Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Application of different methods used to measure the apparent diffusion coefficient of renal cell carcinoma on the same lesion and its correlation with ISUP nuclear grading

  • Kidneys, Ureters, Bladder, Retroperitoneum
  • Published:
Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the most frequently used different apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement methods in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and their correlation with the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) histologic grading system.

Methods

A total of 99 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging and whose pathologic diagnosis of RCC was confirmed were included in the study. As a result of a literature review, region of interest (ROI) selection and measurement methods were determined in five ways. These included a small ROI (ADC1) on the solid part of the lesion showing the most restriction; a large ROI (ADC2) on the solid part of the lesion showing restriction; ROI (ADC3) that covered the lesion in the cross-section with the largest diameter, which was obtained by placing ROIs (ADC4) covering the lesion on all sections of the lesion; three small ROIs (ADC5) on solid parts of the lesion showing the most restriction. Then, ADC measurements were made from the contralateral normal kidney parenchyma. Tumors were pathologically subdivided [71 clear cell RCCs (ccRCC), 17 chromophobe RCCs (chRCC), 11 papillary RCCs (pRCC)], and graded according to the ISUP nuclear grading system (42 high-grade, 57 low-grade). Data were analyzed statistically.

Results

In all measurement methods, ADC values of RCCs were statistically significantly lower than normal kidney ADC values. There were no differences between the ADC3 and ADC4 measurements of RCCs (p = 0.999). There was a statistical difference in other measurement methods (p < 0.001). There were differences between ccRCCs and pRCCs and chRCCs in all measurement methods. In all measurement methods, pRCC and chRCC ADC values ​​were lower than ccRCC ADC values. When ISUP nuclear grading and ADC values ​​were compared, there was a statistically inverse correlation between all ADC measurements. The strongest correlation was found in the ADC1 and ADC5 measurements. When the ADC values ​​of ISUP low and high-grade groups were compared, a significant difference was found in the ADC5 measurement method (p = 0.046).

Conclusion

According to the findings of the study, ADC5 is the measurement method that shows the best correlation with the ISUP histologic grading system. Therefore, we think that ADC5 can be the primary measurement method for determining the ADC value of RCCs.

Graphical abstract

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Yu X, Lin M, Ouyang H, Zhou C, Zhang H (2012). 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 81:3061-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad. 2012.04.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Tordjman M, Mali R, Madelin G, Prabhu V, Kang SK (2020). Diagnostic test accuracy of ADC values for identification of clear cell renal cell carcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 30:4023-4038. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-020-06740-w

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  3. Goyal A, Sharma R, Bhalla AS, Gamanagatti S, Seth A, Iyer VK, Das P (2012). Diffusion-weighted MRI in renal cell carcinoma: a surrogate marker for predicting nuclear grade and histological subtype. Acta Radiol 53:349-58. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.110415

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Serter A, Onur MR, Coban G, Yildiz P, Armagan A, Kocakoc E (2021). The role of diffusion-weighted MRI and contrast-enhanced MRI for differentiation between solid renal masses and renal cell carcinoma subtypes. Abdom Radiol (NY) 46:1041-1052. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02742-w

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Doğanay S, Kocakoç E, Ciçekçi M, Ağlamiş S, Akpolat N, Orhan I (2011). Ability and utility of diffusion-weighted MRI with different b values in the evaluation of benign and malignant renal lesions. Clin Radiol 66:420-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2010.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Aslan A, İnan İ, Aktan A, Ayaz E, Aslan M, Özkanlı SŞ, Yıldırım A, Yıkılmaz A (2018). The utility of ADC measurement techniques for differentiation of low- and high-grade clear cell RCC. Pol J Radiol 21;83: e446-e451. https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2018.80207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Delahunt B, Eble JN, Egevad L, Samaratunga H (2019). Grading of renal cell carcinoma. Histopathology 74:4-17. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.13735.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Maruyama M, Yoshizako T, Uchida K, Araki H, Tamaki Y, Ishikawa N, Shiina H, Kitagaki H (2015). Comparison of utility of tumor size and apparent diffusion coefficient for differentiation of low- and high-grade clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol 56:250-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/0284185114523268

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hötker AM, Mazaheri Y, Wibmer A, Zheng J, Moskowitz CS, Tickoo SK, Russo P, Hricak H, Akin O (2016). Use of DWI in the Differentiation of Renal Cortical Tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:100-5. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.13923

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Rosenkrantz AB, Niver BE, Fitzgerald EF, Babb JS, Chandarana H, Melamed J (2010). Utility of the apparent diffusion coefficient for distinguishing clear cell renal cell carcinoma of low and high nuclear grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195: W344-51. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4688

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wang H, Cheng L, Zhang X, Wang D, Guo A, Gao Y, Ye H (2010). Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted MR imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T. Radiology 257:135-43. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.10092396

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Moran K, Abreu-Gomez J, Krishna S, Flood TA, Walker D, McInnes MDF, Schieda N (2019). Can MRI be used to diagnose histologic grade in T1a (<4 cm) clear cell renal cell carcinomas? Abdom Radiol (NY) 44:2841-2851. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-019-02018-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ding Y, Zeng M, Rao S, Chen C, Fu C, Zhou J (2016). Comparison of Biexponential and Monoexponential Model of Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Distinguishing between Common Renal Cell Carcinoma and Fat Poor Angiomyolipoma. Korean J Radiol 17:853-863. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2016.17.6.853

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Yamamoto A, Tamada T, Ito K, Sone T, Kanki A, Tanimoto D, Noda Y (2017). Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging. Clin Imaging 41:53-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2016.10.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Cornelis F, Tricaud E, Lasserre AS, Petitpierre F, Bernhard JC, Le Bras Y, Yacoub M, Bouzgarrou M, Ravaud A, Grenier N (2015). Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for the differentiation of low and high grade clear cell renal carcinoma. Eur Radiol 25(1):24-31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3380-x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Mytsyk Y, Pasichnyk S, Dutka I, Dats I, Vorobets D, Skrzypczyk M, Uteuliyev Y, Botikova A, Gazdikova K, Kubatka P, Urdzik P, Kruzliak P (2020). Systemic treatment of the metastatic renal cell carcinoma: usefulness of the apparent diffusion coefficient of diffusion-weighted MRI in prediction of early therapeutic response. Clin Exp Med 20:277-287. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10238-020-00612-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nakamura T, Yoshizako T, Araki H, Maruyama M, Uchida K, Tamaki Y, Ishikawa N, Shiina H, Kitagaki H (2015). The relation between apparent diffusion coefficient and clinical stage of clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. Clin Imaging 39:72-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2014.09.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Paudyal B, Paudyal P, Tsushima Y, Oriuchi N, Amanuma M, Miyazaki M, Taketomi-Takahashi A, Nakazato Y, Endo K (2010). The role of the ADC value in the characterisation of renal carcinoma by diffusion-weighted MRI. Br J Radiol 83:336-43. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/74949757

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sasamori H, Saiki M, Suyama J, Ohgiya Y, Hirose M, Gokan T (2014). Utility of apparent diffusion coefficients in the evaluation of solid renal tumors at 3T. Magn Reson Med Sci 13:89-95. https://doi.org/10.2463/mrms.2013-0038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Sandrasegaran K, Sundaram CP, Ramaswamy R, Akisik FM, Rydberg MP, Lin C, Aisen AM (2010). Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:438-45. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3024

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Razek AA, Farouk A, Mousa A, Nabil N (2011). Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in characterization of renal tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:332-6. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0b013e318219fe76

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Paschall AK, Mirmomen SM, Symons R, Pourmorteza A, Gautam R, Sahai A, Dwyer AJ, Merino MJ, Metwalli AR, Linehan WM, Malayeri AA (2018). Differentiating papillary type I RCC from clear cell RCC and oncocytoma: application of whole-lesion volumetric ADC measurement. Abdom Radiol (NY) 43:2424-2430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1453-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Chandarana H, Kang SK, Wong S, Rusinek H, Zhang JL, Arizono S, Huang WC, Melamed J, Babb JS, Suan EF, Lee VS, Sigmund EE (2012). Diffusion-weighted intravoxel incoherent motion imaging of renal tumors with histopathologic correlation. Invest Radiol 47:688-96. https://doi.org/10.1097/RLI.0b013e31826a0a49

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Mytsyk Y, Dutka I, Borys Y, Komnatska I, Shatynska-Mytsyk I, Farooqi AA, Gazdikova K, Caprnda M, Rodrigo L, Kruzliak P (2017). Renal cell carcinoma: applicability of the apparent coefficient of the diffusion-weighted estimated by MRI for improving their differential diagnosis, histologic subtyping, and differentiation grade. Int Urol Nephrol 49:215-224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11255-016-1460-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. de Silva S, Lockhart KR, Aslan P, Nash P, Hutton A, Malouf D, Lee D, Cozzi P, MacLean F, Thompson J (2021). The diagnostic utility of diffusion weighted MRI imaging and ADC ratio to distinguish benign from malignant renal masses: sorting the kittens from the tigers. BMC Urol 21:67. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12894-021-00832-5

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Fethi Sekin City Hospital, Elazig, Turkey

    Gülhan Kılıçarslan

  2. Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey

    Yeşim Eroğlu

  3. Department of Pathology, Fethi Sekin City Hospital, Elazig, Turkey

    Ahmet Kılıçarslan

Authors
  1. Gülhan Kılıçarslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yeşim Eroğlu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ahmet Kılıçarslan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gülhan Kılıçarslan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interests to disclose.

Ethical approval

This study was approved by our institutional ethics committee (date: 18.11.2021, issue: 2021/12-25).

Informed consent

Informed consent was waived for this retrospective study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kılıçarslan, G., Eroğlu, Y. & Kılıçarslan, A. Application of different methods used to measure the apparent diffusion coefficient of renal cell carcinoma on the same lesion and its correlation with ISUP nuclear grading. Abdom Radiol 47, 2442–2452 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03541-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-022-03541-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation