Kathleen Nguyen1, Nicola Schieda2, Nick James3, Matthew D F McInnes1, Mark Wu1, Rebecca E Thornhill1. 1. Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, The Ottawa Hospital, 1053 Carling Avenue, Room C159, Ottawa, ON, K1Y 4E9, Canada. nschieda@toh.ca. 3. Software Solutions, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare texture analysis (TA) features of solid renal masses on renal protocol (non-contrast enhanced [NECT], corticomedullary [CM], nephrographic [NG]) CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 177 consecutive solid renal masses (116 renal cell carcinoma [RCC]; 51 clear cell [cc], 40 papillary, 25 chromophobe, and 61 benign masses; 49 oncocytomas, 12 fat-poor angiomyolipomas) with three-phase CT between 2012 and 2017 were studied. Two blinded radiologists independently assessed tumor heterogeneity (5-point Likert scale) and segmented tumors. TA features (N = 25) were compared between groups and between phases. Accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]) for RCC versus benign and cc-RCC versus other masses was compared. RESULTS: Subjectively, tumor heterogeneity differed between phases (p < 0.01) and between tumors within the same phase (p = 0.03 [NECT] and p < 0.01 [CM, NG]). Inter-observer agreement was moderate to substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.55-0.73). TA differed in 92.0% (23/25) features between phases (p < 0.05) except for GLNU and f6. More TA features differed significantly on CM (80.0% [20/25]) compared with NG (40.0% [10/25]) and NECT (16.0% [4/25]) (p < 0.01). For RCC versus benign, AUCs of texture features did not differ comparing CM and NG (p > 0.05), but were higher for 20% (5/25) and 28% (7/25) of features comparing CM and NG with NECT (p < 0.05). For cc-RCC versus other, 36% (9/25) and 40% (10/25) features on CM had higher AUCs compared with NECT and NG images (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Texture analysis of renal masses differs, when evaluated subjectively and quantitatively, by phase of CT enhancement. The corticomedullary phase had the highest discriminatory value when comparing masses and for differentiating cc-RCC from other masses. KEY POINTS: • Subjectively evaluated renal tumor heterogeneity on CT differs by phase of enhancement. • Quantitative CT texture analysis features in renal tumors differ by phases of enhancement with the corticomedullary phase showing the highest number and most significant differences compared with non-contrast-enhanced and nephrographic phase images. • For diagnosis of clear cell RCC, corticomedullary phase texture analysis features had improved accuracy of classification in approximately 40% of features studied compared with non-contrast-enhanced and nephrographic phase images.
OBJECTIVE: To compare texture analysis (TA) features of solid renal masses on renal protocol (non-contrast enhanced [NECT], corticomedullary [CM], nephrographic [NG]) CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 177 consecutive solid renal masses (116 renal cell carcinoma [RCC]; 51 clear cell [cc], 40 papillary, 25 chromophobe, and 61 benign masses; 49 oncocytomas, 12 fat-poor angiomyolipomas) with three-phase CT between 2012 and 2017 were studied. Two blinded radiologists independently assessed tumor heterogeneity (5-point Likert scale) and segmented tumors. TA features (N = 25) were compared between groups and between phases. Accuracy (area under the curve [AUC]) for RCC versus benign and cc-RCC versus other masses was compared. RESULTS: Subjectively, tumor heterogeneity differed between phases (p < 0.01) and between tumors within the same phase (p = 0.03 [NECT] and p < 0.01 [CM, NG]). Inter-observer agreement was moderate to substantial (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.55-0.73). TA differed in 92.0% (23/25) features between phases (p < 0.05) except for GLNU and f6. More TA features differed significantly on CM (80.0% [20/25]) compared with NG (40.0% [10/25]) and NECT (16.0% [4/25]) (p < 0.01). For RCC versus benign, AUCs of texture features did not differ comparing CM and NG (p > 0.05), but were higher for 20% (5/25) and 28% (7/25) of features comparing CM and NG with NECT (p < 0.05). For cc-RCC versus other, 36% (9/25) and 40% (10/25) features on CM had higher AUCs compared with NECT and NG images (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Texture analysis of renal masses differs, when evaluated subjectively and quantitatively, by phase of CT enhancement. The corticomedullary phase had the highest discriminatory value when comparing masses and for differentiating cc-RCC from other masses. KEY POINTS: • Subjectively evaluated renal tumor heterogeneity on CT differs by phase of enhancement. • Quantitative CT texture analysis features in renal tumors differ by phases of enhancement with the corticomedullary phase showing the highest number and most significant differences compared with non-contrast-enhanced and nephrographic phase images. • For diagnosis of clear cell RCC, corticomedullary phase texture analysis features had improved accuracy of classification in approximately 40% of features studied compared with non-contrast-enhanced and nephrographic phase images.
Authors: Christoph A Karlo; Pier Luigi Di Paolo; Joshua Chaim; A Ari Hakimi; Irina Ostrovnaya; Paul Russo; Hedvig Hricak; Robert Motzer; James J Hsieh; Oguz Akin Journal: Radiology Date: 2013-10-28 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Taryn Hodgdon; Matthew D F McInnes; Nicola Schieda; Trevor A Flood; Leslie Lamb; Rebecca E Thornhill Journal: Radiology Date: 2015-04-23 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Andrea S Kierans; Henry Rusinek; Andrew Lee; Mohammed B Shaikh; Michael Triolo; William C Huang; Hersh Chandarana Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Nicola Schieda; Robert S Lim; Satheesh Krishna; Matthew D F McInnes; Trevor A Flood; Rebecca E Thornhill Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-03-16 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Kohei Sasaguri; Naoki Takahashi; Daniel Gomez-Cardona; Shuai Leng; Grant D Schmit; Rickey E Carter; Bradley C Leibovich; Akira Kawashima Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Meghan G Lubner; Andrew D Smith; Kumar Sandrasegaran; Dushyant V Sahani; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Radiographics Date: 2017 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Camila Lopes Vendrami; Yuri S Velichko; Frank H Miller; Argha Chatterjee; Carolina Parada Villavicencio; Vahid Yaghmai; Robert J McCarthy Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2018-09-21 Impact factor: 3.959