Abstract:OBJECTIVE:To explore the value of diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) and perfusion weighted imaging (PWI) in identifying benign and malignant renal masses and differentiating the histological types of renal masses. METHODS:Fifteen healthy volunteers and 46 patients with renal masses proven by pathology, including clear cell carcinomas (n = 18), papillary carcinomas (n = 8), chromophobe carcinomas (n = 7) and angiomyolipomas (n = 13), were examined with DWI and PWI scan at 3.0 T MRI. ANOVA was employed to compare the values of transfer constant (K(trans)), rate constant of backflux (Kep) and extra-vascular extra-cellular space fractional volume (Ve) proceeded by PWI and the value of ADC resulted from DWI between normal kidney and different histological types of renal masses. Receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve was used to analyze and compare the diagnostic value of the methods of PWI and DWI in differentiating benign and malignant renal masses. RESULTS:The ADC value of normal renal parenchyma was (2.10 ± 0.24) × 10⁻³ mm²/s, which was statistically higher than benign and malignant renal masses (P < 0.05). The ADC value of benign masses was statistically higher than that of all histological types of malignant masses (P < 0.05). Among three histological types of malignancies, clear cell carcinoma showed the statistically highest ADC value (P < 0.05). But the difference between papillary carcinoma and chromophobe carcinoma had no statistical significance (P > 0.05).Values of K(trans), Kep and Ve between normal renal parenchyma and different histological types of renal masses had statistical differences.Values of K(trans) and Ve in three histological types of malignant renal masses were statistically higher than those of benign renal masses.Kep value of clear cell carcinoma was significantly higher than that of benign renal masses (P < 0.05).However, other histological types of malignant masses had no significant difference with benign masses.For three malignant masses, K(trans) of clear cell carcinoma, papillary carcinoma and chromophobe carcinoma were (0.85 ± 0.27), (0.51 ± 0.04) and (0.39 ± 0.05)/min respectively. All values gradually reduced. And the differences were statistically significant (P < 0.05). The Ve value of renal clear cell carcinoma was statistically higher than that of papillary carcinoma (P < 0.05). ROC curve was used to analyze and compare the diagnostic value of PWI versus DWI in differentiating benign and malignant renal masses. The K(trans) of benign and malignant renal masses had the largest AUC (AUC = 0.937) at a threshold of 0.38/min. And there were a sensitivity of 87.9% and a specificity of 85.7%. The AUC of ADC was 0.823, sensitivity 72.7% and specificity 92.9%. The ADC threshold for differentiating benign from malignant masses was 1.40 × 10⁻³ mm²/s; AUC of Ve 0.803, sensitivity 78.8% and specificity 71.4%, a threshold of 0.29/min; Kep showed lower diagnostic value. CONCLUSION:3.0 T MRI DWI and PWI can effectively differentiate benign and different histological types of malignant renal masses. And PWI is superior to DWI in differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.K(trans) with the largest AUC showed the highest diagnostic value. And ADC is also irreplaceable in providing the information of cellular structural features and the movement of water diffusion.

Quality Assessment of Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Normal Breast: Intraindividual Comparison of 3.0 T and 1.5 T MRI

Comparison of Diffusion Weighted Images Using Different Fat Suppression Sequences at 3.0 T MRI of the Breast

Comparison of reduced field‐of‐view diffusion‐weighted imaging (DWI) and conventional DWI techniques in the assessment of rectal carcinoma at 3.0T: Image quality and histological T staging

Comparative Study of Diffusion-weighted Imaging of the Normal Liver Parenchyma at 3.0 Tesla and 1.5 Tesla MRI

Application of 3.0T-MRI DWI in evaluating the efficacy of synchronous radiotherapy and chemotherapy for advanced lung cancer

Application of quantitative evaluation of computed diffusion-weighted imaging using 3-T magnetic reso-nance imaging for breast cancer

Diagnostic Value of Diffusion Weighted Imaging for Breast Lesions at 3.0T MR

Value of Diffusion-weighted Imaging with Different b Values in the Diagnosis of Breast Lesions at 3.0T MRI

Optimizing Image Quality with High-Resolution, Deep-Learning-Based Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Breast Cancer Patients at 1.5 T

Differential Diagnostic Value of Diffusion Weighted Imaging at 3.0 T of Benign and Malignancy Breast Lesions

Clinical image quality evaluation of diffusion-weighted MR imaging of the brain of different medical MRI equipment

[Diffusion Weighted Imaging and Perfusion Weighted Imaging in the Differential Diagnosis of Benign and Malignant Renal Masses on 3.0 T MRI].

Higher Field Reduced FOV Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Abdominal Imaging at 5.0 Tesla: Image Quality Evaluation Compared with 3.0 Tesla.

Diffusion-weighted Imaging: Effects of Intravascular Contrast Agents on Apparent Diffusion Coefficient Measures of Breast Malignancies at 3 Tesla.

Comparison of 1.5T and 3.0T diffusion-weighted imaging in the application of the complex adnexal masses in female patients

The Value of MR-DWI in Differential Diagnosis of Non-Lactating Inflammatory Breast Diseases and Non-Mass Enhanced Breast Cancer

Evaluations of the Diagnostic Performance of ZOOMit Diffusion-Weighted Imaging and Conventional Diffusion-Weighted Imaging for Breast Lesions

Value of Diffusion Weighted Imaging on the Diagnosis and Differential Diagnosis of Breast Diseases

Large field diffusion weighted imaging on 3. 0T MR: Initial study

Preliminary Experience of 5.0 T Higher Field Abdominal Diffusion-Weighted MRI: Agreement of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient With 3.0 T Imaging

MR Diffusion Weighted Imaging with Background Signal Suppression in Breast Cancer