| Literature DB >> 28757600 |
Ai-Mei Ouyang1, Zhao-Long Wei1, Xin-You Su1, Kun Li1, Dong Zhao2, De-Xin Yu3, Xiang-Xing Ma3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND To investigate the correlation between the relative computed tomography (CT) enhancement value and the microvascular architecture in different pathologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study included 55 patients with pathologically confirmed RCC. Immunohistochemistry for CD34 was performed for all surgical specimens. Microvascular architecture parameters (density, area, diameter, and perimeter) for the microvessels and the microvessels with lumen were determined. The CT scan was performed during arterial phase or venous phase. The correlation of parameters on CT and tumor angiogenesis was investigated. RESULTS Density of microvessels showed a positive correlation with CT values of tumors, ratios of tumor to cortex, and differences of tumor and medulla, but no correlation with CT value ratio of tumor to aorta or tumor to medulla. CT parameters were positively correlated with microvascular parameters. However, no CT parameter differences between hypo-vascular clear cell RCC and papillary RCC was observed. Strikingly, the density and area of the microvessels were significantly higher in hypo-vascular clear cell RCC than that in papillary RCC, while the density of the microvessels with lumen in the cyst-present RCC was significantly higher than that in the cyst-absent RCC. The values (especially those of microvessels with lumen) of area density, diameter, and perimeter were higher in the capsule-absent RCC than in the capsule-present RCC. CONCLUSIONS The relative CT enhancement value of RCC was associated with vascular architecture parameters including density, area, and perimeter. Quantitative and semi-quantitative parameters on enhanced CT may shed some light on tumor vasculature and function as indicators of the biological behavior of RCC.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28757600 PMCID: PMC5549640 DOI: 10.12659/msm.902957
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Med Sci Monit ISSN: 1234-1010
Clinical characteristics of the 55 patients.
| Patients (n=55) | Age (yr) | Gender | Location | Diameter (cm) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Female | Male | Right | Left | |||
| Clear cell RCC (n=44) | 28–68 | 18 | 26 | 21 | 23 | 1.3–9.5 |
| Papillary RCC (n=7) | 43–70 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2.9–5.0 |
| Chromophobe RCC (n=3) | 39–67 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 4.4–8.4 |
| Undifferentiated RCC (n=1) | 66 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1.1 |
RCC – renal cell carcinoma.
Figure 1Comparison of microvascular parameters and measurements of parameters on CT in 44 ccRCCs. (A) Comparison of microvascular parameters including MVD, areas, diameters, and perimeters between the microvessels and the microvessels with lumen in 44 ccRCCs. MVD2, S2, D2, and L2 of the microvessels with lumen were all significantly less than those of the microvessels (MVD1, S1, D1, and L1) (* p<0.05 for each comparison). (B) Measurements of parameters on CT in 44 ccRCCs.
Comparisons of vascular architecture parameters between subgroups according to the presence of cyst and pseudocapsule in 44 ccRCCs on CT.
| Cyst-present (n=14) | Cyst-absent (n=30) | T | P | Capsule-present (n=12) | Capsule-absent (n=32) | T | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ±SE | Mean ±SE | Mean ±SE | Mean ±SE | |||||
| MVD1 | 21.94±2.90 | 18.83±1.34 | 0.76 | 0.452 | 2.43±2.45 | 22.04±1.82 | 0.62 | 0.543 |
| S1 | 83559.10±10304.12 | 73129.50±6415.88 | 0.72 | 0.481 | 61012.67±5685.75 | 89828.33±7218.20 | −2.07 | 0.049 |
| D1 | 1529.80±202.45 | 1473.18±85.90 | 0.22 | 0.824 | 1452.29±127.42 | 1535.78±130.05 | −0.32 | 0.750 |
| L1 | 8277.60±1351.99 | 7439.12±432.72 | 0.55 | 0.586 | 7963.08±839.92 | 7845.20±112.89 | 0.17 | 0.943 |
| MVD2 | 15.44±2.26 | 10.03±1.34 | 2.10 | 0.043 | 10.10±1.24 | 16.17±1.41 | −2.26 | 0.032 |
| S2 | 62932.19±7657.04 | 54766.87±5559.94 | 0.70 | 0.488 | 35704.20±5741.47 | 73825.66±4281.76 | −4.17 | <0.001 |
| D2 | 1043.88±131.01 | 928.79±82.01 | 0.62 | 0.541 | 700.71±103.72 | 1172.08±77.72 | −2.84 | 0.009 |
| L2 | 4358.09±625.95 | 822.17±307.89 | 0.66 | 0.516 | 2787.20±407.62 | 4938.01±347.72 | −3.00 | 0.006 |
T indicates t value.
Correlation of vascular architecture parameters and parameters on CT in ccRCC (n=44).
| VTA | RTA | RTC | RTM | DTC | DTM | DAV | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVD1 | r | 0.47 | 0.30 | 0.36 | 0.34 | 0.33 | 0.44 | 0.33 |
| P | 0.005 | 0.091 | 0.039 | 0.055 | 0.050 | 0.011 | 0.062 | |
| S1 | r | 0.47 | 0.41 | 0.51 | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.48 | 0.42 |
| P | 0.005 | 0.017 | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.003 | 0.004 | 0.014 | |
| D1 | r | 0.01 | 0.08 | 0.06 | −0.06 | 0.14 | −0.02 | 0.04 |
| P | 0.987 | 0.655 | 0.718 | 0.744 | 0.439 | 0.911 | 0.847 | |
| L1 | r | 0.38 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.22 | 0.41 | 0.33 | 0.27 |
| P | 0.031 | 0.038 | 0.015 | 0.221 | 0.018 | 0.059 | 0.126 | |
| MVD2 | r | 0.72 | 0.56 | 0.59 | 0.51 | 0.56 | 0.66 | 0.58 |
| P | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| S2 | r | 0.69 | 0.51 | 0.64 | 0.59 | 0.63 | 0.66 | 0.60 |
| P | <0.001 | 0.002 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| D2 | r | 0.81 | 0.61 | 0.71 | 0.62 | 0.69 | 0.75 | 0.65 |
| P | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | |
| L2 | r | 0.81 | 0.59 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.68 | 0.76 | 0.70 |
| P | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 | <0.001 |
Indicates a statistical significance.
Relationships of MVD1 and MVD2 in groups with different values of RTC (n=44).
| RTC ≤0.6 (n=7) | 0.6< RTC <1 (n=23) | RTC ≥1 (n=14) | F | P | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MVD1 | 16.52±3.24 | 19.04±0.03 | 24.90±2.44 | 7.98 | <0.01 |
| MVD2 | 6.88±1.43 | 12.33±1.47 | 20.38±2.07 | 18.62 | <0.001 |
Indicates a significant difference between the subgroup of RTC ≤0.6 and the other subgroups;
represents a significant difference between the subgroup of 0.6< RTC <1 and the subgroup of RTC ≥1.
Figure 2CT scan and immunohistochemical staining results (CD34, 200×) of three cases. (A1, A2, a 67-year-old woman): Obvious heterogeneous contrast enhancement in the right kidney (bold arrow) with a VTA value of 160 HU and a RTV value of 1.3 was displayed. There were many microvessels which mainly consisted of relatively mature vessels with lumen (bold arrow) and the microvascular areas were the largest. (B1, B2, a 44-year-old man): Moderate homogeneous contrast enhancement in the left kidney (curved arrow) with a VTA value of 87 HU and a RTV value of 0.75 was displayed. Microvessels mainly consisted of vessels with fissured lumen (curved arrow) and the microvascular area was large. (C1, C2, a 59-year-old man): Mild contrast enhancement (long arrow) with a VTA value of 80 HU and a RTC value of 0.6 was displayed. Pseudo-capsule (short arrow) appeared as hyper density in the lesion margin. There were a few microvessels which involvement in microvessels without lumen mostly (long and short arrows) and the microvascular area was the smallest.
Comparisons of microvascular architecture parameters and parameters on CT between pRCC (n=7) and hypovascular ccRCC (n=7).
| pRCC (n=7) | Hypovascular ccRCC (n=7) | T | P | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ±SE | Mean ±SE | ||||
| Microvessel | MVD1 | 6.98±0.91 | 16.52±3.24 | −2.84 | 0.015 |
| S1 | 22827.39±3999.84 | 69526.38±15637.62 | −2.89 | 0.013 | |
| D1 | 1772.40±1283.19 | 1287.90±252.13 | 0.37 | 0.718 | |
| L1 | 3507.88±1119.63 | 6189.04±1270.97 | −1.58 | 0.139 | |
| Microvessel with lumen | MVD2 | 4.81±0.50 | 6.88±1.43 | −1.37 | 0.212 |
| S2 | 7664.88±3901.69 | 30420.19±9186.08 | −1.28 | 0.225 | |
| D2 | 314.70±40.16 | 479.67±108.48 | −1.43 | 0.179 | |
| L2 | 1400.59±230.26 | 2043.80±395.04 | −1.41 | 0.185 | |
| Parameters on CT | VTA | 58.71±4.91 | 71.29±3.47 | −2.09 | 0.059 |
| VTV | 67.57±5.58 | 73.43±4.72 | −0.80 | 0.439 | |
| RTA | 0.31±0.05 | 0.32±0.03 | −0.31 | 0.762 | |
| RTC | 0.47±0.05 | 0.54±0.02 | −1.29 | 0.220 | |
| RTM | 0.98±0.12 | 1.26±0.15 | −1.47 | 0.168 | |
| DTC | −72.29±13.34 | −61.43±3.72 | −0.78 | 0.448 | |
| DTM | −5.00±7.77 | 11.86±6.45 | −1.67 | 0.121 | |
| VAV | −8.86±4.00 | −1.43±4.94 | −1.17 | 0.265 | |