4.7 Article

Arterial spin labeling MR imaging for characterisation of renal masses in patients with impaired renal function: initial experience

期刊

EUROPEAN RADIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 2, 页码 484-492

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00330-011-2250-z

关键词

Magnetic resonance imaging; Kidney neoplasms; Perfusion; Renal insufficiency; Nephrogenic systemic fibrosis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives To retrospectively evaluate the feasibility of arterial spin labeling (ASL) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for the assessment of vascularity of renal masses in patients with impaired renal function. Methods Between May 2007 and November 2008, 11/67 consecutive patients referred for MRI evaluation of a renal mass underwent unenhanced ASL-MRI due to moderate-to-severe chronic or acute renal failure. Mean blood flow in vascularised and non-vascularised lesions and the relation between blood flow and final diagnosis of malignancy were correlated with a 2-sided homogeneous variance t-test and the Fisher Exact Test, respectively. A p value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Seventeen renal lesions were evaluated in 11 patients (8 male; mean age = 70 years) (range 57-86). The median eGFR was 24 mL/min/1.73 m(2) (range 7-39). The average blood flow of 11 renal masses interpreted as ASL-positive (134 +/- 85.7 mL/100 g/min) was higher than that of 6 renal masses interpreted as ASL-negative (20.5 +/- 8.1 mL/100 g/min)(p = 0.015). ASL-positivity correlated with malignancy (n = 3) or epithelial atypia (n = 1) at histopathology or progression at follow up (n = 7). Conclusions ASL detection of vascularity in renal masses in patients with impaired renal function is feasible and seems to indicate neoplasia although the technique requires further evaluation. Key Points Arterial spin labeling may help to characterise renal masses in patients with renal failure Detection of blood flow on ASL in a renal mass supports the presence of a neoplasm Renal masses with high blood-flow levels on ASL seem to progress rapidly.

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

4.7
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