Histogram analysis of small solid renal masses: differentiating minimal fat angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to retrospectively determine whether minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma can be differentiated from clear cell or papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in small renal masses using attenuation measurement histogram analysis on unenhanced CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas were compared with 22 clear cell RCCs and 23 papillary RCCs using an institutional database. All masses were histologically confirmed and all minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas lacked radiographic evidence of macroscopic fat. Using attenuation measurement histogram analysis, two blinded radiologists determined the percentage of negative pixels within each renal mass. The percentages of negative pixels below attenuation thresholds of 0, -5, -10, -15, -20, -25, and -30 HU were recorded. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and receiver operator characteristic curves for the diagnosis of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma were generated for each threshold. The Student t test was used to compare radiologists and cohorts. Previously published attenuation and pixel-counting thresholds reported as having a specificity of near 100% for discriminating between minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas and RCCs were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean maximal transverse lesion diameter was 1.8 cm for minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas (SD, 0.5 cm; range, 1.1-3.0 cm), 2.1 cm for clear cell RCCs (SD, 0.5 cm; range, 1.0-2.9 cm), and 2.1 cm for papillary RCCs (SD, 0.7 cm; range, 1.3-3.9 cm). No significant difference in the percentage of negative pixels was found between minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas and clear cell RCCs or between minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas and papillary RCCs at any of the selected attenuation thresholds for either radiologist (p = 0.210-0.499). Radiologist 1 and radiologist 2 used significantly different region-of-interest sizes (p < 0.001), but neither radiologist could differentiate minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma from RCC. No previously published threshold allowed discrimination between minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma and RCC with 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: Attenuation measurement histogram analysis cannot reliably differentiate minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma from RCC.

Diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma with hounsfield unit thresholds: effect of size of region of interest and nephrographic phase imaging.

PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the optimal Hounsfield unit threshold and region of interest (ROI) size required to accurately diagnose renal angiomyolipoma (AML) and differentiate it from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant, and the requirement for written informed patient consent was waived. The radiologic reports on 4502 dual-phase abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations (nonenhanced and nephrographic phases, 5-mm collimation, 120-140 kVp, variable milliampere-second settings) performed in 2872 patients from June 2002 through October 2007 were reviewed. Solid-component masses reported as suspicious for RCC or AML were correlated with histologic and/or follow-up imaging findings. ROIs of three different sizes-tiny (8-13 mm(2)), small (19-24 mm(2)), and medium (30-35 mm(2))-were drawn in the lowest-attenuation focus on images obtained during both phases. The test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false-positive rate, false-negative rate) of multiple attenuation thresholds at each combination of ROI size and contrast enhancement phase were calculated, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were derived. Areas under the ROC curve were calculated. RESULTS: There were 217 RCCs and 65 AMLs. With an attenuation threshold of -10 HU or lower at nonenhanced CT, RCC would be misdiagnosed as AML in 11 (5.1%) cases, one (0.5%) case, and one (0.5%) case with use of the tiny, small, and medium ROIs, respectively. With use of the tiny, small, and medium ROIs, misdiagnosis rates would be 2.3%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively, at a threshold of -15 HU or lower and 1.8%, 0%, and 0%, respectively, at a threshold of -20 HU or lower. Areas under the ROC curve for the nonenhanced phase images (range, 0.874-0.889) were superior to those for the nephrographic phase images (range, 0.790-0.826). CONCLUSION: Nonenhanced CT images were superior to nephrographic phase CT images for the diagnosis of AML. An attenuation threshold of -10 HU or lower with an ROI of at least 19-24 mm(2) is optimal for the diagnosis of AML. This threshold is not accurate with use of smaller (8-13-mm(2)) ROIs.