International Urology and Nephrology

, Volume 49, Issue 2, pp 215–224 | Cite as

Renal cell carcinoma: applicability of the apparent coefficient of the diffusion-weighted estimated by MRI for improving their differential diagnosis, histologic subtyping, and differentiation grade

  • Yulian Mytsyk
  • Ihor Dutka
  • Yuriy Borys
  • Iryna Komnatska
  • Iryna Shatynska-Mytsyk
  • Ammad Ahmad Farooqi
  • Katarina Gazdikova
  • Martin Caprnda
  • Luis Rodrigo
  • Peter Kruzliak
Urology - Original Paper



Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) represents the most common malignant epithelial neoplasm of the kidney. Accurate assessment of the renal masses, defining the histologic subtype and the grade of differentiation of the tumor, is vital to ensure an adequate case management as well as for staging and prognosis. Recently, diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) tends to be increasingly appealing for the clinicians as an imaging procedure of choice for the diagnosis and staging of the RCC, which is predetermined by several advantages over CT. The goal of the survey was to assess the applicability of the apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) of the DWI MRI for the differential diagnostics, histologic subtyping, and defining the grade of differentiation of the RCC.


The study enrolled 288 adult patients with renal lesions: 188 patients with solid RCC—126 patients with clear cell subtype (ccRCC), 32 patients with papillary RCC (pRCC), 30 patients with chromophobe RCC (chRCC); 27 patient with cystic form or RCC (Bosniak cyst, category IV); 32 patients with renal angiomyolipoma (AML); 25 patients with renal oncocytoma (OC); and 16 patients with the renal abscess (AB). In total, 245 lesions were pathologically verified. As a reference, 19 healthy volunteers were included into the study. All patients underwent MRI of the kidneys, involving DWI with subsequent evaluation of the ADC.


There was a reliable difference (p < 0.05) in mean ADC values between the normal renal parenchyma (NRP), solid RCC of different histologic subtypes and grades, cystic RCC, and benign renal lesions. The mean ADC values obtained in the result of the study were (×10−3 mm2/s): 2.47 ± 0.12 in NRP, 1.63 ± 0.29 in all solid RCCs, 1.82 ± 0.22 in solid ccRCC (1.92 ± 0.11—Fuhrman grade I, 1.84 ± 0.14—Fuhrman grade II, 1.79 ± 0.10—Fuhrman grade III, 1.72 ± 0.06—Fuhrman grade IV), 1.61 ± 0.07 in pRCC, 1.46 ± 0.09 in chRCC, 2.68 ± 0.11 in cystic RCC, 2.13 ± 0.08 in AML, 2.26 ± 0.06 in OC, and 3.30 ± 0.07 in AB.


The data received in our study demonstrate a substantial restriction of diffusion of hydrogen molecules in tissues of ccRCC in comparison with the healthy renal parenchyma preconditioned by the greater density of tumor. A statistically significant difference in mean ADC values of ccRCC with different grades of nuclear pleomorphism by Fuhrman was observed: Low-grade tumors showed higher mean ADC values compared to high-grade tumors. The modality of the MRI DWI along with ADC measurement allows to reliably differentiate between the solid RCC of main histologic subtypes and grades, cystic RCC, and the benign renal lesions.


Renal cell carcinoma Magnetic resonance imaging Diffusion-weighted imaging Apparent diffusion coefficient 



Renal abscess


Apparent diffusion coefficient




Clear cell renal cell carcinoma


Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma


Computed tomography


Diffusion-weighted images


Fast imaging employing steady-state acquisition with fat saturation


Fast-recovery fast spin-echo


Fast spoiled gradient-recalled echo dual-echo


Liver acquisition with volume acquisition


Magnetic resonance imaging


Normal renal parenchyma




Papillary renal cell carcinoma


Renal cell carcinoma


Renal cell carcinoma


Region of interest


Signal-to-noise ratio


Single-shot fast spin-echo


Echo time


Repetition time


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ (2009) Cancer statistics, 2009. CA Cancer J Clin 59:225–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Blute ML (2003) Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 27:612–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miguel V, Fernando L, Carlos M et al (2009) Nuclear grade prediction of renal cell carcinoma using contrasted computed tomography. J Urol 181:249Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Kim KR, Cho KS (2002) Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:1499–1506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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 174:451–455CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Moinzadeh A, Gill IS, Finelli A, Kaouk J, Desai M (2006) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy: 3-year followup. J Urol 175:459–462CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Le Bihan D (1991) Molecular diffusion nuclear magnetic resonance imaging. Magn Reson 7:1–30Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M, Genega EM, Olumi AF, Dewolf WC, Rofsky NM (2008) MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis. Radiographics 28:985–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Taouli B, Thakur RK, Mannelli L, Babb JS, Kim S, Hecht EM, Lee VS, Israel GM (2009) Renal lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging. Radiology 251:398–407CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sandrasegaran K, Sundaram CP, Ramaswamy R, Akisik FM, Rydberg MP, Lin C, Aisen AM (2010) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:438–445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kanal E (2016) Gadolinium based contrast agents (GBCA): safety overview after 3 decades of clinical experience. Magn Reson Imaging. doi: 10.1016/j.mri.2016.08.017 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Bida JP, Carter RE, Fleming CJ, Misra S, Williamson EE, Kallmes DF (2016) Intravenous contrast material-induced nephropathy: causal or coincident phenomenon? Radiology 278:306CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wang H, Cheng L, Zhang X, Wang D, Guo A, Gao Y, Ye H (2010) Renal cell carcinoma: diffusion-weighted mr imaging for subtype differentiation at 3.0 T. Radiology 257:135–143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Razek AA, Farouk A, Mousa A, Nabil N (2011) Role of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in characterization of renal tumors. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:332–336CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sun M, Lughezzani G, Jeldres C, Isbarn H, Shariat SF, Arjane P, Widmer H, Pharand D, Latour M, Perrotte P, Patard JJ, Karakiewicz PI (2009) A proposal for reclassification of the Fuhrman grading system in patients with clear cell renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 56:775–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hong SK, Jeong CW, Park JH, Kim HS, Kwak C, Choe G, Kim HH, Lee SE (2011) Application of simplified Fuhrman grading system in clear-cell renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 107:409–415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rosenkrantz AB, Niver BE, Fitzgerald EF, Babb JS, Chandarana H, Melamed J (2010) Utility of the apparent diffusion coefficient for distinguishing clear cell renal cell carcinoma of low and high nuclear grade. AJR Am J Roentgenol 195:W344–W351CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mytsyk Y, Borys Y, Komnatska I, Dutka I, Shatynska-Mytsyk I (2014) Value of the diffusion-weighted MRI in the differential diagnostics of malignant and benign kidney neoplasms—our clinical experience. Pol J Radiol 79:290–295CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lassel EA, Rao R, Schwenke C, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ (2014) Diffusion-weighted imaging of focal renal lesions: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:241–249CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhang H, Gan Q, Wu Y, Liu R, Liu X, Huang Z, Yuan F, Kuang M, Song B (2016) Diagnostic performance of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating human renal lesions (benignity or malignancy): a meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol (NY) 41:1997–2010CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yulian Mytsyk
    • 1
  • Ihor Dutka
    • 2
  • Yuriy Borys
    • 1
  • Iryna Komnatska
    • 2
  • Iryna Shatynska-Mytsyk
    • 3
  • Ammad Ahmad Farooqi
    • 4
  • Katarina Gazdikova
    • 5
    • 6
  • Martin Caprnda
    • 7
  • Luis Rodrigo
    • 7
  • Peter Kruzliak
    • 8
    • 9
  1. 1.Department of UrologyLviv National Medical UniversityLvivUkraine
  2. 2.Euroclinic Medical CenterLvivUkraine
  3. 3.Department of RadiologyLviv National Medical UniversityLvivUkraine
  4. 4.Laboratory of Translational Oncology and Personalized MedicineRashid Latif Medical CollegeLahorePakistan
  5. 5.Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Nursing and Professional Health StudiesSlovak Medical UniversityBratislavaSlovak Republic
  6. 6.Department of General Medicine, Faculty of MedicineSlovak Medical UniversityBratislavaSlovak Republic
  7. 7.University of Oviedo, Central University Hospital of Asturias (HUCA)OviedoSpain
  8. 8.Department of Chemical Drugs, Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of Veterinary and Pharmaceutical SciencesBrnoCzech Republic
  9. 9.2nd Department of Surgery, Faculty of MedicineMasaryk UniversityBrnoCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations