Diffusion-weighted imaging using 3.0 T MRI as a possible biomarker of renal tumors
Jazyk angličtina Země Řecko Médium print
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
25862900
PII: 35/4/2351
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Renal tumor, apparent diffusion coefficient, biomarker, diffusion weighted MRI, magnetic resonance imaging,
- MeSH
- difuzní magnetická rezonance * MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- interpretace obrazu počítačem MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk diagnóza diagnostické zobrazování patologie MeSH
- kontrastní látky * chemie MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- nádorové biomarkery chemie MeSH
- nádory ledvin diagnóza diagnostické zobrazování patologie MeSH
- oxyfilní adenom diagnóza diagnostické zobrazování patologie MeSH
- radiografie MeSH
- retrospektivní studie MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- staging nádorů MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mladiství MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři nad 80 let MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- Názvy látek
- kontrastní látky * MeSH
- nádorové biomarkery MeSH
BACKGROUND/AIM: Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) allows for differentiation of benign from malignant tumors, histological tumor types and their grade. The aim of the study was to evaluate the capabilities of DWI using 3 Tesla Magnetic resonance imaging (3T MRI) in the preoperative assessment of renal tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective study included 143 tumors in 139 patients (130 malignant tumors and 13 benign tumors) that were examined using DWI with b values of 50, 400 and 800 s/mm(2). In all tumors, the lowest value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the solid tissue was measured and correlated with the histological finding. RESULTS: A significant difference between ADCs of malignant and benign tumors was found (p<0.001). Comparison of the most common malignant and benign tumors clear-cell renal carcinoma (CCRCC) grade I and oncocytoma resulted in a difference of borderline significance with a marked overlap (p=0.046). By assessing the histological types of malignant tumors, we detected a significant difference between CCRCC and all other histological types (p=0.048 for chromophobe (CH) RCC, p=0.002 for papillary (P) RCC and p=0.002 for urothelial carcinoma (UC)). Mutual differentiation of other types of carcinomas was not feasible (p=1.0 in all cases). The differences between low-grade (grade I+II) and high-grade (grade III+IV) CCRCC was significant (p<0.001). A significant difference was found even between CCRCC grade I and others (p=0.01 for grade II, p<0.001 for grade III+IV, respectively). CONCLUSION: DWI may contribute in distinguishing CCRCC from other histological types and to determinits grade. The method has certain potential for distinguishing benign from malignant tumors; however, differentiation of the most frequently represented types, CCRCC grade I and oncocytoma, remains difficult.
