MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma:imaging findings in 15 patients

Wei LIU,Ya-wen LU,Xiao-hang LIU,Hong-bo GAO,Wei TANG,Liang-ping ZHOU
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1672-8467.2018.03.013
2018-01-01
Abstract:Objective To analyze the imaging findings in MiT family translocation renal cell carcinoma (RCC) for the better understanding on the rare tumor combined with its clinicopathological features.Methods Fifteen patients with MiT family translocation RCC were analyzed retrospectively including 14 cases of Xp11.2 RCC and 1 case of t(6;11) RCC.Tumor location,size,capsule sign,hemorrhage,cystic change,calcification,density,signal features and enhancement pattern were evaluated.Results Four men and ten women aged from 14 to 42 years old (mean age of 26 years old) were diagnosed as Xp1 1.2 RCC.Most of the tumors (n =12) were located in renal medulla and most of the tumors (n =11) were 4 cm or more in diameter.There were 8 cases with hemorrhage.They were always well-defined (n =11) and all heterogeneous.Additionally,we could find calcification (a half of the number) typically distributed on CT.The tumor density was grater on plain CT (n =8) and the signal intensive was slightly high on T1WI (n-6) and low or slightly low on T2WI (n =9) than renal cortex.All of the cases were slightly or moderately persistent enhancement on DCE CT and MRI.The imaging features of the male patient with t(6;11)RCC was similar with Xp11.2 RCC apart from the diameter of 16 cm.Conclusions MiT family translocation RCC should be considered when a young patient presents with a relatively huge and well-defined renal tumor with an obviously heterogeneous features,annular calcification and persistent enhancement.It is difficult to distinguish Xp11.2 RCC and t(6,11) RCC,but size maybe play a hinting role in discriminate them.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?