A comparison of effectiveness of the contrast enhanced computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of clear cell renal carcinoma

Blachura, Tomasz; Radzikowska, Julia; Matusik, Patrycja S.; Kowal, Aleksander; Jarczewski, Jarosław D; Skiba, Łukasz; Popiela, Tadeusz J; Chrzan, Robert

doi:10.2478/raon-2025-0033

Abstract

Background

The incidental detection of indeterminate small renal masses (SRMs) has been rising continuously over the last few decades. The aim of our study was to assess selected contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) parameters in the characterization of indeterminate SRMs and compare them with selected magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data.

Patients and methods

Patients with indeterminate SRMs discovered on CECT were included in the study. Selected CECT features have been analyzed as differentiating between clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and other etiologies of SRMs. In 82% of patients, which had available MRI data, a comparison between selected MRI and CECT parameters were performed.

Results

Relative washout in CECT had the best accuracy (76.5%), sensitivity (88.9%), as well as satisfactory specificity (69.7%) in ccRCC prediction. The cut-off point determined in receiver operating analysis using the Youden index for this parameter was 11.54. Multivariable analysis showed that only T1 SI ratio < 0.73 from MRI parameters and relative washout > 11.5 from CECT parameters were independent predictors of ccRCC (OR: 30.86, 95% CI: 1.58-600.26, p = 0.024; OR: 15.36, 95% CI: 1.52-155.16, p = 0.021).

Conclusions

In clinical practice, the use of both CECT and MRI indicators, especially T1 SI ratio < 0.73 for MRI and relative washout > 11.5 for CECT, can support physicians in diagnosing and treating patients effectively.

References

Roussel E, Campi R, Amparore D, Bertolo R, Carbonara U, Erdem S, et al. Expanding the role of ultrasound for the characterization of renal masses. J Clin Med 2022; 11: 1112. doi: 10.3390/jcm11041112
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Roussel E, Capitanio U, Kutikov A, Oosterwijk E, Pedrosa I, Rowe SP, et al. Novel imaging methods for renal mass characterization: a collaborative review. Eur Urol 2022; 81: 476-88. doi: 10.1016/j.eururo.2022.01.040
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Schieda N, Krishna S, Pedrosa I, Kaffenberger SD, Davenport MS, Silverman SG. Active surveillance of renal masses: the role of radiology. Radiology 2022; 302: 11-24. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2021204227
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, Meyer AM, Wheeler SB, Kuo TM, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J Urol 2015; 193: 30-5. doi: 10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.102
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Campbell SC, Clark PE, Chang SS, Karam JA, Souter L, Uzzo RG. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: evaluation, management, and followup: AUA Guideline: Part I. J Urol 2021; 206: 199-208. doi: 10.1097/JU.0000000000001911
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, Greenberg RE, Chen DY, Uzzo RG. The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 2006; 175: 425-31. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5347(05)00148-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bahadoram S, Davoodi M, Hassanzadeh S, Bahadoram M, Barahman M, Mafakher L. Renal cell carcinoma: an overview of the epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment. G Ital Nefrol 2022; 39: 2022-vol3. PMID: 35819037
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kay FU, Pedrosa I. Imaging of solid renal masses. Urol Clin North Am 2018; 45: 311-30. doi: 10.1016/j.ucl.2018.03.013
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, Bookbinder MJ, Glickman MG, Richter J, et al. Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography, US, and CT. Radiology 1988; 169: 363-5. doi: 10.1148/radiology.169.2.3051112
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krishna S, Leckie A, Kielar A, Hartman R, Khandelwal A. Imaging of renal cancer. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2020; 41: 152-69. doi: 10.1053/j. sult.2019.12.004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Elstob A, Gonsalves M, Patel U. Diagnostic modalities. Int J Surg 2016; 36: 504-12. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.06.005
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Muglia VF, Prando A. Renal cell carcinoma: histological classification and correlation with imaging findings. Radiol Bras 2015; 48: 166-74. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2013.1927
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Blachura T, Matusik PS, Kowal A, Radzikowska J, Jarczewski JD, Skiba Ł, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of the Clear Cell Likelihood Score and selected MRI parameters in the characterization of indeterminate renal masses-a single-institution study. Abdom Radiol 2024; 49: 3893-901. doi: 10.1007/s00261-024-04484-5
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Jonisch AI, Rubinowitz AN, Mutalik PG, Israel GM. Can high-attenuation renal cysts be differentiated from renal cell carcinoma at unenhanced CT? Radiology 2007; 243: 445-50. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2432060559
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Badri AV, Waingankar N, Edwards K, Kutikov A, Parsons RB, Chen DY, et al. Non-contrast imaging characteristics of papillary renal cell carcinoma: implications for diagnosis and subtyping. Can J Urol 2019; 26: 9916-21. PMID: 31629440
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pan H, Ye L, Zhu Q, Yang Z, Hu M. The effect of the papillary renal cell carcinoma subtype on oncological outcomes. Sci Rep 2020; 10: 21073. doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-78174-9.
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Abdelmegeed SA, Farok HM, Refaat MM, Eldiasty TA. Role of multidetector ct in quantitative enhancement-washout analysis of solid renal masses. Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med 2021; 52: 274. doi: 10.1186/s43055-021-00650-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
O’Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Oliva MR, Silverman SG. Incidental finding of renal masses at unenhanced CT: prevalence and analysis of features for guiding management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011; 197: 139-45. doi: 10.2214/AJR.10.5920
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Krishna S, Murray CA, McInnes MD, Chatelain R, Siddaiah M, Al-Dandan O, et al. CT imaging of solid renal masses: pitfalls and solutions. Clin Radiol 2017; 72: 708-21. doi: 10.1016/j.crad.2017.05.003
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM, Wang L, Moskowitz CS, Russo P, et al. Solid renal cortical tumors: differentiation with CT. Radiology 2007; 244: 494-504. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2442060927
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Giambelluca D, Pellegrino S, Midiri M, Salvaggio G. The “central stellate scar” sign in renal oncocytoma. Abdom Radiol 2019; 44: 1942-3. doi: 10.1007/s00261-019-01899-3
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Campbell N, Rosenkrantz AB, Pedrosa I. MRI phenotype in renal cancer: is it clinically relevant? Top Magn Reson Imaging 2014; 23: 95-115. doi: 10.1097/RMR.0000000000000019
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sasaguri K, Takahashi N. CT and MR imaging for solid renal mass characterization. Eur J Radiol 2018; 99: 40-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.12.008
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pierorazio PM, Hyams ES, Tsai S, Feng Z, Trock BJ, Mullins JK, et al. Multiphasic enhancement patterns of small renal masses (≤4 cm) on preoperative computed tomography: utility for distinguishing subtypes of renal cell carcinoma, angiomyolipoma, and oncocytoma. Urology 2013; 81: 1265-71. doi: 10.1016/j.urology.2012.12.049
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bazzocchi MV, Zilioli C, Gallone VI, Commisso C, Bertolotti L, Pagnini F, et al. The role of CT imaging in characterization of small renal masses. Diagnostics 2023; 13: 334. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13030334
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Kopp RP, Aganovic L, Palazzi KL, Cassidy FH, Sakamoto K, Derweesh IH. Differentiation of clear from non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma using CT washout formula. Can J Urol 2013; 20: 6790-7. PMID: 23783049
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Sun MR, Ngo L, Genega EM, Atkins MB, Finn ME, Rofsky NM, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes - correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 2009; 250: 793-802. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2503080995
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Bird VG, Kanagarajah P, Morillo G, Caruso DJ, Ayyathurai R, Leveillee R, et al. Differentiation of oncocytoma and renal cell carcinoma in small renal masses (< 4 cm): the role of 4-phase computerized tomography. World J Urol 2011; 29: 787-92. doi: 10.1007/s00345-010-0586-7
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Xie P, Yang Z, Yuan Z. Lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma: differentiation from clear cell renal cell carcinoma using wash-in and washout characteristics on contrast-enhanced computed tomography. Oncol Lett 2016; 11: 2327-31. doi: 10.3892/ol.2016.4214
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Posada Calderon L, Eismann L, Reese SW, Reznik E, Hakimi AA. Advances in imaging-based biomarkers in renal cell carcinoma: a critical analysis of the current literature. Cancers 2023; 15: 354. doi: 10.3390/cancers15020354
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Baldari D, Capece S, Mainenti PP, Tucci AG, Klain M, Cozzolino I, et al. Comparison between computed tomography multislice and high-field magnetic resonance in the diagnostic evaluation of patients with renal masses. Quant Imaging Med Surg 2015; 5: 691-9. doi: 10.3978/j. issn.2223-4292.2015.07.03
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Chow WH, Dong LM, Devesa SS. Epidemiology and risk factors for kidney cancer. Nat Rev Urol 2010; 7: 245-57. doi: 10.1038/nrurol.2010.46
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article