These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Small (< 4 cm) Renal Masses: Differentiation of Angiomyolipoma Without Visible Fat From Renal Cell Carcinoma Using Unenhanced and Contrast-Enhanced CT.
    Author: Takahashi N, Leng S, Kitajima K, Gomez-Cardona D, Thapa P, Carter RE, Leibovich BC, Sasiwimonphan K, Sasaguri K, Kawashima A.
    Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol; 2015 Dec; 205(6):1194-202. PubMed ID: 26587925.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate if small (< 4 cm) angiomyolipoma without visible fat can be differentiated from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) using contrast-enhanced CT alone and using unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT in combination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-three patients with 24 angiomyolipomas without visible fat and 130 patients with 148 RCCs underwent unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT. Demographic data and size, shape, CT attenuation, and heterogeneity (entropy and subjective score) of the renal mass on unenhanced CT and contrast-enhanced CT were recorded. Multivariate logistic regression models were constructed for parameters obtained by contrast-enhanced CT alone and by both unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT. Demographic data and size and shape of renal mass were used in each model. Sensitivity and specificity were calculated. RESULTS: Logistic regression model from contrast-enhanced CT data included sex, percentage of exophytic growth, entropy, and CT attenuation on contrast-enhanced CT. Model from both unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT data included age, sex, short-axis diameter, percentage of exophytic growth, lesion-to-kidney CT attenuation difference on unenhanced CT, and CT attenuation on contrast-enhanced CT. The contrast-enhanced CT-based model and combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT-based model differentiated angiomyolipoma from RCC with sensitivity and specificity of 42% and 98% versus 50% and 98%, respectively. CONCLUSION: Combinations of various CT and demographic findings allowed differentiation of angiomyolipoma from RCC.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]