Suppr超能文献

应用不同方法测量同一病灶肾细胞癌的表观扩散系数及其与 ISUP 核分级的相关性。

Application of different methods used to measure the apparent diffusion coefficient of renal cell carcinoma on the same lesion and its correlation with ISUP nuclear grading.

机构信息

Department of Radiology, Fethi Sekin City Hospital, Elazig, Turkey.

Department of Radiology, Faculty of Medicine, Firat University, Elazig, Turkey.

出版信息

Abdom Radiol (NY). 2022 Jul;47(7):2442-2452. doi: 10.1007/s00261-022-03541-1. Epub 2022 May 16.

Abstract

PURPOSE

To determine the most frequently used different apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement methods in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and their correlation with the International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) histologic grading system.

METHODS

A total of 99 patients who underwent diffusion-weighted imaging and whose pathologic diagnosis of RCC was confirmed were included in the study. As a result of a literature review, region of interest (ROI) selection and measurement methods were determined in five ways. These included a small ROI (ADC1) on the solid part of the lesion showing the most restriction; a large ROI (ADC2) on the solid part of the lesion showing restriction; ROI (ADC3) that covered the lesion in the cross-section with the largest diameter, which was obtained by placing ROIs (ADC4) covering the lesion on all sections of the lesion; three small ROIs (ADC5) on solid parts of the lesion showing the most restriction. Then, ADC measurements were made from the contralateral normal kidney parenchyma. Tumors were pathologically subdivided [71 clear cell RCCs (ccRCC), 17 chromophobe RCCs (chRCC), 11 papillary RCCs (pRCC)], and graded according to the ISUP nuclear grading system (42 high-grade, 57 low-grade). Data were analyzed statistically.

RESULTS

In all measurement methods, ADC values of RCCs were statistically significantly lower than normal kidney ADC values. There were no differences between the ADC3 and ADC4 measurements of RCCs (p = 0.999). There was a statistical difference in other measurement methods (p < 0.001). There were differences between ccRCCs and pRCCs and chRCCs in all measurement methods. In all measurement methods, pRCC and chRCC ADC values ​​were lower than ccRCC ADC values. When ISUP nuclear grading and ADC values ​​were compared, there was a statistically inverse correlation between all ADC measurements. The strongest correlation was found in the ADC1 and ADC5 measurements. When the ADC values ​​of ISUP low and high-grade groups were compared, a significant difference was found in the ADC5 measurement method (p = 0.046).

CONCLUSION

According to the findings of the study, ADC5 is the measurement method that shows the best correlation with the ISUP histologic grading system. Therefore, we think that ADC5 can be the primary measurement method for determining the ADC value of RCCs.

摘要

目的

确定在肾细胞癌(RCC)中最常使用的不同表观扩散系数(ADC)测量方法,并将其与国际泌尿病理学会(ISUP)组织学分级系统相关联。

方法

本研究纳入了 99 名接受扩散加权成像且病理诊断为 RCC 的患者。通过文献回顾,确定了 5 种方法的感兴趣区域(ROI)选择和测量方法。包括在显示最大限制的病变实性部分上选择小 ROI(ADC1);在显示限制的病变实性部分上选择大 ROI(ADC2);在横截面上覆盖最大直径的病变的 ROI(ADC3),通过在病变的所有节段上放置 ROI(ADC4)来获得;在显示最大限制的病变实性部分上选择 3 个小 ROI(ADC5)。然后,从对侧正常肾脏实质中进行 ADC 测量。肿瘤根据 ISUP 核分级系统进行病理细分[71 个透明细胞 RCC(ccRCC)、17 个嫌色细胞 RCC(chRCC)、11 个乳头状 RCC(pRCC)]和分级。对数据进行统计学分析。

结果

在所有测量方法中,RCC 的 ADC 值均显著低于正常肾脏 ADC 值。RCC 的 ADC3 和 ADC4 测量值之间没有差异(p=0.999)。其他测量方法之间存在统计学差异(p<0.001)。在所有测量方法中,ccRCC 与 pRCC 和 chRCC 之间存在差异。在所有测量方法中,pRCC 和 chRCC 的 ADC 值均低于 ccRCC 的 ADC 值。当比较 ISUP 核分级和 ADC 值时,所有 ADC 测量均呈统计学负相关。在 ADC1 和 ADC5 测量中发现最强的相关性。当比较 ISUP 低级别和高级别组的 ADC 值时,在 ADC5 测量方法中发现有显著差异(p=0.046)。

结论

根据研究结果,ADC5 与 ISUP 组织学分级系统的相关性最佳。因此,我们认为 ADC5 可以作为确定 RCCs ADC 值的主要测量方法。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验