Differential diagnosis of the small renal masses: role of the apparent diffusion coefficient of the diffusion-weighted MRI
Jazyk angličtina Země Nizozemsko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu časopisecké články
PubMed
29230706
DOI
10.1007/s11255-017-1761-1
PII: 10.1007/s11255-017-1761-1
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- Apparent diffusion coefficient, Diffusion-weighted imaging, MRI, Renal cell carcinoma, Small renal masses,
- MeSH
- cystická onemocnění ledvin diagnóza MeSH
- diferenciální diagnóza MeSH
- difuzní magnetická rezonance metody MeSH
- dospělí MeSH
- karcinom z renálních buněk * diagnóza patologie chirurgie MeSH
- léčba šetřící orgány metody MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- nádory ledvin * diagnóza patologie chirurgie MeSH
- nefrektomie metody MeSH
- reprodukovatelnost výsledků MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- senzitivita a specificita MeSH
- Check Tag
- dospělí MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
INTRODUCTION: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) accounts for approximately 3% of adult malignancies and more than 90% of neoplasms arising from the kidney. Uninformative percutaneous kidney biopsies vary from 10 to 23%. As a result, 7.5-33.6% of partial nephrectomies in patients with small renal masses (SRM) are performed on benign renal tumors. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) of MRI, as RCC imaging biomarker for differentiation of SRM. METHOD: Adult patients (n = 158) with 170 SRM were enrolled into this study. The control group were healthy volunteers with normal clinical and radiologic findings (n = 15). All participants underwent MRI with DWI sequence included. RESULTS: Mean ADC values of solid RCC (1.65 ± 0.38 × 10-3 mm2/s) were lower than healthy renal parenchyma (2.47 ± 0.12 × 10-3 mm2/s, p < 0.05). There was no difference between mean ADC values of ccRCC, pRCC and chRCC (1.82 ± 0.22 × 10-3 vs 1.61 ± 0.07 × 10-3 vs 1.46 ± 0.09 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively, p = ns). An inverse relationship between mean ADC values and Fuhrman grade of nuclear atypia of solid ccRCCs was observed: grade I-1.92 ± 0.11 × 10-3 mm2/s, grade II-1.84 ± 0.14 × 10-3 mm2/s, grade III-1.79 ± 0.10 × 10-3 mm2/s, grade IV-1.72 ± 0.06 × 10-3 mm2/s. This was significant (p < 0.05) only between tumors of I and IV grades. Significant difference (p < 0.05) between mean ADC values of solid RCCs, benign renal tumors and renal cysts was observed (1.65 ± 0.38 × 10-3 vs 2.23 ± 0.18 × 10-3 vs 3.15 ± 0.51 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively). In addition, there was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in mean ADC values between benign cysts and cystic RCC (3.36 ± 0.35 × 10-3 vs 2.83 ± 0.21 × 10-3 mm2/s, respectively). CONCLUSION: ADC maps with b values of 0 and 800 s/mm2 can be used as an imaging biomarker, to differentiate benign SRM from malignant SRM. Using ADC value threshold of 1.75 × 10-3 mm2/s allows to differentiate solid RCC from solid benign kidney tumors with 91% sensitivity and 89% specificity; ADC value threshold of 2.96 × 10-3 mm2/s distinguishes cystic RCC from benign renal cysts with 90% sensitivity and 88% specificity. However, the possibility of differentiation between ccRCC histologic subtypes and grades, utilizing ADC values, is limited.
Department of Radiology Lviv National Medical University Lviv Ukraine
Department of Urology Lviv National Medical University Pekarska Str 69 Lviv Ukraine
Euroclinic Medical Center Lviv Ukraine
Faculty of Medicine Central University Hospital of Asturias University of Oviedo Oviedo Spain
Zobrazit více v PubMed
J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1690-4 PubMed
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):624-34 PubMed
BJU Int. 2013 Apr;111(4 Pt B):E146-51 PubMed
Pathol Oncol Res. 2017 Jul;23 (3):689-698 PubMed
Clin Radiol. 2011 May;66(5):420-5 PubMed
Clin Radiol. 2014 Aug;69(8):773-82 PubMed
BJU Int. 2012 Mar;109(6):867-72 PubMed
Clin Radiol. 2013 Jun;68(6):e301-8 PubMed
Br J Cancer. 2007 Jun 18;96(12):1888-95 PubMed
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Aug;205(2):325-30 PubMed
Acta Radiol. 2016 Aug;57(8):1014-20 PubMed
Int Urol Nephrol. 2017 Feb;49(2):215-224 PubMed
Arch Ital Urol Androl. 2009 Jun;81(2):107-12 PubMed
J Urol. 2016 Mar;195(3):568-73 PubMed