Tomasz Blachura, Julia Radzikowska, Patrycja S Matusik, Aleksander Kowal, Jarosław D Jarczewski, Łukasz Skiba, Tadeusz J Popiela, Robert Chrzan
{"title":"对比增强计算机断层扫描与磁共振成像在透明细胞肾癌鉴别诊断中的有效性比较。","authors":"Tomasz Blachura, Julia Radzikowska, Patrycja S Matusik, Aleksander Kowal, Jarosław D Jarczewski, Łukasz Skiba, Tadeusz J Popiela, Robert Chrzan","doi":"10.2478/raon-2025-0033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The incidental detection of indeterminate small renal masses (SRMs) has been rising continuously over the last few decades. The aim of our study was to assess selected contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) parameters in the characterization of indeterminate SRMs and compare them with selected magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with indeterminate SRMs discovered on CECT were included in the study. Selected CECT features have been analyzed as differentiating between clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and other etiologies of SRMs. In 82% of patients, which had available MRI data, a comparison between selected MRI and CECT parameters were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Relative washout in CECT had the best accuracy (76.5%), sensitivity (88.9%), as well as satisfactory specificity (69.7%) in ccRCC prediction. The cut-off point determined in receiver operating analysis using the Youden index for this parameter was 11.54. Multivariable analysis showed that only T1 SI ratio < 0.73 from MRI parameters and relative washout > 11.5 from CECT parameters were independent predictors of ccRCC (OR: 30.86, 95% CI: 1.58-600.26, p = 0.024; OR: 15.36, 95% CI: 1.52-155.16, p = 0.021).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In clinical practice, the use of both CECT and MRI indicators, especially T1 SI ratio < 0.73 for MRI and relative washout > 11.5 for CECT, can support physicians in diagnosing and treating patients effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":21034,"journal":{"name":"Radiology and Oncology","volume":"59 2","pages":"193-202"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12182951/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparison of effectiveness of the contrast enhanced computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of clear cell renal carcinoma.\",\"authors\":\"Tomasz Blachura, Julia Radzikowska, Patrycja S Matusik, Aleksander Kowal, Jarosław D Jarczewski, Łukasz Skiba, Tadeusz J Popiela, Robert Chrzan\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/raon-2025-0033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The incidental detection of indeterminate small renal masses (SRMs) has been rising continuously over the last few decades. The aim of our study was to assess selected contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) parameters in the characterization of indeterminate SRMs and compare them with selected magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data.</p><p><strong>Patients and methods: </strong>Patients with indeterminate SRMs discovered on CECT were included in the study. Selected CECT features have been analyzed as differentiating between clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and other etiologies of SRMs. In 82% of patients, which had available MRI data, a comparison between selected MRI and CECT parameters were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Relative washout in CECT had the best accuracy (76.5%), sensitivity (88.9%), as well as satisfactory specificity (69.7%) in ccRCC prediction. The cut-off point determined in receiver operating analysis using the Youden index for this parameter was 11.54. Multivariable analysis showed that only T1 SI ratio < 0.73 from MRI parameters and relative washout > 11.5 from CECT parameters were independent predictors of ccRCC (OR: 30.86, 95% CI: 1.58-600.26, p = 0.024; OR: 15.36, 95% CI: 1.52-155.16, p = 0.021).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>In clinical practice, the use of both CECT and MRI indicators, especially T1 SI ratio < 0.73 for MRI and relative washout > 11.5 for CECT, can support physicians in diagnosing and treating patients effectively.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":21034,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Radiology and Oncology\",\"volume\":\"59 2\",\"pages\":\"193-202\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12182951/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Radiology and Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2025-0033\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Radiology and Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/raon-2025-0033","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparison of effectiveness of the contrast enhanced computed tomography with magnetic resonance imaging in the differential diagnosis of clear cell renal carcinoma.
Background: The incidental detection of indeterminate small renal masses (SRMs) has been rising continuously over the last few decades. The aim of our study was to assess selected contrast enhanced computed tomography (CECT) parameters in the characterization of indeterminate SRMs and compare them with selected magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data.
Patients and methods: Patients with indeterminate SRMs discovered on CECT were included in the study. Selected CECT features have been analyzed as differentiating between clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and other etiologies of SRMs. In 82% of patients, which had available MRI data, a comparison between selected MRI and CECT parameters were performed.
Results: Relative washout in CECT had the best accuracy (76.5%), sensitivity (88.9%), as well as satisfactory specificity (69.7%) in ccRCC prediction. The cut-off point determined in receiver operating analysis using the Youden index for this parameter was 11.54. Multivariable analysis showed that only T1 SI ratio < 0.73 from MRI parameters and relative washout > 11.5 from CECT parameters were independent predictors of ccRCC (OR: 30.86, 95% CI: 1.58-600.26, p = 0.024; OR: 15.36, 95% CI: 1.52-155.16, p = 0.021).
Conclusions: In clinical practice, the use of both CECT and MRI indicators, especially T1 SI ratio < 0.73 for MRI and relative washout > 11.5 for CECT, can support physicians in diagnosing and treating patients effectively.
期刊介绍:
Radiology and Oncology is a multidisciplinary journal devoted to the publishing original and high quality scientific papers and review articles, pertinent to diagnostic and interventional radiology, computerized tomography, magnetic resonance, ultrasound, nuclear medicine, radiotherapy, clinical and experimental oncology, radiobiology, medical physics and radiation protection. Therefore, the scope of the journal is to cover beside radiology the diagnostic and therapeutic aspects in oncology, which distinguishes it from other journals in the field.