Pixel distribution analysis: can it be used to distinguish clear cell carcinomas from angiomyolipomas with minimal fat?

PURPOSE To retrospectively determine if pixel histogram analysis of unenhanced computed tomographic (CT) images can be used to distinguish angiomyolipomas (AMLs) with minimal fat from clear cell renal cell carcinomas (CCRCCs). MATERIALS AND METHODS The human studies committee approved this HIPAA-complaint study, with waiver of informed consent. Patients with pathologically proved AMLs lacking visible macroscopic fat at CT and patients with pathologically proved CCRCCs were included. Lesions were measured, and a histogram (number of pixels with each attenuation) was calculated electronically within a central region of interest. The percentage of pixels below the attenuation thresholds -20 HU and 10 HU was calculated in both cohorts. The unpaired Student t test was used to compare the average percentage of subthreshold pixels at each threshold. P < .05 indicated a significant difference. The number of lesions with more than the selected percentage of subthreshold pixels was calculated in both groups, and the chi(2) test was used to test the significance of differences between cohorts. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used to determine if any percentage of subthreshold pixels could be used to differentiate between the two cohorts. RESULTS There were 22 patients with pathologically proved AMLs lacking visible macroscopic fat on CT images. Tuberous sclerosis affected three of these patients. Mean maximal transverse lesion diameter was 20 mm (range, 11-38 mm). There were 28 patients in the CCRCC comparison group. Mean maximal transverse lesion diameter was 26 mm (range, 15-36 mm). Neither the Student t test (P > .2 for all thresholds <0 HU) nor the chi(2) test (P > .15 for all thresholds <0 HU) revealed a significant difference between cohorts. A lesion with more low-attenuation pixels was significantly more likely to be characterized as CCRCC than as AML with ROC curve analysis. CONCLUSION Once AMLs with visible fat on CT images are excluded, pixel histogram analysis cannot be used to distinguish between AMLs and CCRCCs.

[1]  Sachio Kuribayashi,et al.  Angiomyolipomas that do not contain fat attenuation at unenhanced CT. , 2005, Radiology.

[2]  O. Hélénon,et al.  Renal cell carcinoma containing fat: demonstration with CT. , 1993, Radiology.

[3]  P. Ramchandani,et al.  Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. , 2006, Urology.

[4]  A. Samir,et al.  Diagnosis of renal lymphoma by percutaneous image guided biopsy: experience with 11 cases. , 2006, The Journal of urology.

[5]  U. Patel,et al.  Diagnosis of angiomyolipoma using computed tomography-region of interest < or =-10 HU or 4 adjacent pixels < or =-10 HU are recommended as the diagnostic thresholds. , 2006, Clinical radiology.

[6]  P. Choyke,et al.  Hereditary renal cancers. , 2003, Radiology.

[7]  R. Shah,et al.  Image-guided biopsy in the evaluation of renal mass lesions in contemporary urological practice: indications, adequacy, clinical impact, and limitations of the pathological diagnosis. , 2005, Human pathology.

[8]  A. Prando,et al.  Renal cell carcinoma: unusual imaging manifestations. , 2006, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[9]  D. E. Baker,et al.  Papillary renal cell carcinoma containing fat without calcification mimicking angiomyolipoma on CT. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[10]  M. Haider,et al.  Comparison of CT histogram analysis and chemical shift MRI in the characterization of indeterminate adrenal nodules. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Claude B Sirlin,et al.  CT and MR imaging of extrahepatic fatty masses of the abdomen and pelvis: techniques, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and pitfalls. , 2005, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[12]  Bonnie N Joe,et al.  Adrenal masses: CT characterization with histogram analysis method. , 2003, Radiology.

[13]  Jeong Kon Kim,et al.  Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. , 2004, Radiology.

[14]  L. Lemaitre,et al.  Renal angiomyolipoma: growth followed up with CT and/or US. , 1995, Radiology.

[15]  D. Mitchell,et al.  Lipid in renal clear cell carcinoma: detection on opposed-phase gradient-echo MR images. , 1997, Radiology.

[16]  R. Zagoria.  Imaging of small renal masses: a medical success story. , 2000, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[17]  K. Takeda,et al.  Renal angiomyolipoma: relationships between tumor size, aneurysm formation, and rupture. , 2002, Radiology.

[18]  S. Silverman,et al.  Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. , 2007, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[19]  B. Herts,et al.  CT histogram analysis in pathologically proven adrenal masses. , 2006, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[20]  R. Ghavamian,et al.  Imaging characteristics of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with histologic correlations. , 2005, Urology.

[21]  Jeong Kon Kim,et al.  Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from other neoplasms at double-echo chemical shift FLASH MR imaging. , 2006, Radiology.