4.5 Article

Utility and limitations of 3-Tesla diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging for differentiation of renal tumors

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF RADIOLOGY
Volume 83, Issue 6, Pages 909-913

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.026

Keywords

Renal carcinoma; Renal mass; MRI; DWI; ADC; Papillary

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective To investigate utility and limitations of 3-Tesla diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for differentiation of benign versus malignant renal lesions and renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes. Materials and methods: Sixty patients with 71 renal lesions underwent 3 Tesla DW-MRI of the kidneybefore diagnostic tissue confirmation. The images were retrospectively evaluated blinded to histology. Single-shot echo-planar imaging was used as the DW imaging technique. Apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) values were measured and compared with histopathological characteristics. Results: There were 54 malignant and 17 benign lesions, 46 lesions being small renal masses <= 4 cm. Papillary RCC lesions had lower ADC values (p = 0.029) than other RCC subtypes (clear cell or chromophobe). Diagnostic accuracy of DW-MRI for differentiation of papillary from non-papillary RCC was 70.3% resulting in a sensitivity and specificity of 64.3% (95% CI, 35.1-87.2) and 77.1 (95% CI, 59.9-89.6%). Accuracyincreased to 83.7% in small renal masses (<= 4 cm diameter) and sensitivity and specificity were 75.0% and 88.5%, respectively. The ADC values did not differ significantly between benign and malignant renallesions (p = 0.45). Conclusions: DW-MRI seems to distinguish between papillary and other subtypes of RCCs especially insmall renal masses but could not differentiate between benign and malignant renal lesions. Therefore, the use of DW-MRI for preoperative differentiation of renal lesions is limited. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available