4.2 Article

Transitional cell and clear cell renal carcinoma: differentiation of distinct histological types with multiphase CT

期刊

ACTA RADIOLOGICA
卷 55, 期 9, 页码 1112-1119

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/0284185113510493

关键词

Central renal tumor; CT; renal cell carcinoma; renal neoplasms; renal pelvis; transitional cell carcinoma

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Transitional cell carcinoma (TCC) may mimic renal cell carcinoma (RCC) when it develops in a similar location, therefore, differentiation with imaging techniques might be challenging. Preoperative differentiation may have a significant role indicating the type of surgical treatment (nephrectomy vs. ureteronephrectomy). Purpose: To retrospectively analyze the differences in the contrast enhancement of TCC and RCC. Material and Methods: Images of 20 RCC and 12 TCC (mean ages, 62.3 +/- 14.1 and 67.4 +/- 12.0 years, respectively) were analyzed from patients who underwent multiphase computed tomography (CT) examinations following 1.5 mL/kg non-ionic contrast agent administration. Unenhanced corticomedullary (30-45 s), nephrographic (70-90 s), and excretory (300-480 s) phases were imaged. The attenuation characteristics of RCC and TCC were compared to the attenuation of the normal renal cortex. Results: Significant differences were found in the attenuation ratios between RCC or TCC in the corticomedullary (P = 0.040) and nephrographic (P = 0.004) phases using three regions of interest (ROIs) of 10 mm(2) size. If measuring ROIs comprising the complete tumor lesion instead of three small ROIs, no significant difference was observed in the attenuation ratios between RCC in TCC in any phases. Conclusion: Our study reports significant attenuation differences between RCC and TCC in the corticomedullary and nephrographic phases by multiphase CT. The findings underscore the importance of multiphase CT in the differentiation of these two different entities. Using multiple small (three) ROIs is more accurate than measuring the whole tumor attenuation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据