Triphasic and epithelioid minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma: qualitative and quantitative CEUS characteristics and distinguishing features

2014 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 333-342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Qing Lu ◽  
Cui-xian Li ◽  
Bei-jian Huang ◽  
Li-yun Xue ◽  
Wen-ping Wang
Radiology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 265 (2) ◽  
pp. 468-477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Hindman ◽  
Long Ngo ◽  
Elizabeth M. Genega ◽  
Jonathan Melamed ◽  
Jesse Wei ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 203 (5) ◽  
pp. W516-W524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie A. Lee-Felker ◽  
Ely R. Felker ◽  
Nelly Tan ◽  
Daniel J. A. Margolis ◽  
Jonathan R. Young ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiao-Jie Wang ◽  
Bai-Qiang Qu ◽  
Jia-Ping Zhou ◽  
Qiao-Mei Zhou ◽  
Yuan-Fei Lu ◽  
...  

BackgroundRenal angiomyolipoma without visible fat (RAML-wvf) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) have many overlapping features on imaging, which poses a challenge to radiologists. This study aimed to create a scoring system to distinguish ccRCC from RAML-wvf using computed tomography imaging.MethodsA total of 202 patients from 2011 to 2019 that were confirmed by pathology with ccRCC (n=123) or RAML (n=79) were retrospectively analyzed by dividing them randomly into a training cohort (n=142) and a validation cohort (n=60). A model was established using logistic regression and weighted to be a scoring system. ROC, AUC, cut-off point, and calibration analyses were performed. The scoring system was divided into three ranges for convenience in clinical evaluations, and the diagnostic probability of ccRCC was calculated.ResultsFour independent risk factors are included in the system: 1) presence of a pseudocapsule, 2) a heterogeneous tumor parenchyma in pre-enhancement scanning, 3) a non-high CT attenuation in pre-enhancement scanning, and 4) a heterogeneous enhancement in CMP. The prediction accuracy had an ROC of 0.978 (95% CI, 0.956–0.999; P=0.011), similar to the primary model (ROC, 0.977; 95% CI, 0.954–1.000; P=0.012). A sensitivity of 91.4% and a specificity of 93.9% were achieved using 4.5 points as the cutoff value. Validation showed a good result (ROC, 0.922; 95% CI, 0.854–0.991, P=0.035). The number of patients with ccRCC in the three ranges (0 to <2 points; 2–4 points; >4 to ≤11 points) significantly increased with increasing scores.ConclusionThis scoring system is convenient for distinguishing between ccRCC and RAML-wvf using four computed tomography features.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document