DWI and ADC value versus ADC ratio in the characterization of solid renal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation

Background Renal masses are becoming an increasingly common finding on cross-sectional images. Characterization of the nature of the lesion either neoplastic or not, benign or malignant as well as further subtype characterization is becoming an important factor in determining management plan. The pu...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine 2021-08, Vol.52 (1), p.203-13, Article 203
Hauptverfasser: Shaaban, Mohamed Samir, Ayad, Viviane George Adly, Sharafeldeen, Mohamed, Salem, Mona A., Atta, M. A., Ramadan, Adel A.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 13
container_issue 1
container_start_page 203
container_title Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine
container_volume 52
creator Shaaban, Mohamed Samir
Ayad, Viviane George Adly
Sharafeldeen, Mohamed
Salem, Mona A.
Atta, M. A.
Ramadan, Adel A.
description Background Renal masses are becoming an increasingly common finding on cross-sectional images. Characterization of the nature of the lesion either neoplastic or not, benign or malignant as well as further subtype characterization is becoming an important factor in determining management plan. The purpose of our study with to assess the sensitivity and specificity of both ADC mean value and ADC ratio in such characterization along with the calculation of different cutoff values to differentiate between different varieties, using pathological data as the main gold standard for diagnosis. Results Our study included 50 patients with a total of 72 masses. A final diagnosis was reached in 69 masses by pathological examination and three masses had clinical and laboratory signs of infection. We had a total of 49 malignant lesions (68%) and 23 benign lesions (32%). The ADC value of ccRCC (1.4 × 10 −3 mm 2 /s) was significantly higher than all other renal masses. A cutoff ADC value of > 1.1 and a cutoff ADC ratio of > 0.56 can be used to differentiate between clear cell renal cell carcinoma and other lesions and an ADC value of < 0.8 and an ADC ratio of ≤ 0.56 to differentiate papillary renal cell carcinoma from other masses. There was no statistically significant ADC value to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions but a statistically significant ADC ratio (> 0.52) was reached. Conclusion ADC value and ADC ratio can be used as an adjunct tool in the characterization of different renal masses, with ADC ratio having a higher sensitivity, which can affect the prognosis and management of the patient.
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s43055-021-00565-3
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>gale_doaj_</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_2788433513</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><galeid>A680228646</galeid><doaj_id>oai_doaj_org_article_448f1a2a8cc9416dbd3de4275325ef26</doaj_id><sourcerecordid>A680228646</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-70aec2fd6dfbfdaf28cc0e1c5e264a8c7e50ac2909f2d1f65dce78a811d6eb5c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kk-LFDEQxRtRcFn3C3gKeO41SSfpjLdh1j8DC14Uj6GmUpnJ0NMZk54F_fSbmRZXQUwOKR71flSF1zSvBb8Vwpq3RXVc65ZL0XKujW67Z82V5Aveqt7I53_UL5ubUva8HsW5MOqqKXff1gxGz5Z3K_YAw4nYA-VyKhchwxQTiyObdsRwBxlwohx_nuWRpcBKGqJnmUYY2AFKofKumnxMQ9pGbI8w7eaSYcqZhovxVfMiwFDo5td73Xz98P7L6lN7__njerW8b1Gpfmp7DoQyeOPDJngI0iJyEqhJGgUWe9IcUC74IkgvgtEeqbdghfCGNhq762Y9c32CvTvmeID8wyWI7iKkvHWQp4gDOaVsECArFRdKGL_xnScle91JTUGaynozs445fT9Rmdw-nXJduzjZW6u6TovuqWsLFRrHkKb6ZYdY0C2N5VJao86s23901evpEDGNFGLV_zLI2YA5lZIp_F5GcHeOgJsj4GoE3CUC7jxLN5tKbR63lJ8m_o_rETlfs14</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Website</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2788433513</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>DWI and ADC value versus ADC ratio in the characterization of solid renal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</source><creator>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir ; Ayad, Viviane George Adly ; Sharafeldeen, Mohamed ; Salem, Mona A. ; Atta, M. A. ; Ramadan, Adel A.</creator><creatorcontrib>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir ; Ayad, Viviane George Adly ; Sharafeldeen, Mohamed ; Salem, Mona A. ; Atta, M. A. ; Ramadan, Adel A.</creatorcontrib><description>Background Renal masses are becoming an increasingly common finding on cross-sectional images. Characterization of the nature of the lesion either neoplastic or not, benign or malignant as well as further subtype characterization is becoming an important factor in determining management plan. The purpose of our study with to assess the sensitivity and specificity of both ADC mean value and ADC ratio in such characterization along with the calculation of different cutoff values to differentiate between different varieties, using pathological data as the main gold standard for diagnosis. Results Our study included 50 patients with a total of 72 masses. A final diagnosis was reached in 69 masses by pathological examination and three masses had clinical and laboratory signs of infection. We had a total of 49 malignant lesions (68%) and 23 benign lesions (32%). The ADC value of ccRCC (1.4 × 10 −3 mm 2 /s) was significantly higher than all other renal masses. A cutoff ADC value of &gt; 1.1 and a cutoff ADC ratio of &gt; 0.56 can be used to differentiate between clear cell renal cell carcinoma and other lesions and an ADC value of &lt; 0.8 and an ADC ratio of ≤ 0.56 to differentiate papillary renal cell carcinoma from other masses. There was no statistically significant ADC value to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions but a statistically significant ADC ratio (&gt; 0.52) was reached. Conclusion ADC value and ADC ratio can be used as an adjunct tool in the characterization of different renal masses, with ADC ratio having a higher sensitivity, which can affect the prognosis and management of the patient.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2090-4762</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0378-603X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2090-4762</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1186/s43055-021-00565-3</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Abdomen ; ADC ratio ; ADC value ; Biopsy ; Diffusion-weighted imaging ; Drunk driving ; Imaging ; Infections ; Kidney ; Kidney cancer ; Laboratories ; Medical prognosis ; Medical research ; Medicine ; Medicine &amp; Public Health ; Medicine, Experimental ; Metastasis ; Neoplasm ; Nuclear Medicine ; Patients ; Radiology ; Software ; Tumors ; Ultrasonic imaging</subject><ispartof>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2021-08, Vol.52 (1), p.203-13, Article 203</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>COPYRIGHT 2021 Springer</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-70aec2fd6dfbfdaf28cc0e1c5e264a8c7e50ac2909f2d1f65dce78a811d6eb5c3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0107-0356</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,778,782,862,27911,27912</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ayad, Viviane George Adly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharafeldeen, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salem, Mona A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atta, M. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramadan, Adel A.</creatorcontrib><title>DWI and ADC value versus ADC ratio in the characterization of solid renal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation</title><title>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</title><addtitle>Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med</addtitle><description>Background Renal masses are becoming an increasingly common finding on cross-sectional images. Characterization of the nature of the lesion either neoplastic or not, benign or malignant as well as further subtype characterization is becoming an important factor in determining management plan. The purpose of our study with to assess the sensitivity and specificity of both ADC mean value and ADC ratio in such characterization along with the calculation of different cutoff values to differentiate between different varieties, using pathological data as the main gold standard for diagnosis. Results Our study included 50 patients with a total of 72 masses. A final diagnosis was reached in 69 masses by pathological examination and three masses had clinical and laboratory signs of infection. We had a total of 49 malignant lesions (68%) and 23 benign lesions (32%). The ADC value of ccRCC (1.4 × 10 −3 mm 2 /s) was significantly higher than all other renal masses. A cutoff ADC value of &gt; 1.1 and a cutoff ADC ratio of &gt; 0.56 can be used to differentiate between clear cell renal cell carcinoma and other lesions and an ADC value of &lt; 0.8 and an ADC ratio of ≤ 0.56 to differentiate papillary renal cell carcinoma from other masses. There was no statistically significant ADC value to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions but a statistically significant ADC ratio (&gt; 0.52) was reached. Conclusion ADC value and ADC ratio can be used as an adjunct tool in the characterization of different renal masses, with ADC ratio having a higher sensitivity, which can affect the prognosis and management of the patient.</description><subject>Abdomen</subject><subject>ADC ratio</subject><subject>ADC value</subject><subject>Biopsy</subject><subject>Diffusion-weighted imaging</subject><subject>Drunk driving</subject><subject>Imaging</subject><subject>Infections</subject><subject>Kidney</subject><subject>Kidney cancer</subject><subject>Laboratories</subject><subject>Medical prognosis</subject><subject>Medical research</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine &amp; Public Health</subject><subject>Medicine, Experimental</subject><subject>Metastasis</subject><subject>Neoplasm</subject><subject>Nuclear Medicine</subject><subject>Patients</subject><subject>Radiology</subject><subject>Software</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><issn>2090-4762</issn><issn>0378-603X</issn><issn>2090-4762</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>DOA</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kk-LFDEQxRtRcFn3C3gKeO41SSfpjLdh1j8DC14Uj6GmUpnJ0NMZk54F_fSbmRZXQUwOKR71flSF1zSvBb8Vwpq3RXVc65ZL0XKujW67Z82V5Aveqt7I53_UL5ubUva8HsW5MOqqKXff1gxGz5Z3K_YAw4nYA-VyKhchwxQTiyObdsRwBxlwohx_nuWRpcBKGqJnmUYY2AFKofKumnxMQ9pGbI8w7eaSYcqZhovxVfMiwFDo5td73Xz98P7L6lN7__njerW8b1Gpfmp7DoQyeOPDJngI0iJyEqhJGgUWe9IcUC74IkgvgtEeqbdghfCGNhq762Y9c32CvTvmeID8wyWI7iKkvHWQp4gDOaVsECArFRdKGL_xnScle91JTUGaynozs445fT9Rmdw-nXJduzjZW6u6TovuqWsLFRrHkKb6ZYdY0C2N5VJao86s23901evpEDGNFGLV_zLI2YA5lZIp_F5GcHeOgJsj4GoE3CUC7jxLN5tKbR63lJ8m_o_rETlfs14</recordid><startdate>20210813</startdate><enddate>20210813</enddate><creator>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir</creator><creator>Ayad, Viviane George Adly</creator><creator>Sharafeldeen, Mohamed</creator><creator>Salem, Mona A.</creator><creator>Atta, M. A.</creator><creator>Ramadan, Adel A.</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><general>SpringerOpen</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>DOA</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0107-0356</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20210813</creationdate><title>DWI and ADC value versus ADC ratio in the characterization of solid renal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation</title><author>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir ; Ayad, Viviane George Adly ; Sharafeldeen, Mohamed ; Salem, Mona A. ; Atta, M. A. ; Ramadan, Adel A.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c447t-70aec2fd6dfbfdaf28cc0e1c5e264a8c7e50ac2909f2d1f65dce78a811d6eb5c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Abdomen</topic><topic>ADC ratio</topic><topic>ADC value</topic><topic>Biopsy</topic><topic>Diffusion-weighted imaging</topic><topic>Drunk driving</topic><topic>Imaging</topic><topic>Infections</topic><topic>Kidney</topic><topic>Kidney cancer</topic><topic>Laboratories</topic><topic>Medical prognosis</topic><topic>Medical research</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine &amp; Public Health</topic><topic>Medicine, Experimental</topic><topic>Metastasis</topic><topic>Neoplasm</topic><topic>Nuclear Medicine</topic><topic>Patients</topic><topic>Radiology</topic><topic>Software</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ayad, Viviane George Adly</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sharafeldeen, Mohamed</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Salem, Mona A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Atta, M. A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ramadan, Adel A.</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</collection><jtitle>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Shaaban, Mohamed Samir</au><au>Ayad, Viviane George Adly</au><au>Sharafeldeen, Mohamed</au><au>Salem, Mona A.</au><au>Atta, M. A.</au><au>Ramadan, Adel A.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>DWI and ADC value versus ADC ratio in the characterization of solid renal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation</atitle><jtitle>Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine</jtitle><stitle>Egypt J Radiol Nucl Med</stitle><date>2021-08-13</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>203</spage><epage>13</epage><pages>203-13</pages><artnum>203</artnum><issn>2090-4762</issn><issn>0378-603X</issn><eissn>2090-4762</eissn><abstract>Background Renal masses are becoming an increasingly common finding on cross-sectional images. Characterization of the nature of the lesion either neoplastic or not, benign or malignant as well as further subtype characterization is becoming an important factor in determining management plan. The purpose of our study with to assess the sensitivity and specificity of both ADC mean value and ADC ratio in such characterization along with the calculation of different cutoff values to differentiate between different varieties, using pathological data as the main gold standard for diagnosis. Results Our study included 50 patients with a total of 72 masses. A final diagnosis was reached in 69 masses by pathological examination and three masses had clinical and laboratory signs of infection. We had a total of 49 malignant lesions (68%) and 23 benign lesions (32%). The ADC value of ccRCC (1.4 × 10 −3 mm 2 /s) was significantly higher than all other renal masses. A cutoff ADC value of &gt; 1.1 and a cutoff ADC ratio of &gt; 0.56 can be used to differentiate between clear cell renal cell carcinoma and other lesions and an ADC value of &lt; 0.8 and an ADC ratio of ≤ 0.56 to differentiate papillary renal cell carcinoma from other masses. There was no statistically significant ADC value to differentiate between benign and malignant lesions but a statistically significant ADC ratio (&gt; 0.52) was reached. Conclusion ADC value and ADC ratio can be used as an adjunct tool in the characterization of different renal masses, with ADC ratio having a higher sensitivity, which can affect the prognosis and management of the patient.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><doi>10.1186/s43055-021-00565-3</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0107-0356</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 2090-4762
ispartof Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, 2021-08, Vol.52 (1), p.203-13, Article 203
issn 2090-4762
0378-603X
2090-4762
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_2788433513
source DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; Springer Nature OA Free Journals
subjects Abdomen
ADC ratio
ADC value
Biopsy
Diffusion-weighted imaging
Drunk driving
Imaging
Infections
Kidney
Kidney cancer
Laboratories
Medical prognosis
Medical research
Medicine
Medicine & Public Health
Medicine, Experimental
Metastasis
Neoplasm
Nuclear Medicine
Patients
Radiology
Software
Tumors
Ultrasonic imaging
title DWI and ADC value versus ADC ratio in the characterization of solid renal masses: radiologic-pathologic correlation
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-16T00%3A26%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-gale_doaj_&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=DWI%20and%20ADC%20value%20versus%20ADC%20ratio%20in%20the%20characterization%20of%20solid%20renal%20masses:%20radiologic-pathologic%20correlation&rft.jtitle=Egyptian%20Journal%20of%20Radiology%20and%20Nuclear%20Medicine&rft.au=Shaaban,%20Mohamed%20Samir&rft.date=2021-08-13&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=203&rft.epage=13&rft.pages=203-13&rft.artnum=203&rft.issn=2090-4762&rft.eissn=2090-4762&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186/s43055-021-00565-3&rft_dat=%3Cgale_doaj_%3EA680228646%3C/gale_doaj_%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2788433513&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_galeid=A680228646&rft_doaj_id=oai_doaj_org_article_448f1a2a8cc9416dbd3de4275325ef26&rfr_iscdi=true