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 Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
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 Roy, C.
Right arrow Articles by Jacqmin, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roy, C., Sr.
Right arrow Articles by Jacqmin, D.
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 2005; 184:113-120
© American Roentgen Ray Society

Significance of the Pseudocapsule on MRI of Renal Neoplasms and Its Potential Application for Local Staging: A Retrospective Study

Catherine Roy, Sr.1, Sofiane El Ghali1, Xavier Buy1, Veronique Lindner1, Herve Lang1, Christian Saussine2 and Didier Jacqmin2

1 University Hospital of Strasbourg, Radiology B Chirugie A, Hopital Civil CHU, 1, place de l'hopital BP 426, Strasbourg, Cedex, France 67091.
2 University Hospital of Strasbourg, Hopital Civil–Urology, Strasbourg, Cedex, France 67091.

Received February 21, 2004; accepted after revision June 14, 2004.
Abstract
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to evaluate the role of MRI in showing a pseudocapsule for local staging of renal tumors, and its potential application to select patients for partial surgery.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. Eighty tumors (73 renal cell carcinomas [RCCs] and seven oncocytomas) were preoperatively evaluated by MRI. MRI findings were assessed with a special focus on perinephric fat and pseudocapsule. Correlations were performed with pathologic staging after surgery.

RESULTS. At pathology, a pseudocapsule was recognized in 79 cases. Twenty-three RCC were staged pT3a (21 clear cell; two papillary). MR images exhibited a pseudocapsule in 90% of cases as a hypointense rim surrounding the tumor on T2-weighted images. MRI findings concerning isolated analysis of the pseudocapsule for differentiating stage T1/T2 from T3a were sensitivity: 86%, 50%; specificity: 95%, 92%; positive predictive value: 95%, 33%; negative predictive value: 88%, 92%; and accuracy: 93%, 89%, for clear cell and papillary types, respectively. For stage T3a, with both abnormalities of the pseudocapsule and perirenal fat, results were, for overall RCC sensitivity: 84%; specificity: 95%; positive predictive value: 91%; negative predictive value: 91%; and accuracy: 91%.

CONCLUSION. The identification of the pseudocapsule offers an additional value for local staging by MRI. The presence of an intact pseudocapsule is a sign of lack of perinephric fat invasion. It is more likely to predict that the tumor can be removed by partial surgery.


Introduction
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Renal cell carcinomas (RCC) represent 1–3% of all visceral neoplasms. Due to both technical improvements and the increasing number of imaging examinations performed, many renal neoplasms of small size and early stage incidentally are detected for unrelated indications. These changes in the manifestation of renal tumors have stimulated a growing trend toward nephron-sparing surgical techniques [1], as current data show survival rates comparable to those associated with radical nephrectomy [2]. Patients with RCC confined to the kidney have the best prognosis [3]. Although controversy remains regarding the use of partial nephrectomy for localized incidentally discovered small renal neoplasms in patients with a normal contralateral kidney, nowadays in many centers, this type of surgery is performed in the clinical situation to spare as much normal parenchyma as is possible [4]. However before conservative surgery is performed, an accurate preoperative imaging study is required to acquire all the needed anatomic information and to stage the neoplasm [5].

In the early reports of MRI, the presence of a hypointense rim surrounding RCCs corresponding to a so-called "pseudocapsule" was recognized [68]. It seems to be a pathologic feature frequently seen in the early stages. The identification of a pseudocapsule has been proposed as a sign for a localized intrarenal lesion so that partial nephrectomy could be indicated when an intact pseudocapsule is detected. However the meaning of this imaging feature has not yet been clearly established.

The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of MRI in showing the presence of a pseudocapsule in renal tumors, and to determine its significance and implication for the local staging of renal masses.


Materials and Methods
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Patient Population
Between February 2000 and June 2003, 77 patients (17 women, 60 men) with an age range of 23–75 years (mean ± 52 [SD] years), were referred in our department for preoperative staging by MRI; they presented with a total of 80 lesions. Sixty-eight lesions had been detected previously on sonography examination, among them, 19 incidental findings. The 12 remaining lesions were depicted incidentally on CT examination. We focused this retrospective study on renal neoplasms. Eighty tumors were identified, necessitating 70 radical and seven partial nephrectomies (three patients had bilateral tumors and four had renal insufficiency). The mean interval between MRI and surgery was ± 12.8 days (range, 5–33 days).

MRI Study Protocol
MR imaging was performed using 1.0 T MRI unit (Intera NT, Philips Medical Systems). The MRI sequences and their parameters were as follows: axial T1-weighted SE (TR/TE: 350/16, 2 excitations, field of view: 350 x 380, matrix size: 256 x 512, acquisition time: 2 min 44 sec), and fast spin-echo T2-weighted axial (TR/TE: 1800/150eff msec, turbo factor: 64, 3 accumulations, field of view: 350 x 380, matrix size: 256 x 512, acquisition time: 1 min 32 sec). All sequences were obtained with a slice thickness of 5 mm and a gap of 1 mm. An additional coronal fat-suppressed fast spin-echo T2-weighted image was performed for more precise evaluation and localization of the lesions.

After the imaging was completed, an axial dynamic breath-hold gadolinium-enhanced 2D spoiled gradient-refocused echo (GRE) sequence (TR/TE: 85/1.6 msec, flip: 70°, field of view: 350 x 380, one accumulation; matrix: 256 x 512, time of acquisition: 12 sec) was obtained. After an unenhanced acquisition, this sequence was repeated six times, with 30 sec interimaging delay at 30 sec, 60 sec, 90 sec, 120 sec, 180 sec, and 300 sec, at the end of a rapid manual injection of gadopentetate dimeglumine (0.1 mmol/kg body weight; Magnevist, Schering). Finally, axial delayed postcontrast breath-hold fat-suppressed T1-GRE images were obtained as the final sequence. Overall examination time was between 30 and 40 min.

Imaging Analysis
All images were retrospectively and independently reviewed by two senior radiologists who were unaware of the surgical and pathologic findings. A third radiologist was used for consensus when the two others did not agree (11 cases). The tumor diameter was measured in three planes and the largest measurement was considered as the tumor size. Attention was given to the following points: tumor signal intensity compared with normal renal parenchyma, recognition of a pseudocapsule, and presence of perirenal fat infiltration.

The pseudocapsule was defined as a thin linear regular hypointense band on T2- and T1-weighted images surrounding the tumor. Patients were staged according to criteria based on the recent modified TNM classification that separates tumors confined to renal capsule of 7 cm or less in diameter (T1) from those equal to or greater than 7 cm in diameter (T2). We considered on MRI as stage T1 or T2 when there was a regular continuous thin rim surrounding the lesion and lack of infiltration of the perirenal fat or a regular margin mass without infiltration of the perirenal fat (as defined in TNM staging) and without visualization of a complete thin rim or a lesion with an intact regular rim but an infiltrative aspect (stranding) of the perinephric fat. The stage T3a is defined in terms of tumor spread to the perinephric fat, but confined to Gerota's fascia [8].

On MR images, the pattern for staging T3a was determined by the presence of perinephric thick streaks and/or nodules (≥ 5 mm in size) surrounding the lesion and extending into the perirenal fat and any type of disruption of this rim or no rim identified, on both T2- and T1-weighted images.

MRI results were compared with surgical findings and pathologic examination including both macroscopic and microscopic analysis with a thorough correlation between characteristics of the pseudocapsule on images and pathology.


Results
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
Tumor size ranged from 1.0–8.5 cm with a median tumor size of 4.2 cm. Thirty-one lesions were localized in the upper pole, 33 cases were in the interpolar region, and 16 cases in the lower pole of the kidney. All had both exophytic and intrarenal components.

Data comprised 73 RCCs of clear cell type (CC RCC) in 44 cases and papillary type in 29 cases. Seven patients had a unique oncocytoma.

At pathology, a pseudocapsule was described in 79 cases. It was absent in one case (of oncocytoma). This pseudocapsule was intact in 52 cases, and disrupted in 27 cases (26 RCC, one oncocytoma). Twenty-three tumors were established to be stage pT3a (21 CC RCC, 2 papillary type). Among them, two CC RCC had minor focal invasion of perirenal fat. The characteristics of the pseudocapsule were different in composition. The outer margin, concerning the exophytic part of the tumor hanging off the kidney, was a fibrous surrounding rim with focal bulging, in continuity with the normal fibrous band of the renal capsule. It was associated with reactive hyperplasia in nine cases. The inner margin concerned the part in contact with the parenchyma. It was composed of thick compressed renal parenchyma with few fibrous elements and some infiltrating neoplastic cells in normal parenchyma in 12 cases. In nine cases, an organized fibrous band entirely surrounded the lesion, especially in the inner part of tumor. An absent or disrupted external fibrous band was found in 23 cases of CC RCC and in 3 cases of the papillary type. All tumors with an intact fibrous band had a low grade (1 or 2) and were ≤ 4 cm in diameter.

At MR imaging, the T1-weighted signal intensity of CC RCC was variable: hyperintense (eight cases), isointense (five cases), hypointense (31 cases) and always hyperintense and heterogeneous on T2-weighted imaging (Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D). For papillary tumors, 26 of 29 were hypointense and homogeneous on T2-weighted imaging, except for two cases (Fig. 3). Three patients had a more heterogeneous pattern but with a large hypointense zone (Figs. 4A and 4B).



View larger version (139K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1A. 50-year-old man with clear cell renal carcinoma and intact pseudocapsule. Stage: pT2. True-negative case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64) shows regular and complete hypointense rim (arrow) around high signal intensity with heterogeneous pattern of tumor.

 


View larger version (150K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 1B. 50-year-old man with clear cell renal carcinoma and intact pseudocapsule. Stage: pT2. True-negative case. Photomicrograph shows tumor and its pseudocapsule. Pseudocapsule comprises increased deposit of fibrous perirenal capsule. It is localized between the tumor (conventional carcinoma with eosinophilic cells and tubular architecture) and normal perinephric fat. (H and E, original magnification x 25)

 


View larger version (163K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2A. 38-year-old man with small clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Axial T1-weighted gradient-refocused echo (GRE) MRI (18/6.9; flip angle: 70°). Tumor has slightly heterogeneous isointense signal. No identification of the pseudocapsule.

 


View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2B. 38-year-old man with small clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64) shows clearly regular pseudocapsule (arrow) surrounding high signal intensity of tumor.

 


View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2C. 38-year-old man with small clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Photograph of coronal section of upper part of nephrectomy specimen shows tumor surrounded with thick pseudocapsule (arrowhead).

 


View larger version (161K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 2D. 38-year-old man with small clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Photomicrograph shows the pseudocapsule composed of thick compressed renal parenchyma with increased deposition of fibrous tissue. (H and E, original magnification x 25)

 


View larger version (164K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 3. 38-year-old man with exophytic small papillary renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64). It shows homogeneous low-signal-intensity mass surrounded with regular hypointense aspect of pseudocapsule.

 


View larger version (134K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4A. 52-year-old woman with hemorrhagic exophytic papillary renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Axial T1-weighted gradient-refocused echo (GRE) MRI (18/6.9; flip angle: 70°). Tumor contains parts with high to moderate signal intensity.

 


View larger version (146K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 4B. 52-year-old woman with hemorrhagic exophytic papillary renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64). Tumor has heterogeneous pattern. Pseudocapsule obviously is hypointense, thick, and regular (arrow).

 

On MR images, 72 of 80 lesions (90%) exhibited typical pseudocapsule as a hypointense rim surrounding the tumor. The pseudocapsule was identified in 39 of 44 cases of CC RCC and in 27 of 29 of papillary type. It was seen as a hypointense rim on T1-weighted images in 37 cases (50%) and in 67 cases (92%) on T2-weighted images. It was found in 57 cases (78%) on contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images where it appeared with a slightly more intense signal than that of the tumor. All pseudocapsules detected on T1 sequence also were seen on the T2 sequence. They appeared as a complete or incomplete band on T2-weighted images (Table 1).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 1 Presence and Characteristics of the Pseudocapsule on T2-Weighted Images for All Tumors

 

On the MR images, if we consider only the isolated characteristics of the fibrous hypointense pseudocapsule (normal, disrupted, or absent), we found the results concerning staging for CC RCC to be 20 true-positive, one false-positive, three false-negative, and 22 true-negative cases (sensitivity: 86%, specificity: 95%, positive predictive value: 95%, negative predictive value: 88%; and accuracy 95%) and for the papillary type, one true-positive, one false-negative, two false-positive, and 25 true-negative cases (sensitivity: 50%, specificity: 92%, positive predictive value: 33%, negative predictive value: 92%; and accuracy: 89%) (Fig. 5). One false-negative of CC RCC was due to a microscopic extension crossing the fibrous rim. The two false-positive papillary types were explained by the absence of visualization of the pseudocapsule because of homogeneous major hypointensity of the tumor on T2-weighted sequence.



View larger version (142K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 5. 56-year-old man with large clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT3. True-positive case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64). Short segmental disruption of outer part of pseudocapsule with extension inside perinephric fat (arrow).

 

On MR images, if only perinephric fat abnormalities were taken into account, as defined according to modified TNM stage T3a, results for CC RCCs were 19 true-positive, six false-positive, and two false-negative with an overall 17 true-negative patients, and for papillary type, one true-positive and one false-negative with 27 true-negative cases. That is for all types of our RCC sensitivity: 90%, specificity: 74%, positive predictive value: 76%, negative predictive value: 89%, and accuracy: 81%. Five of our false-positive results were due to inflammation in the perirenal space without any tumor invasion (Fig. 6). The other results could be explained by edema with collateral vessels. Our false-negative case concerned minimal invasion at pathology.



View larger version (141K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 6. 43-year-old woman with lower-pole clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. True-negative case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64). It shows intact pseudocapsule as a regular rim surrounding the tumor. Stranding inside fatty tissue around the tumor was inflammation at pathology (arrowhead). It could have been a false-positive case by considering the isolated aspect of perinephric fat.

 

On MR images, if we consider the association of abnormalities of the pseudocapsule and perirenal fat as criteria to diagnose stage T3a, results for CC RCC were 22 true-positive, 18 true-negative, one false-positive, and three false-negative (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 97%, positive predictive value: 95%, negative predictive value: 96%, and accuracy: 95%) (Fig. 7), and for papillary type, 27 true-negative, one false-negative, and one false-positive (specificity: 96%, negative predictive value: 96%, and accuracy: 93%) (Table 2). For overall RCC, results were: sensitivity: 84%, specificity: 95%, positive predictive value: 91%, negative predictive value: 91%, and accuracy: 91% (Table 3).



View larger version (136K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[as a PowerPoint slide]
 
Fig. 7. 35-year-old woman with clear cell renal carcinoma. Stage: pT1. False-positive case. Axial fast spin-echo T2-weighted MRI (1800/150eff, turbo factor: 64). No pseudocapsule identified at outer margin of tumor (arrow); confirmed at pathology. There was no involvement of the fatty tissue, despite irregular border of tumor on the MRI.

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 2 Correlation Between Staging and MRI Findings for RCCs with the Association of Abnormalities of Pseudocapsule and Perirenal Fat

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]

 
TABLE 3 MRI Results for All Masses with Association of Abnormalities of Pseudocapsule and Perirenal Fat

 

The hypointense rim was not exclusively seen in RCCs. The appearance of the oncocytomas was variable. All of them, except for one case, exhibited a fibrous hypointense band, which was found at pathology. All presented with a variable low signal intensity on T1-weighted images. They were more or less hyperintense heterogeneously on T2-weighted images. Only two exhibited a typical central scar. One oncocytoma presented with a disruption of the hypointense band and had irregularities in the perirenal fat, which was confirmed at pathology. If we consider staging for all 80 tumors, with assigning a stage to the oncocytomas, our results were even better with sensitivity: 85%, specificity: 96%, positive predictive value: 92%, negative predictive value: 92%, and accuracy: 92% (Table 3).


Discussion
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 
For many years, radical nephrectomy has been the official urologic standard for treatment of renal tumors. Partial nephrectomy or tumorectomy was advocated for the management of select renal neoplasms, for example, in patients with diminished renal function, a solitary functioning kidney, and in patients with synchronous bilateral renal tumors [911]. The efficacy of these parenchyma-sparing procedures has been proved to produce favorable results without risks associated with radical nephrectomy, with a survival rate at least comparable to that for nephrectomy in patients with similar-stage disease [12]. As many as 30–40% of renal tumors are discovered incidentally during evaluation for unrelated or nonspecific renal symptoms. Most of these asymptomatic tumors are localized lesions confined to the renal capsule, relatively small (< 5 cm in diameter), and potentially associated with an excellent prognosis after surgical removal [13]. They could be treated appropriately with local excision and maximal preservation of the surrounding unaffected parenchyma. Recently, these findings have stimulated considerable attention with significant interest in and controversy surrounding performing parenchyma-sparing nephrectomy for selected patients with small-size, low-stage intrarenal RCC and a normal contralateral kidney. Arguments against this therapeutic approach are based on the knowledge of 7–11% incidence of tumor multifocality, the potentially incomplete resection of malignancy, and a local tumor recurrence rate following partial nephrectomy ranging from 4–10% [1416]. The rate of multicentricity for tumors 3 cm or smaller has been shown to be less than 3% [15]. Imaging techniques available today are accurate for follow-up to detect a small recurrence. This makes partial surgery a reasonable option for patients with small renal neoplasms.

Involvement of perirenal fat tissue represents a key point in treatment planning in modifying the surgical approach from conservative to radical nephrectomy. If partial nephrectomy is contemplated, it is essential to know preoperatively if the perinephric fat is or is not invaded by the tumor. Furthering the distinction and accurate differentiation of stage T3a of the TNM classification, from a therapeutic point of view, parenchyma-sparing surgery should be performed only when the tumor is confined to the kidney parenchyma and encapsulated so that is surrounded by a distinct pseudocapsule [2]. Even if this pseudocapsule is not described in the TNM classification, it may play a critical role in deciding on nephron-sparing surgery. RCCs generally do not have a true histologic capsule but usually possess a peripheral surrounding pseudocapsule composed of compressed normal renal parenchyma and fibrous tissue [8, 1719]. This latter merges with dense fibrous septa that course through the neoplasm. When RCC grows, the fibrous tissue in the renal stroma is stimulated and also grows, surrounding the tumor and inhibiting further growth. The variation of the pseudocapsule thickness can be explained by different growth rates and varying locations of the tumor. In cases where RCC grows slowly, the fibrous tissue is thicker because of reactive hyperplasia. In cases where RCC grows fast, the fibrous tissue is thinner because of the shorter period of reactive hyperplasia. Encapsulated RCCs have been demonstrated to be small and of low histologic grade, slow growing, and less likely to metastasize [2, 20]. In some larger tumors, although tumor invasion is seen, a residual pseudocapsule can be found in some areas [17].

In cases of exophytic location where the tumor is growing outside the kidney, the outer and inner margins of this pseudocapsule differ in composition. The outer margin is formed by condensed fibrous tissue coming from reactive hyperplasia of the renal capsule and confused with it, and in certain cases associated compressed parenchyma. The inner part is composed of thick compressed normal renal parenchyma. In all of our cases, the outer margin was described by our pathologist as a fibrous rim around the tumor in continuity with the fibrous renal capsule surrounding renal parenchyma (Figs. 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, and 2D). It was interpreted to be a segment of this perirenal capsule. After the neoplasm breaks off the renal capsule, direct tumor extension can occur in the perinephric fat [19]. According to the method described by Robson [2, 6, 21] on CT or MR images, the extracapsular spread to perinephric fat is classified as Robson stage II, whereas in stage I there is no evidence of perinephric fat invasion. Tumor extension beyond the pseudocapsule was reported when images showed infiltration of perirenal fat that had perinephric stranding and/or nodules in it. Helical CT, although widely accepted as the preferred imaging technique in patients with RCC, has some limitations, mainly concerning the difficulty in differentiating Robson stage I from II [22]. Under- and overstaging of perinephric invasion are the most common staging errors of CT [5]. Perinephric stranding does not reliably indicate tumoral spread and is found in about half of patients with localized intrarenal tumors. It also may be caused by edematous vascular engorgement and/or inflammation [5]. The only highly specific finding (98%) is the presence of an enhancing nodule or soft-tissue mass in the perinephric space but this sign has only 46% sensitivity [9, 23, 24]. The sensitivity of CT in detecting pseudocapsule is very low [5, 8, 25, 26].

On MRI, the low-intensity band called pseudocapsule separating the tumor from the kidney was first described by Hricak et al. in 1985 [6]. The pseudocapsule appears as a hypointense rim surrounding the tumor and interposed between the tumor and normal renal parenchyma or perirenal fat on both T1 and T2 sequences. The signal intensity has been attributed to fibrous tissue [27]. T2-weighted images were found to be the most sensitive sequence for detecting the pseudocapsule, interposed between the higher intensity of the tumor and normal renal parenchyma [20, 25, 28]. Our study confirms this. From the results comparing the MRI appearance and the pathologic findings, a close relationship was found between the low-intensity band and the construction of the pseudocapsule. This rim appears on MR images when the thickness is greater than 2 mm. Fibrous tissue presents as low-intensity on T2-weighted images because of the tissue's short T2 relaxation time. The T1 relaxation time of fibrous tissue is longer than that of the kidney but the signal intensity of compressed normal renal parenchyma is slightly higher because of the decreased liquid in it. In postcontrast T1-weighted images, the visualization of the pseudocapsule is inferior in relation to that of T2-weighted imaging. Because of its composition with fibrous tissue, its enhancement occurs later and its distinction from surrounding normal renal parenchyma is more difficult. Fat-suppressed T2-weighted images were not as pertinent to evaluation of the pseudocapsule because of lack of contrast due to hypointense perirenal space.

In opposition to Yamashita et al. [8], who have stated that the incidence of finding a pseudocapsule was related to size of the mass, we have found pseudocapsule in lesions smaller than 4 cm in diameter. In our study, the frequency of appearance of the pseudocapsule (90%) was clearly better than the results presented in the literature, which ranged from 54–66% [20, 25, 28]. This fact reflects differences in machine performance and recent technical improvements. Only three false-negative results were generated by a microscopic invasion not detected on MR images. As with all imaging techniques, it is extremely difficult with MRI to determine whether malignant tissue extends to adjacent normal tissue when strictly regular margins are found. Microscopic local invasion could have occurred. MRI was particularly accurate in identifying true-negative findings. However, our results were slightly less optimistic compared to those presented in the literature regarding true-negative findings for perinephric fat of 100% [28]. Therefore, the negative predictive value of MRI was rather high (96%) for detecting T3a disease. Specificity and positive predictive value also were highly significant if pseudocapsule assessment is considered as a part of our diagnosis. MRI had a pertinent accuracy for evaluating possible involvement of perinephric fat using the aspect of the pseudocapsule as an additional feature. Obviously, the analysis of the pseudocapsule offers an additional value to the efficiency of the method for local staging. This is particularly necessary to avoid false-positive results secondary to inflammation of perirenal fat (Fig. 5). None of our cases with continuous low-intensity pseudocapsule band presented tumor invasion of perirenal fat. The probability that perirenal fat has been infiltrated is lessened when the low-intensity band or rim appears on T2-weighted images even though the tumor has protruded into the perirenal fat capsule. Our true-negative results for papillary tumors were significantly better compared to those of CC RCC because the stage T3a is less frequent for this histologic type.

There are several limitations to the detection of a pseudocapsule by MRI. First, with hypointense tumors its detection may be less accurate on T2-weighted sequencing. We collected two false-positive results in our papillary tumors, explained by the typical lowintensity pattern of this histologic type and the lack of delineation of the surrounding rim. Second, if the tumor is small, partial volume averaging may obscure its visualization. The direct multiplanar imaging capabilities of MRI make tumor evaluation easy to do in three planes. Coronal, sagittal, or oblique views are required to avoid this phenomenon on the upper and lower part of the tumor. In our material, coronal views considerably assisted in defining the relationships of polar masses to the adjacent perirenal space. Third, a chemical shift artifact, observed at the interface between the tumor and the perinephric fat, forms another limitation and needs to be differentiated from the pseudocapsule. However, this artifact only is seen in the frequency direction encoding and not between the tumor and renal parenchyma. In our study, this artifact did not cause any error in our interpretation. We also mainly considered the T2-weighted aspect in a retrospective image review, but this sequence definitively had the best accuracy in showing the pseudocapsule.

As the pseudocapsule also was found in oncocytomas, it is not useful for differentiating RCC from this benign solid tumor. It cannot be used to predict the nature of the lesion.

In conclusion, our results confirm that identification of the pseudocapsule offers an additional value to the performance of preoperative MRI to stage renal tumors according to TNM classification. A routine T2-weighted sequence without fat suppression is the most useful sequence for showing this feature. Multiplanar T2-weighted MR sequences seem to be suited for making this determination. The presence of an intact pseudocapsule is a sign of lack of perinephric fat invasion. An intact pseudocapsule is more likely to predict that the tumor can be removed by nephron-sparing surgery.


References
Top
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
References
 

  1. Novick AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma. Br J Urol 1998;82:321 -324[Medline]
  2. Herr HW. Partial nephrectomy for unilateral renal carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney: 10-year follow-up. J Urol1999; 161:33 -35[Medline]
  3. Thrasher JB, Paulson DF. Prognostic factors in renal cancer. Urol Clin North Am1993; 20:247 -262[Medline]
  4. Ornstein DK, Arcangeli CG, Andriole GL. Renal masses: urologic management. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am1997; 5:1 -12[Medline]
  5. Kopka L, Fisher U, Zoeller G, Schmidt C, Ringert RH, Grabbe E. Dual-phase helical CT of the kidney: value of the corticomedullary and nephrographic phase for evaluation of renal lesions and preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma. AJR1997; 169:1573 -1578[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Hricak H, Demas BE, Willians RD, McNamara MT, Hedgcock MW, Amparo EG, Tanagho EA. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of renal and perirenal neoplasms. Radiology1985; 154:709 -715[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  7. Choyke PL, Kressel HY, Pollack HM, Arger PM, Axel L, Mamourian AC. Focal renal masses: magnetic resonance imaging. Radiology1984; 152:471 -477[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  8. Yamashita Y, Honda S, Nishiharu T, Urata J, Takahashi M. Detection of pseudocapsule of renal cell carcinoma with MR imaging and CT. AJR 1996;166:1151 -1155[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Sheth S, Scatarige JC, Horton KM, Corl FM, Fishmann EK. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: role of multidetector CT and three-dimensional CT. RadioGraphics2001; 21:237 -254[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  10. Butler BP, Novick AC, Miller DP, Campbell SA, Licht MR. Management of small unilateral renal cell carcinomas: radical versus nephron-sparing surgery. Urology1995; 45:34 -40[Medline]
  11. Wunderlich H, Reichelt O, Schumann S, et al. Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma 4 cm or less in diameter: indicated or under treated? J Urol1998; 159:1465 -1469[Medline]
  12. Levine E. Malignant parenchymal tumors in adults. In: Pollack HM, ed. Clinical urography, vol. 2 Philadelphia: Saunders, 1990;1216 -1291
  13. Smith SJ, Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Horii SC, Raghavendra BN. Renal cell carcinoma: earlier discovery and increased detection. Radiology1989; 170:699 -703[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  14. Motzer RJ, Bander NH, Nanus DM. Renal cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 1996;335:865 -875[Free Full Text]
  15. Licht MR, Novick AC, Goormastic M. Nephron-sparing surgery in incidental versus suspected renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1994;152:39 -42[Medline]
  16. Nissenkorn I, Bernheim J. Multicentricity in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 1995;153:620 -622[Medline]
  17. Siu-Qiao H, Shi-Shun Z, Qi-Liu H. MR appearance of the pseudocapsule of renal cell carcinoma and its pathologic basis. Urol Radiol1992; 13:158 -161[Medline]
  18. Wagner BJ. The kidney: radiologic–pathologic correlation. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am1997; 5:13 -28[Medline]
  19. Bennington JL, Beckwith JB. Tumors of the kidney, renal pelvis and ureter. In: AFIP: atlas of tumor pathology, 2nd ed., vol. 12. Fascicle. Washington, DC: Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, 1975: 93-216
  20. Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Watanabe O, et al. Small renal cell carcinoma: pathologic and radiologic correlation. Radiology1992; 184:493 -498[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  21. Robson CJ, Churchill BM, Anderson V. The results of radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. J Urol1969; 101:297 -301[Medline]
  22. Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, Napoli A, Pediconi F, Danti M, Nardis P, Passariello R. High resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. AJR2003; 180:1271 -1277[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Johnson CD, Dunnick WR, Cohan RH, Illescas FF. Renal adenocarcinoma: CT staging of 100 tumors. AJR1987; 148:59 -63[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Fein AB, Lee JDT, Balfe DM, et al. Diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma: a comparison of MR imaging and CT. AJR1987; 148:749 -753[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Takahashi S, Ueda J, Furukawa T, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: preoperative assessment for enucleative surgery with angiography, CT and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr1996; 20:863 -870[Medline]
  26. Semelka RC, Shoenut JP, Magro CM, Kroeker MA, McMahon R, Greenberg HM. Renal cancer staging: comparison of contrast-enhanced CT and gadolinium-enhanced fat-suppressed spin-echo and gradient-echo MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging1993; 3:597 -602[Medline]
  27. Choyke PL, Walther MM, Wagner JR, Rayford W, Lyne JC, Lineham WM. Renal cancer: preoperative evaluation with dual-phase three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology1997; 205:767 -771[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Pretorius ES, Siegelman ES, Ramchandani P, Cangiano T, Banner MP. Renal Neoplasms amenable to partial nephrectomy: MR imaging. Radiology1999; 212:28 -34[Abstract/Free Full Text]

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
ImagingHome page
R Spendiff and A Rockall
Imaging assessment of renal masses
Imaging, September 1, 2008; 20(3): 205 - 214.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ImagingHome page
L R Williams, M J Oldale, and A J Bradley
Imaging renal masses and staging renal tumours
Imaging, March 1, 2008; 20(1): 73 - 86.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Clin. Cancer Res.Home page
M. A. Rosen and M. D. Schnall
Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging for Assessing Tumor Vascularity and Vascular Effects of Targeted Therapies in Renal Cell Carcinoma
Clin. Cancer Res., January 15, 2007; 13(2): 770s - 776s.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Figures Only
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 Roy, C.
Right arrow Articles by Jacqmin, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Roy, C., Sr.
Right arrow Articles by Jacqmin, D.
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?


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS