4.7 Article

Rapid MR imaging detection of renal cysts: Age-based standards

Journal

RADIOLOGY
Volume 221, Issue 3, Pages 628-632

Publisher

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2213010178

Keywords

kidney, cysts; kidney, diseases; kidney, MR; magnetic resonance (MR), comparative studies; magnetic resonance (MR), rapid imaging; ultrasound (US), comparative studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

PURPOSE: To establish age-based standards for renal cysts depicted at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging and to compare these standards with existing standards for ultrasonography (US). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three radiologists reviewed subsecond T2-weighted single-shot fast spin-echo kidney MR imaging findings in 528 patients (248 men, 280 women) selected from consecutive abdominal MR studies without regard to clinical indication. Age, sex, and number and diameter of cysts were noted. Results were analyzed with nonparametric tests and were compared with published US results. RESULTS: Men (mean, 2.0; 95% Cl: 1.5, 2.5) had more renal cysts than women (mean, 1.2; 95% Cl: 0.9, 1.5) (P < .001). Number and diameter of cysts increased with age (P < .001). Of 528 patients, 330 (62.5%) had at least one renal cyst, and 315 (59.7%) had cysts of 10 mm or less. MR imaging findings were comparable to published US criteria for type 1 autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) if only cysts larger than 1 cm were considered: Only one subject in the group of 18-29-year-old subjects had at least two renal cysts, and five of 493 subjects aged 30-59 years had at least two cysts in each kidney. CONCLUSION: Compared with reported US results, MR imaging depicted an increased number of simple renal cysts in healthy individuals because of its increased sensitivity for cysts smaller than 1 cm. If only simple renal cysts larger than 1 cm are considered, US criteria for type 1 ADPKD can be applied to MR imaging.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available