Ryan L Steinberg1, Robert G Rasmussen2, Brett A Johnson1, Rashed Ghandour1, Alberto Diaz De Leon2, Yin Xi2, Takeshi Yokoo2,3, Sandy Kim4, Payal Kapur1,5, Jeffrey A Cadeddu1,2, Ivan Pedrosa6,7,8. 1. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 2. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern, NE6.216, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, MC 9085, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. 3. Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 4. University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, TX, USA. 5. Department of Pathology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. 6. Department of Urology, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. Ivan.Pedrosa@UTSouthwestern.edu. 7. Department of Radiology, University of Texas Southwestern, NE6.216, 5323 Harry Hines Blvd, MC 9085, Dallas, TX, 75390, USA. Ivan.Pedrosa@UTSouthwestern.edu. 8. Advanced Imaging Research Center, University of Texas Southwestern, Dallas, TX, USA. Ivan.Pedrosa@UTSouthwestern.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Solid renal masses have unknown malignant potential with commonly utilized imaging. Biopsy can offer a diagnosis of cancer but has a high non-diagnostic rate and complications. Reported use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to diagnose aggressive histology (i.e., clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)) via a clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) was based on retrospective review of cT1a tumors. We aim to retrospectively assess the diagnostic performance of ccLS prospectively assigned to renal masses of all stages evaluated with mpMRI prior to histopathologic evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study from June 2016 to November 2019, 434 patients with 454 renal masses from 2 institutions with heterogenous patient populations underwent mpMRI with prospective ccLS assignment and had pathologic diagnosis. ccLS performance was assessed by contingency table analysis. The association between ccLS and ccRCC was assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean age and tumor size were 60 ± 13 years and 5.4 ± 3.8 cm. Characteristics were similar between institutions except for patient age and race (both p < 0.001) and lesion laterality and histology (both p = 0.04). The PPV of ccLS increased with each increment in ccLS (ccLS1 5% [3/55], ccLS2 6% [3/47], ccLS3 35% [20/57], ccLS4 78% [85/109], ccLS5 93% [173/186]). Pooled analysis for ccRCC diagnosis revealed sensitivity 91% (258/284), PPV 87% (258/295) for ccLS ≥ 4, and specificity 56% (96/170), NPV 94% (96/102) for ccLS ≤ 2. Diagnostic performance was similar between institutions. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the optimal diagnostic performance of mpMRI to identify ccRCC in all clinical stages. High PPV and NPV of ccLS can help inform clinical management decision-making. KEY POINTS: • The positive predictive value of the clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) for detecting clear cell renal cell carcinoma was 5% (ccLS1), 6% (ccLS2), 35% (ccLS3), 78% (ccLS4), and 93% (ccLS5). Sensitivity of ccLS ≥ 4 and specificity of ccLS ≤ 2 were 91% and 56%, respectively. • When controlling for confounding variables, ccLS is an independent risk factor for identifying clear cell renal cell carcinoma. • Utilization of the ccLS can help guide clinical care, including the decision for renal mass biopsy, reducing the morbidity and risk to patients.
OBJECTIVES: Solid renal masses have unknown malignant potential with commonly utilized imaging. Biopsy can offer a diagnosis of cancer but has a high non-diagnostic rate and complications. Reported use of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) to diagnose aggressive histology (i.e., clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC)) via a clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) was based on retrospective review of cT1a tumors. We aim to retrospectively assess the diagnostic performance of ccLS prospectively assigned to renal masses of all stages evaluated with mpMRI prior to histopathologic evaluation. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study from June 2016 to November 2019, 434 patients with 454 renal masses from 2 institutions with heterogenous patient populations underwent mpMRI with prospective ccLS assignment and had pathologic diagnosis. ccLS performance was assessed by contingency table analysis. The association between ccLS and ccRCC was assessed with logistic regression. RESULTS: Mean age and tumor size were 60 ± 13 years and 5.4 ± 3.8 cm. Characteristics were similar between institutions except for patient age and race (both p < 0.001) and lesion laterality and histology (both p = 0.04). The PPV of ccLS increased with each increment in ccLS (ccLS1 5% [3/55], ccLS2 6% [3/47], ccLS3 35% [20/57], ccLS4 78% [85/109], ccLS5 93% [173/186]). Pooled analysis for ccRCC diagnosis revealed sensitivity 91% (258/284), PPV 87% (258/295) for ccLS ≥ 4, and specificity 56% (96/170), NPV 94% (96/102) for ccLS ≤ 2. Diagnostic performance was similar between institutions. CONCLUSIONS: We confirm the optimal diagnostic performance of mpMRI to identify ccRCC in all clinical stages. High PPV and NPV of ccLS can help inform clinical management decision-making. KEY POINTS: • The positive predictive value of the clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) for detecting clear cell renal cell carcinoma was 5% (ccLS1), 6% (ccLS2), 35% (ccLS3), 78% (ccLS4), and 93% (ccLS5). Sensitivity of ccLS ≥ 4 and specificity of ccLS ≤ 2 were 91% and 56%, respectively. • When controlling for confounding variables, ccLS is an independent risk factor for identifying clear cell renal cell carcinoma. • Utilization of the ccLS can help guide clinical care, including the decision for renal mass biopsy, reducing the morbidity and risk to patients.
Authors: Brett Delahunt; John C Cheville; Guido Martignoni; Peter A Humphrey; Cristina Magi-Galluzzi; Jesse McKenney; Lars Egevad; Ferran Algaba; Holger Moch; David J Grignon; Rodolfo Montironi; John R Srigley Journal: Am J Surg Pathol Date: 2013-10 Impact factor: 6.394
Authors: Patrick O Richard; Luke T Lavallée; Frederic Pouliot; Maria Komisarenko; Lisa Martin; Jean-Baptiste Lattouf; Antonio Finelli Journal: J Urol Date: 2018-04-11 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Steven C Campbell; Andrew C Novick; Arie Belldegrun; Michael L Blute; George K Chow; Ithaar H Derweesh; Martha M Faraday; Jihad H Kaouk; Raymond J Leveillee; Surena F Matin; Paul Russo; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2009-08-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Marc C Smaldone; Robert G Uzzo; Miki Haifler; Gennady Bratslavsky; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2016-04-13 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: B Escudier; C Porta; M Schmidinger; N Rioux-Leclercq; A Bex; V Khoo; V Gruenvald; A Horwich Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ross J Mason; Mohamed Abdolell; Greg Trottier; Christopher Pringle; Joseph G Lawen; David G Bell; Michael A S Jewett; Laurence Klotz; Ricardo A Rendon Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2011-02-22 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Steven Campbell; Robert G Uzzo; Mohamad E Allaf; Eric B Bass; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Anthony Chang; Peter E Clark; Brian J Davis; Ithaar H Derweesh; Leo Giambarresi; Debra A Gervais; Susie L Hu; Brian R Lane; Bradley C Leibovich; Philip M Pierorazio Journal: J Urol Date: 2017-05-04 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Bradley C Leibovich; Christine M Lohse; John C Cheville; Harras B Zaid; Stephen A Boorjian; Igor Frank; R Houston Thompson; William P Parker Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2018-02-03 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Reza Mehrazin; Marc C Smaldone; Alexander Kutikov; Tianyu Li; Jeffrey J Tomaszewski; Daniel J Canter; Rosalia Viterbo; Richard E Greenberg; David Y T Chen; Robert G Uzzo Journal: J Urol Date: 2014-03-15 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Joseph R Grajo; Nikhil V Batra; Shahab Bozorgmehri; Laura L Magnelli; Jonathan Pavlinec; Padraic O'Malley; Li-Ming Su; Paul L Crispen Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2021-03-04
Authors: Robert G Rasmussen; Yin Xi; R Carson Sibley; Christopher J Lee; Jeffrey A Cadeddu; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2021-07-21 Impact factor: 6.582