Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: differentiation on MDCT using classification and regression tree analysis-based algorithm

Abstract

Background

Differentiation between angiomyolipoma with minimal fat (AMLmf) and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (nccRCC) may be difficult owing to lack of macroscopic fat in AMLmf. However, the differential points between AMLmf and nccRCC has not been well established in the literature.

Purpose

To evaluate quantitative triphasic multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) features that differentiate between small AMLmf and nccRCC, and to integrate them to develop a simple and easy diagnostic algorithm.

Material and Methods

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board; informed consent was waived. Triphasic MDCT images of pathologically-proven AMLmfs (n = 24) and nccRCCs (n = 55) of 79 patients were retrospectively evaluated. Age, sex, size, long-to-short axis ratio (LSR), attenuation and enhancement degree in all phases, unenhanced tumor-kidney attenuation difference (UTKAD) in Hounsfield units (HU) were compared with Chi-square analysis, independent-samples t-test, and receiver-operating characteristic (ROC) curves. A criterion was formulated with classification and regression tree analysis (CART). Thereafter, CART-based algorithm was tested with additional interpretations from two radiologists. Intra- and inter-observer variability was analyzed with Bland-Altman analysis.

Results

LSR was greater in AMLmf than nccRCC (P < 0.001). AMLmf showed higher attenuation (all phases), CMP enhancement, and wash-out than nccRCC (P ≤ 0.001). UTKAD was greater in AMLmf than nccRCC (P < 0.001). ROC curve analysis yielded area under the curves of 0.936, 0.888, and 0.853 using UTKAD, unenhanced attenuation, and LSR. CART-based algorithm (UTKAD >7.5 HU, LSR > 1.23) predicted AMLmf with sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 87.5%, 96.4%, 91.3%, and 94.6%. Mean intra- and inter-observer difference was –0.1/0.03 HU and −1.0/0.09 HU for UTKAD/LSR, respectively. These interpretations changed the final diagnosis in 1.3% (1/79) and 5.1% (4/79) patients for radiologists 1 and 2.

Conclusion

Triphasic MDCT was useful for differentiating AMLmf and nccRCC. CART-based algorithm using UTKAD > 7.5 and LSR > 1.23 was simple and accurate in predicting AMLmf.

Keywords

Kidney CT neoplasms – primary angiomyolipoma with minimal fat non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma classification and regression tree analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Silverman

Israel

Herts

. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 2008; 249: 16–31.

Hajdu

Foote

Jr . Angiomyolipoma of the kidney: report of 27 cases and review of the literature. J Urol 1969; 102: 396–401.

Kutikov

Fossett

Ramchandani

. Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology 2006; 68: 737–740.

Frank

Blute

Cheville

. Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 2003; 170: 2217–2220.

Fujii

Komai

Saito

. Incidence of benign pathologic lesions at partial nephrectomy for presumed RCC renal masses: Japanese dual-center experience with 176 consecutive patients. Urology 2008; 72: 598–602.

Hafron

Fogarty

Hoenig

. Imaging characteristics of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with histologic correlations. Urology 2005; 66: 1155–1159.

Jinzaki

Tanimoto

Narimatsu

. Angiomyolipoma: imaging findings in lesions with minimal fat. Radiology 1997; 205: 497–502.

Kim

Park

Shon

. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology 2004; 230: 677–684.

Kim

. CT histogram analysis: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma at CT imaging. Radiology 2008; 246: 472–479.

10.

Kim

Jang

. Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from other neoplasms at double-echo chemical shift FLASH MR imaging. Radiology 2006; 239: 174–180.

11.

Sasiwimonphan

Takahashi

Leibovich

. Small (<4 cm) renal mass: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma utilizing MR imaging. Radiology 2012; 263: 160–168.

12.

Shebel

Elsayes

Sheir

. Quantitative enhancement washout analysis of solid cortical renal masses using multidetector computed tomography. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2011; 35: 337–342.

13.

Verma

Mitchell

Yang

. Exophytic renal masses: angular interface with renal parenchyma for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions at MR imaging. Radiology 2010; 255: 501–507.

14.

Zhang

Luo

Liu

. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from papillary renal cell carcinoma by helical CT. Clin Radiol 2013; 68: 365–370.

15.

Kim MH, Lee J, Cho G, et al. MDCT-based scoring system for differentiating angiomyolipoma with minimal fat from renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol 2013 Jul 17 [Epub ahead of print].

16.

Hsu

Wang

. Physiology of renal medullary tip hyperattenuation at unenhanced CT: urinary specific gravity and the NaCl concentration gradient. Radiology 2008; 247: 147–153.

17.

Youden

. Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer 1950; 3: 32–35.

18.

Metser

Goldstein

Chawla

. Detection of urothelial tumors: comparison of urothelial phase with excretory phase CT urography–a prospective study. Radiology 2012; 264: 110–118.

19.

Bland

Altman

. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986; 1: 307–310.

20.

Sahni

Silverman

. Biopsy of renal masses: when and why. Cancer imaging 2009; 9: 44–55.

21.

van den Berg

Dijkhuizen

Oosterhuis

. Cytogenetic classification of renal cell cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet 1997; 95: 103–107.

22.

Amin

Corless

Renshaw

. Papillary (chromophil) renal cell carcinoma: histomorphologic characteristics and evaluation of conventional pathologic prognostic parameters in 62 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 1997; 21: 621–635.

23.

Milner

McNeil

Alioto

. Fat poor renal angiomyolipoma: patient, computerized tomography and histological findings. J Urol 2006; 176: 905–909.

24.

Silverman

Mortele

Tuncali

. Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. Radiographics 2007; 27: 1131–1143.