Journals / Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology / 2017 / Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2

Comparison of biexponential and monoexponential DWI in evaluation of Fuhrman grading of clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Pages
100–105
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

ADCf is more accurate compared with the ADC value in characterizing Fuhrman grade of ccRCC.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:PURPOSE Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common primary malignant urologic tumor.
📊
Key Findings & Data:METHODSA total of 33 patients with ccRCC underwent multiple b values (0, 20, 50, 100, 150, 250, 400, 600, 800, 1000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:ADCf is more accurate compared with the ADC value in characterizing Fuhrman grade of ccRCC.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

PURPOSE Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is the most common primary malignant urologic tumor. The Fuhrman grading system is an independent indicator for aggressiveness and prognosis of ccRCC. We aimed to assess the possible diagnostic role of biexponentially and monoexponential-ly fitted signal attenuation for the Fuhrman grading. METHODSA total of 33 patients with ccRCC underwent multiple b values (0, 20, 50, 100, 150, 250, 400, 600, 800, 1000 s/mm2) diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Biexponential parameters (fast ADC [ADCf ], slow ADC [ADCs], and fraction of ADCf [f]) and monoexponential apparent diffusion coefficient were calculated, and correlated with the Fuhrman grade of ccRCC respectively. The performance of biexponential parameters in differentiating Fuhrman low- and high-grade tumors was as-sessed and compared with ADC value by receiver operating characteristic analysis. RESULTSQualified images and diffusion-weighted parameters were obtained for all patients. The ADCf and f value were positively correlated, whereas ADCs and ADC value were negatively correlated with Fuhrman grade. Significant differences were observed in ADCf (P < 0.001), ADCs (P = 0.005), and f values (P < 0.001) of high- and low-grade ccRCCs. When differentiating Fuhrman low-grade tumors from high-grade, the ADCf revealed an area under receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.959, which was higher than the ADC value (0.789; P = 0.046), while ADCs (0.807) and f (0.833) showed no significant difference from ADC (P = 0.85 for ADCs, P = 0.73 for f).CONCLUSIONBiexponential DWI provides additional parameters for ccRCC. ADCf is more accurate compared with the ADC value in characterizing Fuhrman grade of ccRCC.

🔖

Cite This Article

SHEN, L., ZHOU, L., LİU, X., YANG, X. (2017). Comparison of biexponential and monoexponential DWI in evaluation of Fuhrman grading of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Cilt: 23 - Sayı: 2, 100–105. https://ajindex.com/articles/189633

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (3)

  1. Gupta K, Miller JD, Li JZ, et al. Epidemiologic and socioeconomic burden of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC): a literature review. Can- cer Treat Rev 2008; 34:193-205. [CrossRef] Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, et al. Cancer statis- tics 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 2009; 59:225-249. [CrossRef] Minardi D, Lucarini G, Mazzucchelli R, et al. Prognostic role of Fuhrman grade and vascu- lar endothelial growth factor in pT1a clear cell carcinoma in partial nephrectomy specimens. J Urol 2005; 174:1208-1212. [CrossRef] Campbell N, Rosenkrantz AB, Pedrosa I. MRI phenotype in renal cancer: is it clinically rele- vant. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 23: 95- 115. [CrossRef] Türkvatan A, Akdur PO, Altinel M, et al. Preopera- tive staging of renal cell carcinoma with multide- tector CT. Diagn Interv Radiol 2009; 15: 22-30.
  2. Bata P, Gyebnar J, Tarnoki DL, et al. Clear cell re- nal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell car- cinoma: differentiation of distinct histological types with multiphase CT. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013; 19: 387-392. [CrossRef] Gurel S, Narra V, Elsayes KM, et al. Subtypes of re- nal cell carcinoma: MRI and pathological features. Diagn Interv Radiol 2013; 19: 304-311. [CrossRef] Sandrasegaran K, Sundaram CP, Ramaswamy R, et al. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imag- ing in the evaluation of renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2010; 194: 438-445. [CrossRef] Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, et al. Diffu- sion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype. Acta Radiologica 2012; 53:349-358. [CrossRef] Yu X, Lin M, Ouyang H, et al. Application of ADC measurement in characterization of renal cell carcinomas with different pathological types and grades by 3.0T diffusion-weighted MRI. Eur J Radiol 2012; 81: 3061-3066. [CrossRef] Zhang J, Tehrani YM, Wang L, et al. Renal mass- es: characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging--a preliminary experience. Radiol- ogy 2008; 247:458-464. [CrossRef] Wang H, Cheng L, Zhang X, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T. Radiology 2010; 257: 135-143. [CrossRef] Taouli B, Thakur RK, Mannelli L, et al. Renal le- sions: characterization with diffusion-weighted imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 2009; 251:398-407. [CrossRef] Squillaci E, Manenti G, Di SF, et al. Diffusion-weight- ed MR imaging in the evaluation of renal tumours. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 2004; 23:39-45.
  3. Chandarana H, Kang SK, Won