Skip to main content
Log in

Differential diagnosis of hypervascular ultra-small renal cell carcinoma and renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat in early stage by using thin-section multidetector computed tomography

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

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to investigate the difference between imaging features of ultra-small renal cell carcinoma (usRCC) and angiomyolipoma with minimal fat (mfAML) whose enhancement were both hypervascular by using multidetector computed tomography (MDCT).

Materials and methods

Confirmed by pathology, 40 cases of hypervascular usRCC and 21 cases of hypervascular mfAML both with diameter of 2 cm or less were compared and analyzed retrospectively, including traditional imaging features and thin-section computed tomography (CT) dynamic enhanced parameters. Meanwhile, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were constructed to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of each significant parameter and the information with diagnostic value was selected to construct the prediction model.

Results

Comparison of traditional imaging features: the features, included age, shape, location, central location of tumor, wedge sign, renal cortex lift sign, black star sign, enhanced homogeneity in cortical phase (CP) and enhancement pattern had no significant difference between usRCC and mfAML (P > 0.05); sex, cystic degeneration or necrosis, pseudocapsule sign, and enhanced homogeneity in nephrographic phase (NP) had significant differences between usRCC and mfAML (P < 0.05). Comparison of CT dynamic enhanced parameters: the CT value, NEV and REV of usRCC were all higher than mfAML in both CP and NP (P < 0.01). Respectively, the area under the ROC curve (AUC) were 0.74, 0.75, 0.78, 0.83, 0.81 and 0.78. The sensitivity and specificity for differentiating ucRCC from mfAML were 85.0% and 76.2% respectively when NEV_NP was 73.6 HU as the critical value. Multivariate analysis showed that male, cystic degeneration or necrosis, and NEV_NP higher than 73.6 HU as an independent risk factor for usRCC (P < 0.01). The AUC value of the prediction model constructed by the combination was 0.94, the accuracy was 86.89%, the sensitivity was 82.50%, and the specificity was 95.24%.

Conclusion

Morphological characteristics in traditional diagnosis of small renal carcinoma (diameter of 4 cm or less) have certain significance in differentiating hypervascular usRCC and mfAML in early stage, but the diagnostic efficacy was limited. Sex, cystic degeneration or necrosis, and quantitative parameters measured after enhancement play an important role in differential diagnosis of hypervascular usRCC and mfAML, and the prediction model constructed by the combination has a good diagnostic performance.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Alshumrani G, O’Malley M, Ghai S, et al. Small (< or= 4 cm) cortical renal tumors: characterization with multidetector CT. Abdom Imaging, 2010, 35(4):488-493.

  2. Laguna MP, Algaba F, Cadeddu J, et al. Current patterns of presentation and treatment of renal masses: A Clinical Research Office of the Endourological Society prospective study. J Endourol, 2014, 28(7):861-870.

  3. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, et al. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med, 2010, 362(7):624-634.

  4. Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, 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(1):30-35.

  5. Kutikov A, Fossett LK, Ramchandani P, et al. Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology, 2006, 68(4):737-740.

  6. Park BK. Renal Angiomyolipoma: Radiologic Classification and Imaging Features According to the Amount of Fat[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2017, 209(4):1-10.

  7. Hakim SW, Schieda N, Hodgdon T, et al. Angiomyolipoma (AML) without visible fat: Ultrasound, CT and MR imaging features with pathological correlation. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26:592–600.

  8. Yan G, Qian P, Zhou W, et al. Differentiation of CT scan diagnosis between minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with sufficient blood supply and clear cell renal carcinoma. Chinese-German J Clin Oncol, 2011, 10(1):35-39.

  9. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Kindney Cancer (Version 2.2020). Accessed August 5, 2019.

  10. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, et al. Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer: AUA Guideline. J Urol, 2017, 198(3):520-529.

  11. Ball MW, Bezerra SM, Gorin MA, et al. Grade heterogeneity in small renal masses:potential implications for renal mass biopsy. J Urol, 2015, 193(1):36-40.

  12. Akdogan B, Gudeloglu A, Inci K,et al. Prevalence and predictors of benign lesions in renal masses smaller than 7 cm presumed to be renal cell carcinoma. Clin Genitourin Cancer, 2012, 10(2):121-125.

  13. Mir MC, Capitanio U, Bertolo R, et al. Role of Active Surveillance for Localized Small Renal Masses. Eur Urol Oncol, 2018, 1(3):177-187.

  14. Feifer A, Savage C, Ryala H, et al. Prognostic impact of muscular venous branch in localized renal cell carcinoma cases. J Urol, 2011, 185(1):37-42.

  15. Amin MB, Paner GP, Alvarado-Cabrero I, et al. Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: histomorphologic characteristics and evaluation of conventional pathologic prognostic parameters in 145 cases. Am J Surg Pathol, 2008, 32(12):1822-1834.

  16. Moch H, Humphrey P, Ulbright T. WHO classification of tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press, 2016.

  17. Sung CK, Kim SH, Woo S, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation of morphological and enhancement features from renal cell carcinoma at CT imaging. Acta Radiol, 2016, 57(9):1114-1122.

  18. Ma Y, Cao F, Xu X, et al. Can whole-tumor radiomics-based CT analysis better differentiate fat-poor angiomyolipoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma: compared with conventional CT analysis? Abdom Radiol (NY), 2020, Jan 24. [Epub ahead of print]

  19. Yamashita Y, Honda S, Nishiharu T, et al. Detection of pseudocapsule of renal cell carcinoma with MR imaging and CT. AJR, 2013, 166(5):1151-1155.

  20. Verma SK, Mitchell DG, Yang R, et al. Exophytic renal masses: angular interface with renal parenchyma for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions at MR imaging. Radiology, 2010, 255(2):501-507.

  21. Kim YH, Han K, Oh YT, et al. Morphologic analysis with computed tomography may help differentiate fat-poor angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma: a retrospective study with 602 patients. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2018,43(3):647-654.

  22. Xie P, Yang Z, Yuan Z, et al. 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(3):2327-2331.

  23. 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, 54(10):1201-1209.

  24. Simpson E, Patel U. Diagnosis of angiomyolipoma using computed tomography-region of interest < or =-10 HU or 4 adjacent pixels < or =-10 HU are recommended as the diagnostic thresholds. Clin Radiol, 2006, 61(5):401-416.

  25. Jung SC, Cho JY, Kim SH. Subtype differentiation of small renal cell carcinomas on three-phase MDCT: usefulness of the measurement of degree and heterogeneity of enhancement. Acta Radiol, 2012, 53(1):112-118.

  26. Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology, 2004, 230(3):677-684.

  27. Yan LF, Liu ZY, Wang GY, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from clear cell renal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma by texture analysis on CT images. Acad Radiol, 2015, 22(9):1115-1121.

  28. Kim SH, Kim CS, Kim MJ, et al. Differentiation of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma From Other Subtypes and Fat-Poor Angiomyolipoma by Use of Quantitative Enhancement Measurement During Three-Phase MDCT. AJR, 2016, 206(1):21-28.

  29. 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(3):2327-2331.

  30. Zhang YY, Luo S, Liu Y, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat:differentiation from papillary renal cell carcinoma by helical CT. Clin Radiol, 2013, 68(4):365-370.

Download references

Funding

No financial support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Xu Wang or Guoliang Shao.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee as well as with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

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

Wang, X., Song, G., Sun, J. et al. Differential diagnosis of hypervascular ultra-small renal cell carcinoma and renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat in early stage by using thin-section multidetector computed tomography. Abdom Radiol 45, 3849–3859 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02542-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-020-02542-2

Keywords

Navigation