen; Xiaobai Li; Babak Saboury; Mark W Ball; Maria J Merino; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; Elizabeth C Jones; W Marston Linehan; Ashkan A Malayeri Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-10
Authors: Cristina Bianchi; Chiara Meregalli; Silvia Bombelli; Vitalba Di Stefano; Francesco Salerno; Barbara Torsello; Sofia De Marco; Giorgio Bovo; Ingrid Cifola; Eleonora Mangano; Cristina Battaglia; Guido Strada; Giuseppe Lucarelli; Robert H Weiss; Roberto A Perego Journal: Oncotarget Date: 2017-12-08