Key result
Combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT differentiated small angiomyolipomas without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma with 50% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
Why the study?
Does combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT improve the differentiation of small angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma compared to contrast-enhanced CT alone?
Observational (n=153)
Does combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT improve the differentiation of small angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma compared to contrast-enhanced CT alone?
Absolute Event Rate: 50% vs 42%
Combinations of unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT parameters along with demographic findings can help differentiate small angiomyolipomas without visible fat from renal cell carcinomas with high specificity but low sensitivity.
High specificity but low sensitivity limits routine use; leaves open prospective validation versus contrast-enhanced CT alone.
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.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Takahashi et al. (2015) conducted an observational in Small (< 4 cm) renal masses (n=153). Combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT vs. Contrast-enhanced CT alone was evaluated on Differentiation of angiomyolipoma from RCC (sensitivity). Combined unenhanced and contrast-enhanced CT differentiated small angiomyolipomas without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma with 50% sensitivity and 98% specificity.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: