Ling-Shan Chen1, Zheng-Qiu Zhu2, Zhi-Tao Wang1, Jing Li1, Li-Feng Liang1, Ji-Yang Jin3, Zhong-Qiu Wang4. 1. Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210029, China. 2. Department of Ultrasound, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210029, China. 3. Department of Radiology, Zhongda Hospital of Southeast University, Nanjing, 210029, China. 4. Department of Radiology, Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, 210029, China. Zhq2001us@163.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the performance of chemical shift signal intensity index (CS-SII) values for distinguishing minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma (mfAML) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and to assess RCC subtype characterisation. METHODS: We identified eligible studies on CS magnetic resonance imaging (CS-MRI) of focal renal lesions via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. CS-SII values were extracted by lesion type and evaluated using linear mixed model-based meta-regression. RCC subtypes were analysed. Two-sided p value <0.05 indicated statistical significance. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. RESULTS: Eleven articles involving 850 patients were included. Minimal-fat AML had significantly higher CS-SII value than RCC (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences between mfAML and clear cell RCC (cc-RCC) (p = 0.112). Clear cell RCC had a significantly higher CS-SII value than papillary RCC (p-RCC) (p < 0.001) and chromophobe RCC (ch-RCC) (p = 0.045). The methodological quality was relatively high, and Begg's test data points indicated no obvious publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The CS-SII value for differentiating mfAML from cc-RCC remains unproven, but is a promising method for differentiating cc-RCC from p-RCC and ch-RCC. KEY POINTS: • RCC CS-SII values are significantly lower than those of mfAML overall. • CS-SII values cannot aid differentiation between mfAML and cc-RCC. • CS-SII values might help characterise RCC subtypes.
OBJECTIVES: To determine the performance of chemical shift signal intensity index (CS-SII) values for distinguishing minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma (mfAML) from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and to assess RCC subtype characterisation. METHODS: We identified eligible studies on CS magnetic resonance imaging (CS-MRI) of focal renal lesions via PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. CS-SII values were extracted by lesion type and evaluated using linear mixed model-based meta-regression. RCC subtypes were analysed. Two-sided p value <0.05 indicated statistical significance. Methodological quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 tool. RESULTS: Eleven articles involving 850 patients were included. Minimal-fat AML had significantly higher CS-SII value than RCC (p < 0.05); there were no significant differences between mfAML and clear cell RCC (cc-RCC) (p = 0.112). Clear cell RCC had a significantly higher CS-SII value than papillary RCC (p-RCC) (p < 0.001) and chromophobe RCC (ch-RCC) (p = 0.045). The methodological quality was relatively high, and Begg's test data points indicated no obvious publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: The CS-SII value for differentiating mfAML from cc-RCC remains unproven, but is a promising method for differentiating cc-RCC from p-RCC and ch-RCC. KEY POINTS: • RCC CS-SII values are significantly lower than those of mfAML overall. • CS-SII values cannot aid differentiation between mfAML and cc-RCC. • CS-SII values might help characterise RCC subtypes.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chemical shift magnetic resonance imaging; Chemical shift signal intensity index; Differentiation; Minimal-fat angiomyolipoma; Renal cell carcinoma
Authors: Jason Hafron; James D Fogarty; David M Hoenig; Maomi Li; Robert Berkenblit; Reza Ghavamian Journal: Urology Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: John Milner; Brian McNeil; Joe Alioto; Kevin Proud; Tara Rubinas; Maria Picken; Terrence Demos; Thomas Turk; Kent T Perry Journal: J Urol Date: 2006-09 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Nicola Schieda; Matthew S Davenport; Ivan Pedrosa; Atul Shinagare; Hersch Chandarana; Nicole Curci; Ankur Doshi; Gary Israel; Erick Remer; Jane Wang; Stuart G Silverman Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2019-01-28 Impact factor: 4.813