4.2 Article

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced CT Characterization of Xp11.2 Translocation/TFE3 Gene Fusions versus Papillary Renal Cell Carcinomas

Journal

BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL
Volume 2015, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

HINDAWI LTD
DOI: 10.1155/2015/298679

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81572512, 81501441]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province [BK20131281, BK20150109]
  3. Jiangsu Province Health and Family Planning Commission Youth Scientific Research Project [Q201508]
  4. Nanjing City Young Health Personnel Training Project (third level) [QRX11178]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. To compare the differences of CT characteristics between renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE3 gene fusions (Xp11.2 RCCs) and papillary cell renal cell carcinomas (PRCCs). Methods. CT images and clinical records of 64 patients (25 Xp11.2 RCCs, 15 type 1 and 24 type 2 PRCCs) were analyzed and compared retrospectively. Results. Xp11.2 RCC more frequently affected young (30.7 +/- 8.7 years) women (16/25, 64%) with gross hematuria (12/25, 48%), while PRCC more frequently involved middle-aged (54.8 +/- 11.1 years) men (28/39, 71.8%) asymptomatically. Xp11.2 RCC tended to be heterogeneous density with some showing circular calcification. Lesion sizes of Xp11.2 RCC (5.4 +/- 2.2 cm) and type 2 PRCC (5.7 +/- 2.5 cm) were significantly larger than that of type 1 PRCC (3.8 +/- 1.8 cm). Xp11.2 RCC contained more cystic components (22/25, 88%) than type 1 PRCC (all solid) and type 2 PRCC (9/24, 36.0%). Type 1 PRCC (13/15, 86.7%) and Xp11.2 RCC(21/25, 84.0%) showed more clear boundary than type 2 PRCC (12/24, 50.0%). Conclusion. CT features including diameter, boundary, attenuation, nature, and circular calcification of the tumor, combined with demographic information and symptoms, may be useful to differentiate Xp11.2 RCC from different subtypes of PRCC.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available