Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Multiphase Renal Protocol CT Versus MRI for Diagnosis of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma

被引:51
作者
Dilauro, Marc [1 ]
Quon, Matthew [1 ]
McInnes, Matthew D. F. [1 ]
Vakili, Maryam [1 ]
Chung, Andrew [1 ]
Flood, Trevor A. [2 ]
Schieda, Nicola [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Dept Med Imaging, 1053 Carling Ave, Ottawa, ON K1Y 4E9, Canada
[2] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp, Dept Anat Pathol, Ottawa, ON, Canada
关键词
CT; enhancement; MRI; papillary; renal cell carcinoma; IODINE OVERLAY TECHNIQUE; MULTIDETECTOR CT; CYST PSEUDOENHANCEMENT; MASSES; DIFFERENTIATION; FEATURES; SUBTYPES; TOMOGRAPHY; UTILITY; SINGLE;
D O I
10.2214/AJR.15.14932
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE. The objective of this study was to compare contrast-enhanced (CE) CT with MRI for the diagnosis of papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS. Between 2006 and 2013, a total of 27 pRCCs were assessed using CECT or CE-MRI. A blinded radiologist placed ROIs that measured attenuation on unenhanced CT; corticomedullary and nephrographic phase CECT images, with an attenuation difference of 20 HU or more denoting enhancing lesions, 10-19 HU indicating indeterminate findings, and less than 10 HU denoting nonenhancing lesions. MRI enhancement ratios were calculated as follows: (signal intensity on gadolinium-enhanced image minus signal intensity) / (signal intensity on unenhanced image x 100) for phase 1 (acquired at 30 s), phase 2 (acquired at 70 s), and phase 3 (acquired at 180 s), where a difference of 15% or more denoted enhancement. Two additional blinded radiologists qualitatively assessed tumor margin, homogeneity, and calcification with the use of CT, and they also assessed enhancement with the use of subtraction MRI. A fourth radiologist established consensus. Twenty consecutive hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts served as a control group. Statistical analyses were performed using a chi-square test and multivariate regression. RESULTS. There was no statistically significant difference in patient age (p = 0.22), patient sex (p = 0.36), or tumor size (p = 0.29), when pRCCs were compared with hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. On unenhanced CT, attenuation of pRCCs (mean +/- SD, 35.7 +/- 12.9 HU; range, 19-66 HU) was similar to that of hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts (mean, 38.9 +/- 16.9; range, 8-71 HU) (p = 0.48). A total of 51.9% of pRCCs (14/27) had either absent or indeterminate enhancement on corticomedullary phase CECT images (mean attenuation difference, 23.2 +/- 20.3 HU; range, 6-105 HU), and 14.8% of pRCCs (4/27) had indeterminate enhancement on nephrographic phase CECT images (mean attenuation difference, 36.4 +/- 24.9; range, 10-128 HU). No pRCC was nonenhancing on nephrographic phase CECT. Qualitatively, pRCCs were more heterogeneous (80% vs 45%; p = 0.02; kappa = 0.24), irregular (50% vs 5%; p < 0.001; kappa = 0.21), and calcified (25% vs 0%; p = 0.004; kappa = 0.67), with overlap existing between hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts. On CE-MRI, all pRCCs were quantitatively enhanced by phase 2 (95.4 +/- 83.1; percentage change in signal intensity ratio, 16-450%) and qualitatively enhanced after consensus review. No hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cyst enhanced on MRI when quantitative or subjective analysis was performed. CONCLUSION. A small number of pRCCs have indeterminate enhancement when renal protocol CT is used. Heterogeneity, irregular margins, and calcification are suggestive diagnostic features; however, quantitative and qualitative CE-MRI can accurately differentiate hemorrhagic/proteinaceous cysts from pRCC.
引用
收藏
页码:319 / 325
页数:7
相关论文
共 41 条
[11]   Dual-Energy Multidetector CT: How Does It Work, What Can It Tell Us, and When Can We Use It in Abdominopelvic Imaging? [J].
Coursey, Courtney A. ;
Nelson, Rendon C. ;
Boll, Daniel T. ;
Paulson, Erik K. ;
Ho, Lisa M. ;
Neville, Amy M. ;
Marin, Daniele ;
Gupta, Rajan T. ;
Schindera, Sebastian T. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2010, 30 (04) :1037-1055
[12]  
Delahunt B, 1997, MODERN PATHOL, V10, P537
[13]   Differentiation of Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma Subtypes on CT and MRI [J].
Egbert, Nathan D. ;
Caoili, Elaine M. ;
Cohan, Richard H. ;
Davenport, Matthew S. ;
Francis, Isaac R. ;
Kunju, L. Priya ;
Ellis, James H. .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF ROENTGENOLOGY, 2013, 201 (02) :347-355
[14]  
Gokan Takehiko, 2002, Radiat Med, V20, P187
[15]   Single-Phase Dual- Energy CT Allows for Characterization of Renal Masses as Benign or Malignant [J].
Graser, Anno ;
Becker, Christoph R. ;
Staehler, Michael ;
Clevert, Dirk A. ;
Macari, Michael ;
Arndt, Niko ;
Nikolaou, Konstantin ;
Sommer, Wieland ;
Stief, Christian ;
Reiser, Maximilian F. ;
Johnson, Thorsten R. C. .
INVESTIGATIVE RADIOLOGY, 2010, 45 (07) :399-405
[16]   Renal masses: Quantitative analysis of enhancement with signal intensity measurements versus qualitative analysis of enhancement with image subtraction for diagnosing malignancy at MR imaging [J].
Hecht, EM ;
Israel, GM ;
Krinsky, GA ;
Hahn, WY ;
Kim, DC ;
Belitskaya-Levy, I ;
Lee, VS .
RADIOLOGY, 2004, 232 (02) :373-378
[17]   ACR Appropriateness Criteria Indeterminate Renal Mass [J].
Heilbrun, Marta E. ;
Remer, Erick M. ;
Casalino, David D. ;
Beland, Michael D. ;
Bishoff, Jay T. ;
Blaufox, M. Donald ;
Coursey, Courtney A. ;
Goldfarb, Stanley ;
Harvin, Howard J. ;
Nikolaidis, Paul ;
Preminger, Glenn M. ;
Raman, Steven S. ;
Sahni, Anik ;
Vikram, Raghunandan ;
Weinfeld, Robert M. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF RADIOLOGY, 2015, 12 (04) :333-341
[18]   Pseudoenhancement of simple renal cysts: A comparison of single and multidetector helical CT [J].
Heneghan, JP ;
Spielmann, AL ;
Sheafor, DH ;
Kliewer, MA ;
DeLong, DM ;
Nelson, RC .
JOURNAL OF COMPUTER ASSISTED TOMOGRAPHY, 2002, 26 (01) :90-94
[19]   Renal masses: Quantitative assessment of enhancement with dynamic MR imaging [J].
Ho, VB ;
Allen, SF ;
Hood, MN ;
Choyke, PL .
RADIOLOGY, 2002, 224 (03) :695-700
[20]   Pitfalls in renal mass evaluation and how to avoid them [J].
Israel, Gary M. ;
Bosniak, Morton A. .
RADIOGRAPHICS, 2008, 28 (05) :1325-1338