Advertisement

Abdominal Imaging

, Volume 40, Issue 8, pp 3168–3174 | Cite as

CT prediction of the Fuhrman grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC): towards the development of computer-assisted diagnostic method

  • Hannu HuhdanpaaEmail author
  • Darryl Hwang
  • Steven Cen
  • Brian Quinn
  • Megha Nayyar
  • Xuejun Zhang
  • Frank Chen
  • Bhushan Desai
  • Gangning Liang
  • Inderbir Gill
  • Vinay Duddalwar
Article

Abstract

Purpose

There are distinct quantifiable features characterizing renal cell carcinomas on contrast-enhanced CT examinations, such as peak tumor enhancement, tumor heterogeneity, and percent contrast washout. While qualitative visual impressions often suffice for diagnosis, quantitative metrics if developed and validated can add to the information available from standard of care diagnostic imaging. The purpose of this study is to assess the use of quantitative enhancement metrics in predicting the Fuhrman grade of clear cell RCC.

Materials and methods

65 multiphase CT examinations with clear cell RCCs were utilized, 44 tumors with Fuhrman grades 1 or 2 and 21 tumors with grades 3 or 4. After tumor segmentation, the following data were extracted: histogram analysis of voxel-based whole lesion attenuation in each phase, enhancement and washout using mean, median, skewness, kurtosis, standard deviation, and interquartile range.

Results

Statistically significant difference was observed in 4 measured parameters between grades 1–2 and grades 3–4: interquartile range of nephrographic attenuation values, standard deviation of absolute enhancement, as well as interquartile range and standard deviation of residual nephrographic enhancement. Interquartile range of nephrographic attenuation values was 292.86 HU for grades 1–2 and 241.19 HU for grades 3–4 (p value 0.02). Standard deviation of absolute enhancement was 41.26 HU for grades 1–2 and 34.66 HU for grades 3–4 (p value 0.03). Interquartile range was 297.12 HU for residual nephrographic enhancement for grades 1–2 and 235.57 HU for grades 3–4 (p value 0.02), and standard deviation of the same was 42.45 HU for grades 1–2 and 37.11 for grades 3–4 (p value 0.04).

Conclusion

Our results indicate that absolute enhancement is more heterogeneous for lower grade tumors and that attenuation and residual enhancement in nephrographic phase is more heterogeneous for lower grade tumors. This represents an important step in devising a predictive non-invasive model to predict the nucleolar grade.

Keywords

Renal cell carcinoma Quantitative imaging Computer-assisted diagnosis Computed tomography (CT) 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This project has received funding from the Whittier foundation. The project described was supported in part by Award Number P30CA014089 from the National Cancer Institute. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Cancer Institute or the National Institutes of Health.

Author contributions

Hannu Huhdanpaa—primary author of the paper, data processing and analysis; Darryl Hwang—development of Matlab algorithms for data processing; Steven (Yong) Cen—statistical analysis; Brian Quinn—segmenting and registering data; Megha Nayyar—segmenting and organizing data; Xuejun Zhang—Algorithm development and review; Frank Chen—reviewing data and image analysis; Bhushan Desai—drafting, coordination, and statistical review; Gangning Liang—pathological correlation; Inderbir Gill—clinical correlation and analysis; and Vinay Duddalwar—primary radiology faculty mentor, overall guidance, coordination, and review.

Disclosure

Hannu Huhdanpaa, Darryl Hwang, Steven (Yong) Cen, Brian Quinn, Megha Nayyar, Xuejun Zhang, Frank Chen, Bhushan Desai, Gangning Liang, Inderbir Gill, Vinay Duddalwar have nothing to disclose.

References

  1. 1.
    Cho E, Adami HO, Lindblad P (2011) Epidemiology of renal cell cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin N Am 25:651–665CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gandaglia G, Ravi P, Abdollah F, et al. (2014) Contemporary incidence and mortality rates of kidney cancer in the United States. Can Urol Assoc J 8:247–252PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Hock LM, Lynch J, Balaji KC (2002) Increasing incidence of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades in the United States: an analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data. J Urol 167:57–60CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA (2010) Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med 362:624–634CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT, et al. (2013) Follow-up for clinically localized renal neoplasms: AUA guideline. J Urol 190:407–416CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheir KZ, El-Azab M, Mosbah A, El-Baz M, Shaaban AA (2005) Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes by multislice computerized tomography. J Urol 174:451–455 ((discussion 455))CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM, et al. (2007) Solid renal cortical tumors: differentiation with CT. Radiology 244:494–504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Herts BR, Coll DM, Novick AC, et al. (2002) Enhancement characteristics of papillary renal neoplasms revealed on triphasic helical CT of the kidneys. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:367–372CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Mukai M, et al. (2000) Double-phase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:835–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et al. (2002) Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1499–1506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Press GA, McClennan BL, Melson GL, et al. (1984) Papillary renal cell carcinoma: CT and sonographic evaluation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 143:1005–1009CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ruppert-Kohlmayr AJ, Uggowitzer M, Meissnitzer T, Ruppert G (2004) Differentiation of renal clear cell carcinoma and renal papillary carcinoma using quantitative CT enhancement parameters. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1387–1391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lee-Felker SA, Felker ER, Tan N, et al. (2014) Qualitative and quantitative MDCT features for differentiating clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other solid renal cortical masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W516–W524CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuhrman SA, Lasky LC, Limas C (1982) Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 6:655–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bektas S, Bahadir B, Kandemir NO, et al. (2009) Intraobserver and interobserver variability of Fuhrman and modified Fuhrman grading systems for conventional renal cell carcinoma. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 25:596–600CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Al-Aynati M, Chen V, Salama S, et al. (2003) Interobserver and intraobserver variability using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma. Arch Pathol Lab Med 127:593–596PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ficarra V, Martignoni G, Maffei N, et al. (2005) Original and reviewed nuclear grading according to the Fuhrman system: a multivariate analysis of 388 patients with conventional renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 103:68–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lang H, Lindner V, de Fromont M, et al. (2005) Multicenter determination of optimal interobserver agreement using the Fuhrman grading system for renal cell carcinoma: assessment of 241 patients with >15-year follow-up. Cancer 103:625–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Sun M, Lughezzani G, Jeldres C, et al. (2009) A proposal for reclassification of the Fuhrman grading system in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 56:775–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Qayyum T, McArdle P, Orange C, et al. (2013) Reclassification of the Fuhrman grading system in renal cell carcinoma-does it make a difference? Springerplus 2:378PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Delahunt B, McKenney JK, Lohse CM, et al. (2013) A novel grading system for clear cell renal cell carcinoma incorporating tumor necrosis. Am J Surg Pathol 37:311–322CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Delahunt B, Egevad L, Montironi R, Srigley JR (2013) International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on renal neoplasia: rationale and organization. Am J Surg Pathol 37:1463–1468CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Delahunt B, Cheville JC, Martignoni G, et al. (2013) The International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) grading system for renal cell carcinoma and other prognostic parameters. Am J Surg Pathol 37:1490–1504CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhu YH, Wang X, Zhang J, et al. (2014) Low enhancement on multiphase contrast-enhanced CT images: an independent predictor of the presence of high tumor grade of clear cell renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W295–W300CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Villalobos-Gollás M, Aguilar-Davidov B, Culebro-García C, et al. (2012) Pathological implications of areas of lower enhancement on contrast-enhanced computed tomography in renal-cell carcinoma: additional information for selecting candidates for surveillance protocols. Int Urol Nephrol 44:1369–1374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nanashima A, Abo T, Murakami G, et al. (2013) Intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: relationship between tumor imaging enhancement by measuring attenuation and clinicopathologic characteristics. Abdom Imaging 38:785–792CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wang JH, Min PQ, Wang PJ, et al. (2006) Dynamic CT evaluation of tumor vascularity in renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:1423–1430CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sengupta S, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, et al. (2005) Histologic coagulative tumor necrosis as a prognostic indicator of renal cell carcinoma aggressiveness. Cancer 104:511–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Knight DA, Stadler WM (2007) Prognostic factors in localized renal cell cancer. BJU Int 99:1212–1216CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hannu Huhdanpaa
    • 1
    Email author
  • Darryl Hwang
    • 1
  • Steven Cen
    • 1
  • Brian Quinn
    • 1
  • Megha Nayyar
    • 1
  • Xuejun Zhang
    • 2
  • Frank Chen
    • 1
  • Bhushan Desai
    • 1
  • Gangning Liang
    • 3
  • Inderbir Gill
    • 3
  • Vinay Duddalwar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.Viterbi School of EngineeringUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA
  3. 3.Department of UrologyUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations