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.

Diagnostic Value of Whole-Body DWI with Background Body Suppression Plus Calculation of Apparent Diffusion Coefficient at 3 T Versus 18F-FDG PET/CT for Detection of Bone Metastases

Limited role of DWI with apparent diffusion coefficient mapping in breast lesions presenting as non-mass enhancement on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI

Diagnostic Efficacy of Whole-Body Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in the Detection of Tumour Recurrence and Metastasis by Comparison with 18F-2-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose Positron Emission Tomography or Computed Tomography in Patients with Gastrointestinal Cancer

Feasibility of Whole Body Diffusion Weighted Imaging in Detecting Bone Metastasis on 3.0T MR Scanner.

The Clinical Value of Whole-Body MR Imaging Combined with Whole Body Diffusion-Weighted Imaging with Background Body Signal Suppression (dwibs)for Detecting Metastasis Lesions: Compared with 18F-FDG SPECT-PET/CT

Diagnostic capability of whole-body diffusion-weighted imaging in malignant tumors compared with positron emission tomography CT

Detection of bone metastases through diffusion-weighted whole-body imaging with background body signal suppression (DWIBS) compared with PET/CT 18F-NaF.

Clinical Value of Whole-body Magnetic Resonance Diffusion Weighted Imaging on Detection of Malignant Metastases

The Application Value of Whole Body Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in Tumor Lesions

Preliminary Clinical Study of Whole Body Diffuslon-Weighted Imaging in Diagnosis of Bone Metastases

DIAGNOSTIC VALUE OF WHOLE BODY DIFFUSION WEIGHTED IMAGING FOR SCREENING PRIMARY TUMORS OF PATIENTS WITH METASTASES

Role of apparent diffusion coefficients with diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging in differentiating between benign and malignant bone tumors

Preliminary Application of Whole Body MR Diffusion-weighted Imaging in Tumors

2-[Fluorine-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-d-glucose positron emission tomography/computed tomography versus whole-body diffusion-weighted MRI for detection of malignant lesions: initial experience

Clinical Application Study on Malignant Metastatic Diseases Between DWIBS and PET/CT

Diagnostic value of diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging (DWI) compared to FDG PET/CT for whole-body breast cancer staging

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

A control study between DWIBS and bone scintigraphy mapping in the diagnosis of bone metastatic diseases

Application value of diffusion weighted whole body imaging with background body signal suppression in monitoring the response to treatment of bone marrow involvement in lymphoma

Evaluation of Three Imaging Methods to Quantify Key Events in Pelvic Bone Metastasis

[The Role of Whole Body DWI in the Evaluation of Bone Disease in Multiple Myeloma].