PD11-03 IMPACT OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPIC IMAGING ON DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF RENAL TUMORS

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology II1 Apr 2017PD11-03 IMPACT OF MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPIC IMAGING ON DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS OF RENAL TUMORS Masahiro Sumura, Haruki Ajiki, Chiaki Koike, Keita Inoue, Keisuke Nakanishi, Hiroaki Yasumoto, Tsuyoshi Yoshizako, Hajime Kitagaki, and Hiroaki Shiina Masahiro SumuraMasahiro Sumura More articles by this author , Haruki AjikiHaruki Ajiki More articles by this author , Chiaki KoikeChiaki Koike More articles by this author , Keita InoueKeita Inoue More articles by this author , Keisuke NakanishiKeisuke Nakanishi More articles by this author , Hiroaki YasumotoHiroaki Yasumoto More articles by this author , Tsuyoshi YoshizakoTsuyoshi Yoshizako More articles by this author , Hajime KitagakiHajime Kitagaki More articles by this author , and Hiroaki ShiinaHiroaki Shiina More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.02.579AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The utility of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for diagnosis of a renal tumor is controversial. MR spectroscopy (MRS), a noninvasive method utilized for assessment of biochemical tissue characteristics in vivo, has value for differentiation of tumors in the brain, breast, and prostate. However, there are few reports of MRS examinations of kidneys. Here, we evaluated the diagnostic potential of MRS for renal tumors. METHODS We analyzed 45 renal tumors in 45 patients (age 60-82 years, median 62 years; clinical stage: T1a, n=25; T1b, n=9; T2a, n=1; T2b, n=1; T3a, n=6; T4, n=1). All patients underwent pre-operative MRS examinations with a 1.5 T MR device equipped with a phased array type external surface coil, in which respiratory-triggered single voxel MRS was performed with a point-resolved spectroscopy sequence (TR, 2000 ms; TE, 135 ms). The obtained spectra were analyzed for choline resonances at 3.2 ppm, after normalization for noise outside the diagnostic range. Choline/noise ratio (CNR) values were automatically calculated using the “R” software package, then the CNRs in spectra obtained from both cancerous and benign tumors were compared. Histological results were defined as the standard for reference. RESULTS Of the 45 tumors examined, 41 including 3 cystic tumors were malignant in histological findings, while 2 were histologically diagnosed as angiomyolipoma (AML), 1 as oncocytoma and 1 as tuberculous granuloma (TG). In all cases, the obtained spectra were of sufficient quality for diagnosis. The mean choline CNR value for malignant lesions was 3.4, while that was 1.01 for AML, 1.05 for oncocytoma, and 1.12 for TG. Malignant renal tumors tended to show higher CNR values than benign tumors as well as in tumors with higher grade. CONCLUSIONS Although further studies are necessary, our findings indicate that MRS has potential to differentiate malignant from benign renal tumors. Furthermore, it may be an effective diagnostic tool for cystic renal tumor cases. © 2017FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 197Issue 4SApril 2017Page: e206 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2017MetricsAuthor Information Masahiro Sumura More articles by this author Haruki Ajiki More articles by this author Chiaki Koike More articles by this author Keita Inoue More articles by this author Keisuke Nakanishi More articles by this author Hiroaki Yasumoto More articles by this author Tsuyoshi Yoshizako More articles by this author Hajime Kitagaki More articles by this author Hiroaki Shiina More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...