OBJECTIVES: Various imaging methods have been evaluated regarding non-invasive differentiation of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) allows iodine concentration (IC) analysis as a correlate of tissue perfusion. Microvascular density (MVD) in histopathology specimens is evaluated to determine intratumoral vascularization. The objective of this study was to assess the potential of IC and MVD regarding the differentiation between papillary and clear cell RCC and between well- and dedifferentiated tumors. Further, we aimed to investigate a possible correlation between these parameters. METHODS: DECT imaging series of 53 patients with clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and 15 with papillary RCC (pRCC) were analyzed regarding IC. Histology samples were stained using CD31/CD34 monoclonal antibodies; MVD was evaluated digitally. Statistical analysis included performance of Mann-Whitney U test, ROC analysis, and Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: Analysis of IC demonstrated significant differences between ccRCC and pRCC (p < 0.001). A cutoff value of ≤ 3.1 mg/ml at IC analysis allowed identification of pRCC with an accuracy of 86.8%. Within the ccRCC subgroup, G1/G2 tumors could significantly be differentiated from G3/G4 carcinomas (p = 0.045). A significant positive correlation between IC and MVD could be determined for the entire RCC cohort and the ccRCC subgroup. Limitations include the small percentage of pRCCs. CONCLUSIONS: IC analysis is a useful method to differentiate pRCC from ccRCC. The significant positive correlation between IC and MVD indicates valid representation of tumor perfusion by DECT. KEY POINTS: • Analysis of iodine concentration using DECT imaging could reliably distinguish papillary from clear cell subtypes of renal cell cancer (RCC). • A cutoff value of 3.1 mg/ml allowed a distinction between papillary and clear cell RCCs with an accuracy of 86.8%. • The positive correlation with microvascular density in tumor specimens indicates correct display of perfusion by iodine concentration analysis.
OBJECTIVES: Various imaging methods have been evaluated regarding non-invasive differentiation of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes. Dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) allows iodine concentration (IC) analysis as a correlate of tissue perfusion. Microvascular density (MVD) in histopathology specimens is evaluated to determine intratumoral vascularization. The objective of this study was to assess the potential of IC and MVD regarding the differentiation between papillary and clear cell RCC and between well- and dedifferentiated tumors. Further, we aimed to investigate a possible correlation between these parameters. METHODS: DECT imaging series of 53 patients with clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and 15 with papillary RCC (pRCC) were analyzed regarding IC. Histology samples were stained using CD31/CD34 monoclonal antibodies; MVD was evaluated digitally. Statistical analysis included performance of Mann-Whitney U test, ROC analysis, and Spearman rank correlation. RESULTS: Analysis of IC demonstrated significant differences between ccRCC and pRCC (p < 0.001). A cutoff value of ≤ 3.1 mg/ml at IC analysis allowed identification of pRCC with an accuracy of 86.8%. Within the ccRCC subgroup, G1/G2 tumors could significantly be differentiated from G3/G4 carcinomas (p = 0.045). A significant positive correlation between IC and MVD could be determined for the entire RCC cohort and the ccRCC subgroup. Limitations include the small percentage of pRCCs. CONCLUSIONS: IC analysis is a useful method to differentiate pRCC from ccRCC. The significant positive correlation between IC and MVD indicates valid representation of tumor perfusion by DECT. KEY POINTS: • Analysis of iodine concentration using DECT imaging could reliably distinguish papillary from clear cell subtypes of renal cell cancer (RCC). • A cutoff value of 3.1 mg/ml allowed a distinction between papillary and clear cell RCCs with an accuracy of 86.8%. • The positive correlation with microvascular density in tumor specimens indicates correct display of perfusion by iodine concentration analysis.
Authors: K Hellbach; A Sterzik; W Sommer; M Karpitschka; N Hummel; J Casuscelli; M Ingrisch; M Schlemmer; A Graser; Michael Staehler Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2016-09-27 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Andreas M Hötker; Yousef Mazaheri; Andreas Wibmer; Christoph A Karlo; Junting Zheng; Chaya S Moskowitz; Satish K Tickoo; Paul Russo; Hedvig Hricak; Oguz Akin Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2017-01-17 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: James J Hsieh; Mark P Purdue; Sabina Signoretti; Charles Swanton; Laurence Albiges; Manuela Schmidinger; Daniel Y Heng; James Larkin; Vincenzo Ficarra Journal: Nat Rev Dis Primers Date: 2017-03-09 Impact factor: 52.329
Authors: Jonathan R Young; Daniel Margolis; Steven Sauk; Allan J Pantuck; James Sayre; Steven S Raman Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-02-04 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Nils Kroeger; Toni K Choueiri; Jae-Lyn Lee; Georg A Bjarnason; Jennifer J Knox; Mary J MacKenzie; Lori Wood; Sandy Srinivas; Ulka N Vaishamayan; Sun-Young Rha; Sumanta K Pal; Takeshi Yuasa; Frede Donskov; Neeraj Agarwal; Min-Han Tan; Aristotelis Bamias; Christian K Kollmannsberger; Scott A North; Brian I Rini; Daniel Y C Heng Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-07-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Anno Graser; Thorsten R C Johnson; Elizabeth M Hecht; Christoph R Becker; Christianne Leidecker; Michael Staehler; Christian G Stief; Henriette Hildebrandt; Myrna C B Godoy; Myra E Finn; Flora Stepansky; Maximilian F Reiser; Michael Macari Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Sofia Canete-Portillo; Maria Del Carmen Rodriguez Pena; Dezhi Wang; Diego F Sanchez; George J Netto; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi Journal: Virchows Arch Date: 2021-10-05 Impact factor: 4.064