The role of ct-perfusion for diagnostic of solid renal tumors
https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2021-12-2-70-78
Abstract
Introduction. Nowdays, CT and/or MRI do not have sufficient specificity for the differential diagnosis of benign renal masses (oncocytoma and angiomyolipoma with minimal fat) from malignant tumors, and therefore all patients undergo surgical treatment.
Purpose and objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of perfusion computed tomography (PCT) for the differential diagnosis of solid renal masses.
Materials and methods. The data of 60 patients (61,28±8,46 years) with primary founded solid renal tumors, who underwent PCT at the preoperative stage, were analyzed. Four perfusion indicators, such as BV, BF, PS and MTT, for the renal masses and normal cortex were evaluated.
Results. According to the results of the statistical analysis, the perfusion parameters BV, BF, PS of the renal cortex were significantly higher than in tumors of any histological type (p<0,05). A statistically significant difference was found between clear cell, chromophobe and papillary types of renal cell carcinoma in terms of BV and BF (p<0,05), between benign and malignant tumors — in MTT.
Conclusions. PCT has great potential in the assessment of neoangiogenesis and differential diagnosis of solid renal masses.
About the Authors
N. A. Rubtsova
Moscow Research Oncology Institute named after P. A. Herzen
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia A. Rubtsova
Moscow
A. B. Golbitc
Moscow Research Oncology Institute named after P. A. Herzen
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandra B. Golbitc
Moscow
E. V. Kryaneva
Moscow Research Oncology Institute named after P. A. Herzen
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elena V. Kryaneva
Moscow
D. O. Kabanov
Moscow Research Oncology Institute named after P. A. Herzen
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Dmitry O. Kabanov
Moscow
B. Yа. Alekseev
Moscow Research Oncology Institute named after P. A. Herzen; Moscow State University of Food Production
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Boris Yа. Alekseev
Moscow
A. D. Kaprin
Moscow Research Oncology Institute named after P. A. Herzen; Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Andrey D. Kaprin
Moscow
References
1. Urology. Russian clinical guidelines / eds. Yu.G.Alyaev, P.V.Glybochko, D.Yu.Pushkar. Moscow: Publishing house Medforum, 2017, рр. 293–357 (In Russ.)
2. The state of cancer care in Russia in 2018 / eds. А.D.Каprin, V.V.Starinskiy, G.V.Petrova. Moscow: Moscow Research Oncological Institute named after P.A.Herzen, 2018, рр. 27–30, 136–140 (In Russ.)
3. Renal carcinoma. Russian clinical guidelines / Russian National Union «Association of Oncologists of Russia», Russian Public Organization «Russian Society of Urological Oncology», Russian Public Organization «Russian Society of Clinical Oncology», Russian Public Organization «Russian Society of Urologists». 2020. (In Russ.)]. https://oncology-association.ru/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/rak-parenhimy-pochki_02.pdf.
4. Sasaguri K., Takahashi N. CT and MR imaging for solid renal mass characterization // European Journal of Radiology. 2018. Vol. 99. Р. 40–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.008.
5. Yan et al. The findings of CT and MRI in patients with metanephric adenoma // Diagnostic Pathology. 2016. Vol. 11. Р. 104. doi 10.1186/s13000-0160535-x.
6. Tao et al. A case report of a renal anastomosing hemangioma and a literature review: an unusual variant histologically mimicking angiosarcoma // Diagnostic Pathology. 2014. Vol. 9. 159 р. http://www.diagnosticpathology.org/content/9/1/159.
7. Kay F.U., Pedrosa I. Imaging of solid renal masses // Radiol. Clin. North Am. 2016. Vol. 55 (2). Р. 243–258 doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.10.003.
8. Raman S.P., Johnson P.T., Allaf M.E. et al. Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma: Multiphase MDCT Enhancement Patterns and Morphologic Features // AJR. 2013. December. Vol. 201. doi: 10.2214/AJR.13.10813.
9. Bindayi А. et al. Can multiphase CT scan distinguish between papillary renal cell carcinoma type 1 and type 2? // Turk. J. Urol. 2018. Vol. 44 (4). Р. 316– 322. doi: 10.5152/tud.2018.28938.
10. Vendrami L. et al. Differentiation of solid renal tumors with multiparametric MR Imaging // RadioGraphics. 2017. Vol. 37. Р. 2026–2042. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017170039.
11. Woo S., Cho J.Y. Imaging Findings of Common Benign Renal Tumors in the Era of Small Renal Masses: Differential Diagnosis from Small Renal Cell Carcinoma — Current Status and Future Perspectives // Korean J. Radiol. 2015. Vol. 16 (1). Р. 99–113. http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.1.99; pISSN 1229–6929; eISSN 2005–8330.
12. Bhatt N.R. et al. Dilemmas in diagnosis and natural history of renal oncocytoma and implications for management // Can. Urol. Assoc. J. 2015. Vol. 9. E709.
13. Liu S. et al. Active surveillance is suitable for intermediate term follow-up of renal oncocytoma diagnosed by percutaneous core biopsy // BJU Int. 2016. Vol. 118, Suppl. 3, р. 30.
14. Kawaguchi S. et al. Most renal oncocytomas appear to grow: observations of tumor kinetics with active surveillance // J. Urol. 2011. Vol. 186. Р. 1218.
15. Ljungberg B., Albiges L., Bensalah K. et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2019 Update // Eur. Urol. 2019. Vol. 75 (5). Р. 799–810. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2019.02.011.
16. Patel H.D. et al. Surgical histopathology for suspected oncocytoma on renal mass biopsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis // BJU Int. 2017. Vol. 119. Р. 661.
17. Macklin P.S. et al. Tumour Seeding in the Tract of Percutaneous Renal Tumour Biopsy: A Report on Seven Cases from a UK Tertiary Referral Centre // Eur. Urol. 2019. Vol. 75. Р. 861.
18. Crestani А., Rossanese М., Calandriello М. et al. Introduction to small renal tumours and prognostic indicators // Int. J. Surg. 2016. Vol. 36. р. 495–503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.03.038.
19. Priya К.S., Nagare R.P., Sneha V.S. et al. Tumour angiogenesis-Origin of blood vessels // Int. J. Cancer. 2016. Vol. 139 (4). Р. 729–735. doi: 10.1002/ijc.30067.
20. García-Figueiras et al. CT Perfusion in Oncologic Imaging: A Useful Tool? // AJR. 2000. 2013. Jan. doi: 10.2214/AJR.11.8476.
21. Wang Y. et al. Baseline perfusion CT parameters as potential biomarkers in predicting long‑term prognosis of localized clear cell renal cell carcinoma // Abdominal Radiology. 2019. Vol. 44. Р. 3370–3376 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02087-z
22. Chen C. et al. Study of 320-Slice dynamic volume CT perfusion in different pathologic types of kidney tumor: preliminary results // PLoS One. 2014. Vol. 9 (1). e85522. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0085522.
23. Das C.J., Thingujam U., Panda A., Sharma S., Gupta A.K. Perfusion computed tomography in renal cell carcinoma // World J. Radiol. 2015. Vol. 7 (7). Р. 170–179. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v7.i7.170.
24. Mazzei F.G. et al. CT Perfusion in the Characterisation of Renal Lesions: An Added Value to Multiphasic CT // BioMed. Research International. 2014. Vol. 2014. 10 p.http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/135013.
25. Chen C. et al. Correlation between CT perfusion parameters and Fuhrman grade in pTlb renal cell carcinoma // Abdom Radiol. 2017. Vol. 42. Р. 1464– 1471. doi: 10.1007/s00261-016-1009-z.
Review
For citations:
Rubtsova N.A., Golbitc A.B., Kryaneva E.V., Kabanov D.O., Alekseev B.Y., Kaprin A.D. The role of ct-perfusion for diagnostic of solid renal tumors. Diagnostic radiology and radiotherapy. 2021;12(2):70-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22328/2079-5343-2021-12-2-70-78
Views:
1386
Email this article 