AJR F and L Medical Products: Radiation Protection & More
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Tello, R.
Right arrow Articles by Harewood, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tello, R.
Right arrow Articles by Harewood, L.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Hotlight (NEW!)
Right arrow
What's Hotlight?
AJR 2000; 174:1017-1022
© American Roentgen Ray Society


MR Imaging of Renal Masses Interpreted on CT to Be Suspicious

Richard Tello1,2, Brian D. Davison1, Martin O'Malley1, Helen Fenlon1, Ken R. Thomson2, David J. Witte2 and Lawrence Harewood3

1 Department of Radiology, Boston Medical Center, Boston University, 88 E. Newton St., Boston. MA 02118
2 Department of Radiology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3052 Australia.
3 Department of Urology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, 3052 Australia.

OBJECTIVE. Prior studies have shown that renal MR contrast enhancement improves the efficacy of mass and proximal vascular evaluation. This study assessed the usefulness of different sequences for characterization of masses that appeared suspicious on CT and for prediction of their potential for malignancy.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS. In a prospective manner 32 patients (age range, 26-78 years; average age, 54 years), each with at least one suspicious mass on CT, were examined with MR imaging. The following sequences were performed: conventional spin-echo with and without fat saturation, fast spin-echo, and dynamic gadopentetate dimeglumine-enhanced infusion using a 1.5-T superconducting magnet. Results were analyzed and compared with pathologic results after resection.

RESULTS. A total of 65 renal masses of average size 2.6 cm (range, 1-10 cm) were detected with dynamic MR imaging. Seventeen of the 65 masses were malignant. Of the 17 malignant masses, three did not enhance on dynamic MR imaging (because of hemorrhage). Sixteen of the 17 malignant masses were heterogeneous on T2-weighted images. Three enhancing masses contained fat and all were angiomyolipomas. Thirty-five of the 65 masses (four with hemorrhage) did not show enhancement, all of which were homogeneous on T2-weighted images and were proven to be cysts. Five masses resulted from infections and had heterogeneous T2 appearance. The remaining masses were three hematomas with hemorrhage, one column of Bertin, and one aneurysm.

CONCLUSION. Renal masses that are interpreted as suspicious on CT may lack MR enhancement because of hemorrhage effects; heterogeneity of their T2 appearance is thus critical in differentiating malignancy from benign disease. Odds-ratio calculations give an adjusted estimate of a 3.36-fold increase (95% confidence interval, 1.8-6.27) in the likelihood of malignancy when masses are heterogeneous on T2-weighted images and a 29-fold increase (95% confidence interval, 3.67-241.8) for predicting malignancy when enhancement is present.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
RadiologyHome page
S. Kim, M. Jain, A. B. Harris, V. S. Lee, J. S. Babb, E. E. Sigmund, L. E. Rueff, and B. Taouli
T1 Hyperintense Renal Lesions: Characterization with Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging versus Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging
Radiology, June 1, 2009; 251(3): 796 - 807.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
M. R. M. Sun, L. Ngo, E. M. Genega, M. B. Atkins, M. E. Finn, N. M. Rofsky, and I. Pedrosa
Renal Cell Carcinoma: Dynamic Contrast-enhanced MR Imaging for Differentiation of Tumor Subtypes--Correlation with Pathologic Findings
Radiology, March 1, 2009; 250(3): 793 - 802.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Am. J. Roentgenol.Home page
A. J. Beer, M. Dobritz, N. Zantl, G. Weirich, J. Stollfuss, and E. J. Rummeny
Comparison of 16-MDCT and MRI for characterization of kidney lesions.
Am. J. Roentgenol., June 1, 2006; 186(6): 1639 - 1650.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
K. E. Applegate, R. Tello, and J. Ying
Hypothesis Testing III: Counts and Medians
Radiology, September 1, 2003; 228(3): 603 - 608.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
RadiologyHome page
V. B. Ho, S. F. Allen, M. N. Hood, and P. L. Choyke
Renal Masses: Quantitative Assessment of Enhancement with Dynamic MR Imaging
Radiology, September 1, 2002; 224(3): 695 - 700.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.