OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of multiphase computed tomography (CT) and percutaneous renal mass biopsy (PRMB) in differentiating between papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC)-Type 1 and -Type 2, as emerging data have suggested differential enhancement patterns in different renal tumor histologies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 51 patients (23 pRCC-Type 1/28 pRCC-Type 2) who underwent multiphase CT followed by surgery from July 2011 to April 2016 was performed. Data were analyzed between subgroups based on histology. Multiphase CT was analyzed for tumor size, and attenuation [Hounsfield Units (HU)]. Change in HU (ΔHU) was calculated between noncontrast (NC), corticomedullary (CM), nephrographic (N), and delayed (D) phases. Subset analysis was carried out on patients who underwent PRMB prior to surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference in median tumor size (pRCC-Type 1 2.8 vs. pRCC-Type 2 2.6 cm, p=0.832). In addition to tumor size being similar between groups, distribution of tumor stages between groups was also similar (p=0.651). Greater proportion of high-grade tumors (III/IV) was noted in pRCC-Type 2 (42.9% vs. 8.7%) (p=0.011). There was no difference in HU values for NC (p=0.961), CM (p=0.118), N (p=0.277), and D (p=0.256) phases, and in ΔHU between CM-NC (p=0.278), N-NC (p=0.316), and D-NC (p=0.103). Thirteen patients underwent percutaneous biopsy, 11 of whom had diagnostic samples. Examination of 10/11 (90.9%) samples accurately predicted correct histology, and of 6/11 (54.5%) samples correctly identified high-vs. low-grade histology. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest substantial overlap of CT findings, despite pRCC-Type 2 having greater proportion of high-grade tumors. Utility of CT is limited in the differentiation between pRCC subtypes. Patients with suggested pRCC on CT imaging being considered for a non-extirpative strategy should undergo PRMB for risk stratification.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the utility of multiphase computed tomography (CT) and percutaneous renal mass biopsy (PRMB) in differentiating between papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC)-Type 1 and -Type 2, as emerging data have suggested differential enhancement patterns in different renal tumor histologies. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Retrospective analysis of 51 patients (23 pRCC-Type 1/28 pRCC-Type 2) who underwent multiphase CT followed by surgery from July 2011 to April 2016 was performed. Data were analyzed between subgroups based on histology. Multiphase CT was analyzed for tumor size, and attenuation [Hounsfield Units (HU)]. Change in HU (ΔHU) was calculated between noncontrast (NC), corticomedullary (CM), nephrographic (N), and delayed (D) phases. Subset analysis was carried out on patients who underwent PRMB prior to surgery. RESULTS: There was no difference in median tumor size (pRCC-Type 1 2.8 vs. pRCC-Type 2 2.6 cm, p=0.832). In addition to tumor size being similar between groups, distribution of tumor stages between groups was also similar (p=0.651). Greater proportion of high-grade tumors (III/IV) was noted in pRCC-Type 2 (42.9% vs. 8.7%) (p=0.011). There was no difference in HU values for NC (p=0.961), CM (p=0.118), N (p=0.277), and D (p=0.256) phases, and in ΔHU between CM-NC (p=0.278), N-NC (p=0.316), and D-NC (p=0.103). Thirteen patients underwent percutaneous biopsy, 11 of whom had diagnostic samples. Examination of 10/11 (90.9%) samples accurately predicted correct histology, and of 6/11 (54.5%) samples correctly identified high-vs. low-grade histology. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest substantial overlap of CT findings, despite pRCC-Type 2 having greater proportion of high-grade tumors. Utility of CT is limited in the differentiation between pRCC subtypes. Patients with suggested pRCC on CT imaging being considered for a non-extirpative strategy should undergo PRMB for risk stratification.
Authors: Alp Tuna Beksac; Gerant Rivera-Sanfeliz; Catherine A Dufour; Unwanaobong Nseyo; Zachary Hamilton; Sean W Berquist; Abd-elRahman Hassan; Omer A Raheem; Song Wang; Robert W Wake; Robert E Gold; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: World J Urol Date: 2016-08-02 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Jeong Kon Kim; Tae Kyoung Kim; Han Jong Ahn; Chung Soo Kim; Kyu-Rae Kim; Kyoung-Sik Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nathan D Egbert; Elaine M Caoili; Richard H Cohan; Matthew S Davenport; Isaac R Francis; L Priya Kunju; James H Ellis Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-08 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Dieter H Szolar; Melvyn Korobkin; Pia Reittner; Andrea Berghold; Thomas Bauernhofer; Harald Trummer; Helmut Schoellnast; Klaus W Preidler; Hellmuth Samonigg Journal: Radiology Date: 2005-02 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Raghunandan Vikram; Chaan S Ng; Pheroze Tamboli; Nizar M Tannir; Eric Jonasch; Surena F Matin; Christopher G Wood; Carl M Sandler Journal: Radiographics Date: 2009 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Tobias Klatte; Allan J Pantuck; Jonathan W Said; David B Seligson; Nagesh P Rao; Jeffrey C LaRochelle; Brian Shuch; Amnon Zisman; Fairooz F Kabbinavar; Arie S Belldegrun Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2009-02-15 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Ryan P Kopp; Lejla Aganovic; Kerrin L Palazzi; Fiona H Cassidy; Kyoko Sakamoto; Ithaar H Derweesh Journal: Can J Urol Date: 2013-06 Impact factor: 1.344
Authors: Claudia-Gabriela Moldovanu; Bianca Petresc; Andrei Lebovici; Attila Tamas-Szora; Mihai Suciu; Nicolae Crisan; Paul Medan; Mircea Marian Buruian Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-10-28 Impact factor: 2.430