Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
European Radiology
Erschienen in: European Radiology 2/2018

04.08.2017 | Urogenital

Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI?

verfasst von: Robert S. Lim, Trevor A. Flood, Matthew D. F. McInnes, Luke T. Lavallee, Nicola Schieda

Erschienen in: European Radiology | Ausgabe 2/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Renal angiomyolipomas without visible fat (AML.wovf) are benign masses that are incidentally discovered mainly in women. AML.wovf are typically homogeneously hyperdense on unenhanced CT without calcification or haemorrhage. Unenhanced CT pixel analysis is not useful for diagnosis. AML.wovf are characteristically homogeneously hypointense on T2-weighted (T2W)-MRI and apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps. Despite early reports, only a minority of AML.wovf show signal intensity drop on chemical-shift MRI due to microscopic fat. AML.wovf most commonly show avid early enhancement with washout kinetics at contrast-enhanced CT and MRI. The combination of homogeneously low T2W and/or ADC signal intensity with avid early enhancement and washout is highly accurate for diagnosis of AML.wovf.

Key Points

• AML.wovf are small incidental benign renal masses occurring mainly in women.
• AML.wovf are homogeneously hyperdense with low signal on T2W-MRI and ADC map.
• AML.wovf typically show avid early enhancement with washout kinetics.
• Combining features on CT/MRI is accurate for diagnosis of AML.wovf.
Literatur
1.
Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM et al (2010) Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol 7:754–773CrossRefPubMed
2.
3.
Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Weaver AL, Zincke H (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220CrossRefPubMed
4.
Fujii Y, Komai Y, Saito K et al (2008) Incidence of benign pathologic lesions at partial nephrectomy for presumed RCC renal masses: Japanese dual-center experience with 176 consecutive patients. Urology 72:598–602CrossRefPubMed
5.
Kutikov A, Fossett LK, Ramchandani P et al (2006) Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology 68:737–740CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
D'Angelo PC, Gash JR, Horn AW, Klein FA (2002) Fat in renal cell carcinoma that lacks associated calcifications. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:931–932CrossRefPubMed
8.
Garin JM, Marco I, Salva A, Serrano F, Bondia JM, Pacheco M (2007) CT and MRI in fat-containing papillary renal cell carcinoma. Br J Radiol 80:e193–195CrossRefPubMed
9.
Helenon O, Merran S, Paraf F et al (1997) Unusual fat-containing tumors of the kidney: a diagnostic dilemma. Radiographics 17:129–144CrossRefPubMed
10.
11.
Richmond L, Atri M, Sherman C, Sharir S (2010) Renal cell carcinoma containing macroscopic fat on CT mimics an angiomyolipoma due to bone metaplasia without macroscopic calcification. Br J Radiol 83:e179–181CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
Schuster TG, Ferguson MR, Baker DE, Schaldenbrand JD, Solomon MH (2004) Papillary renal cell carcinoma containing fat without calcification mimicking angiomyolipoma on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183:1402–1404CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Schieda N, Kielar AZ, Al Dandan O, McInnes MD, Flood TA (2014) Ten uncommon and unusual variants of renal angiomyolipoma (AML): radiologic-pathologic correlation. Clin Radiol. S0009-9260(14)00472-3 10.​1016/​j.​crad.​2014.​10.​001
15.
Schieda N (2016) Reply to ‘Solid Renal Cell Carcinomas With an Attenuation Similar to That of Water on Unenhanced CT’. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:W93CrossRefPubMed
16.
Jinzaki M, Silverman SG, Akita H, Nagashima Y, Mikami S, Oya M (2014) Renal angiomyolipoma: a radiological classification and update on recent developments in diagnosis and management. Abdom Imaging 39:588–604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Narimatsu Y et al (1997) Angiomyolipoma: imaging findings in lesions with minimal fat. Radiology 205:497–502CrossRefPubMed
18.
Milner J, McNeil B, Alioto J et al (2006) Fat poor renal angiomyolipoma: patient, computerized tomography and histological findings. J Urol 176:905–909CrossRefPubMed
19.
Hakim SW, Schieda N, Hodgdon T, McInnes MD, Dilauro M, Flood TA (2015) Angiomyolipoma (AML) without visible fat: Ultrasound CT and MR imaging features with pathological correlation. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-015-3851-8 PubMed
20.
Armah HB, Parwani AV (2009) Perivascular Epithelioid Cell Tumor. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:648–654PubMed
21.
Yang CW, Shen SH, Chang YH et al (2013) Are there useful CT features to differentiate renal cell carcinoma from lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma? AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:1017–1028CrossRefPubMed
22.
Pusiol T, Piscioli I, Morini A (2013) Discordance about the Use of the Term Minimal Fat Angiomyolipoma. Radiology 267:656–657CrossRefPubMed
23.
Jeong CJ, Park BK, Park JJ, Kim CK (2016) Unenhanced CT and MRI Parameters That Can Be Used to Reliably Predict Fat-Invisible Angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 206:340–347CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
26.
Silverman SG, Gan YU, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Cibas ES (2006) Renal Masses in the Adult Patient: The Role of Percutaneous Biopsy. Radiology 240:6–22CrossRefPubMed
27.
Caoili EM, Davenport MS (2014) Role of percutaneous needle biopsy for renal masses. Semin Interv Radiol 31:20–26CrossRef
28.
Flum AS, Hamoui N, Said MA et al (2016) Update on the Diagnosis and Management of Renal Angiomyolipoma. J Urol 195:834–846CrossRefPubMed
29.
Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249:16–31CrossRefPubMed
30.
Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, Greenberg RE, Chen DYT, Uzzo RG (2006) The Natural History of Observed Enhancing Renal Masses: Meta-Analysis and Review of the World Literature. J Urol 175:425–431CrossRefPubMed
31.
Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG (2008) Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma--a meta-analysis and review. J Urol 179:1227–1233, discussion 1233–1224CrossRefPubMed
32.
Jewett MA, Mattar K, Basiuk J et al (2011) Active surveillance of small renal masses: progression patterns of early stage kidney cancer. Eur Urol 60:39–44CrossRefPubMed
33.
Van Poppel H, Joniau S (2007) Is Surveillance an Option for the Treatment of Small Renal Masses? Eur Urol 52:1323–1330CrossRefPubMed
34.
Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A et al Guideline for Management of the Clinical T1 Renal Mass. The Journal of Urology 182:1271–1279
35.
Steiner MS, Goldman SM, Fishman EK, Marshall FF (1993) The natural history of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 150:1782–1786CrossRefPubMed
36.
Takahashi N, Leng S, Kitajima K et al (2015) Small (< 4 cm) Renal Masses: Differentiation of Angiomyolipoma Without Visible Fat From Renal Cell Carcinoma Using Unenhanced and Contrast-Enhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:1194–1202CrossRefPubMed
37.
Lane BR, Aydin H, Danforth TL et al (2008) Clinical correlates of renal angiomyolipoma subtypes in 209 patients: classic, fat poor, tuberous sclerosis associated and epithelioid. J Urol 180:836–843CrossRefPubMed
38.
Park SY, Jeon SS, Lee SY et al (2011) Incidence and predictive factors of benign renal lesions in Korean patients with preoperative imaging diagnoses of renal cell carcinoma. J Korean Med Sci 26:360–364CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
39.
Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM et al (2012) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiology 265:468–477CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
40.
Murray CA, Quon M, McInnes MD et al (2016) Evaluation of T1-Weighted MRI to Detect Intratumoral Hemorrhage Within Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma as a Feature Differentiating From Angiomyolipoma Without Visible Fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol 207:585–591CrossRefPubMed
41.
Umeoka S, Koyama T, Miki Y, Akai M, Tsutsui K, Togashi K (2008) Pictorial Review of Tuberous Sclerosis in Various Organs. RadioGraphics 28, e32CrossRefPubMed
42.
Crino PB, Nathanson KL, Henske EP (2006) The Tuberous Sclerosis Complex. N Engl J Med 355:1345–1356CrossRefPubMed
43.
Schieda N, Hodgdon T, El-Khodary M, Flood TA, McInnes MD (2014) Unenhanced CT for the diagnosis of minimal-fat renal angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:1236–1241CrossRefPubMed
44.
Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, Cho KS (2004) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology 230:677–684CrossRefPubMed
45.
Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SH, Kim SY (2013) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma: differentiation on MDCT using classification and regression tree analysis-based algorithm. Acta Radiol. doi:10.​1177/​0284185113513887​
46.
Zhang YY, Luo S, Liu Y, Xu RT (2013) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from papillary renal cell carcinoma by helical CT. Clin Radiol 68:365–370CrossRefPubMed
47.
Hafron J, Fogarty JD, Hoenig DM, Li M, Berkenblit R, Ghavamian R (2005) Imaging characteristics of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with histologic correlations. Urology 66:1155–1159CrossRefPubMed
48.
49.
Yan L, Liu Z, Wang G et al (2015) Angiomyolipoma with Minimal Fat: Differentiation From Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma by Texture Analysis on CT Images. Acad Radiol 22:1115–1121CrossRefPubMed
50.
Farrell C, Noyes SL, Tourojman M, Lane BR (2015) Renal Angiomyolipoma: Preoperative Identification of Atypical Fat-Poor AML. Curr Urol Rep 16:12CrossRefPubMed
51.
Verma SK, Mitchell DG, Yang R et al (2010) Exophytic renal masses: angular interface with renal parenchyma for distinguishing benign from malignant lesions at MR imaging. Radiology 255:501–507CrossRefPubMed
52.
Kim KH, Yun BH, Jung SI et al (2013) Usefulness of the ice-cream cone pattern in computed tomography for prediction of angiomyolipoma in patients with a small renal mass. Korean J Urol 54:504–509CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
53.
Kim JY, Kim JK, Kim N, Cho KS (2008) CT histogram analysis: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma at CT imaging. Radiology 246:472–479CrossRefPubMed
54.
Catalano OA, Samir AE, Sahani DV, Hahn PF (2008) Pixel distribution analysis: can it be used to distinguish clear cell carcinomas from angiomyolipomas with minimal fat? Radiology 247:738–746CrossRefPubMed
55.
Chaudhry HS, Davenport MS, Nieman CM, Ho LM, Neville AM (2012) Histogram analysis of small solid renal masses: differentiating minimal fat angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:377–383CrossRefPubMed
56.
Hodgdon T, McInnes MD, Schieda N, Flood TA, Lamb L, Thornhill RE (2015) Can Quantitative CT Texture Analysis be Used to Differentiate Fat-poor Renal Angiomyolipoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma on Unenhanced CT Images? Radiology. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2015142215:​142215 PubMed
57.
Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM et al (2007) Solid Renal Cortical Tumors: Differentiation with CT. Radiology 244:494–504CrossRefPubMed
58.
59.
Roy C, Sauer B, Lindner V, Lang H, Saussine C, Jacqmin D (2007) MR Imaging of papillary renal neoplasms: potential application for characterisation of small renal masses. Eur Radiol 17:193–200CrossRefPubMed
60.
Lee-Felker SA, Felker ER, Tan N et al (2014) Qualitative and quantitative MDCT features for differentiating clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other solid renal cortical masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W516–524CrossRefPubMed
61.
Cornelis F, Tricaud E, Lasserre AS et al (2014) Routinely performed multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging helps to differentiate common subtypes of renal tumours. Eur Radiol 24:1068–1080CrossRefPubMed
62.
Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M et al (2008) MR Imaging of Renal Masses: Correlation with Findings at Surgery and Pathologic Analysis. RadioGraphics 28:985–1003CrossRefPubMed
63.
Chung MS, Choi HJ, Kim MH, Cho KS (2014) Comparison of T2-weighted MRI with and without fat suppression for differentiating renal angiomyolipomas without visible fat from other renal tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol 202:765–771CrossRefPubMed
64.
Schieda N, Avruch L, Flood TA (2014) Small (<1 cm) incidental echogenic renal cortical nodules: chemical shift MRI outperforms CT for confirmatory diagnosis of angiomyolipoma (AML). Insights Imaging. doi:10.​1007/​s13244-014-0323-7 PubMedCentral
65.
Schieda N, Dilauro M, Moosavi B et al (2015) MRI evaluation of small (<4cm) solid renal masses: multivariate modeling improves diagnostic accuracy for angiomyolipoma without visible fat compared to univariate analysis. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-015-4039-y
66.
Sasiwimonphan K, Takahashi N, Leibovich BC, Carter RE, Atwell TD, Kawashima A (2012) Small (<4 cm) renal mass: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma utilizing MR imaging. Radiology 263:160–168CrossRefPubMed
67.
Oliva MR, Glickman JN, Zou KH et al (2009) Renal cell carcinoma: t1 and t2 signal intensity characteristics of papillary and clear cell types correlated with pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1524–1530CrossRefPubMed
68.
69.
Young JR, Margolis D, Sauk S, Pantuck AJ, Sayre J, Raman SS (2013) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT. Radiology 267:444–453CrossRefPubMed
70.
Amin MB, Corless CL, Renshaw AA, Tickoo SK, Kubus J, Schultz DS (1997) Papillary (chromophil) renal cell carcinoma: histomorphologic characteristics and evaluation of conventional pathologic prognostic parameters in 62 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 21:621–635CrossRefPubMed
71.
Yoshimitsu K, Kakihara D, Irie H et al (2006) Papillary renal carcinoma: diagnostic approach by chemical shift gradient-echo and echo-planar MR imaging. J Magn Reson Imaging 23:339–344CrossRefPubMed
72.
Childs DD, Clingan MJ, Zagoria RJ et al (2014) In-phase signal intensity loss in solid renal masses on dual-echo gradient-echo MRI: association with malignancy and pathologic classification. AJR Am J Roentgenol 203:W421–428CrossRefPubMed
73.
Kim JK, Kim SH, Jang YJ et al (2006) Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from other neoplasms at double-echo chemical shift FLASH MR imaging. Radiology 239:174–180CrossRefPubMed
74.
Outwater EK, Bhatia M, Siegelman ES, Burke MA, Mitchell DG (1997) Lipid in renal clear cell carcinoma: detection on opposed-phase gradient-echo MR images. Radiology 205:103–107CrossRefPubMed
75.
Karlo CA, Donati OF, Burger IA et al (2013) MR imaging of renal cortical tumours: qualitative and quantitative chemical shift imaging parameters. Eur Radiol 23:1738–1744CrossRefPubMed
76.
Jhaveri KS, Elmi A, Hosseini-Nik H et al (2015) Predictive Value of Chemical-Shift MRI in Distinguishing Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma From Non-Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma and Minimal-Fat Angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:W79–86CrossRefPubMed
77.
Schieda N, van der Pol CB, Moosavi B, McInnes MD, Mai KT, Flood TA (2015) Intracellular lipid in papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC): T2 weighted (T2W) MRI and pathologic correlation. Eur Radiol. doi:10.​1007/​s00330-015-3610-x
78.
Ferre R, Cornelis F, Verkarre V et al (2014) Double-echo gradient chemical shift MR imaging fails to differentiate minimal fat renal angiomyolipomas from other homogeneous solid renal tumors. Eur J Radiol. S0720-048X(14)00568-3 10.​1016/​j.​ejrad.​2014.​11.​040
79.
Agnello F, Roy C, Bazille G et al (2013) Small solid renal masses: characterisation by diffusion-weighted MRI at 3 T. Clin Radiol 68:e301–308CrossRefPubMed
80.
Sandrasegaran K, Sundaram CP, Ramaswamy R et al (2010) Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 194:438–445CrossRefPubMed
81.
Squillaci E, Manenti G, Di Stefano F, Miano R, Strigari L, Simonetti G (2004) Diffusion-weighted MR imaging in the evaluation of renal tumours. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 23:39–45PubMed
82.
Lassel EA, Rao R, Schwenke C, Schoenberg SO, Michaely HJ (2014) Diffusion-weighted imaging of focal renal lesions: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 24:241–249CrossRefPubMed
83.
Connolly MJMM, McGrath T, Schieda N (2016) Diagnostic Accuracy of Virtual Non-Contrast Enhanced Dual-Energy CT for Diagnosis of Adrenal Adenoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-AnalysisRadiological Society of North America. RSNA, Chicago Il USA
84.
Park JJ, Kim CK (2016) Small (< 4 cm) Renal Tumors With Predominantly Low Signal Intensity on T2-Weighted Images: Differentiation of Minimal-Fat Angiomyolipoma From Renal Cell Carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. doi:10.​2214/​AJR.​16.​16102:​1-7
85.
Villavicencio CP VC, Lewis V, McCarthy R, Oberlin DT, Casalino DD, Miller FH. (2016) Can MR Differentiate Subtypes of Renal Cell Carcinoma and Distinguish Subtypes from Oncocytoma or Angiomyolipoma: Multiparametric Feature Analysis. In: RSNA, (ed) Radiological Society of North America, Chicago Il, USA
86.
87.
Marin D, Davis D, Roy Choudhury K et al (2017) Characterisation of Small Focal Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Accuracy with Single-Phase Contrast-enhanced Dual-Energy CT with Material Attenuation Analysis Compared with Conventional Attenuation Measurements. Radiology. doi:10.​1148/​radiol.​2017161872:​161872 PubMedCentral
88.
Mileto A, Nelson RC, Marin D, Roy Choudhury K, Ho LM (2015) Dual-energy multidetector CT for the characterisation of incidental adrenal nodules: diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced material density analysis. Radiology 274:445–454CrossRefPubMed
89.
Metadaten
Titel
Renal angiomyolipoma without visible fat: Can we make the diagnosis using CT and MRI?
verfasst von
Robert S. Lim
Trevor A. Flood
Matthew D. F. McInnes
Luke T. Lavallee
Nicola Schieda
Publikationsdatum
04.08.2017
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
European Radiology / Ausgabe 2/2018
Print ISSN: 0938-7994
Elektronische ISSN: 1432-1084
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-017-4988-4

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2018

European Radiology 2/2018 Zur Ausgabe

Cardiac

Accurate late gadolinium enhancement prediction by early T1- based quantitative synthetic mapping

Gastrointestinal

Optimisation of the MR protocol in pregnant women with suspected acute appendicitis

Emergency Radiology

How to differentiate acute pelvic inflammatory disease from acute appendicitis ? A decision tree based on CT findings

Oncology

Prostate cancer detection among readers with different degree of experience using ultra-high b-value diffusion-weighted Imaging: Is a non-contrast protocol sufficient to detect significant cancer?

Breast

Diagnostic value of the stand-alone synthetic image in digital breast tomosynthesis examinations

Cardiac

Coronary CT angiography characteristics of OCT-defined thin-cap fibroatheroma: a section-to-section comparison study

Neu im Fachgebiet Radiologie

23.04.2024 | Pankreaskarzinom | Nachrichten

S3-Leitlinie zu Pankreaskrebs aktualisiert

18.04.2024 | Pädiatrische Notfallmedizin | Nachrichten

Fünf Dinge, die im Kindernotfall besser zu unterlassen sind

13.04.2024 | Klinik aktuell | Kongressbericht | Nachrichten

„Nur wer sich gut aufgehoben fühlt, kann auch für Patientensicherheit sorgen“

08.04.2024 | Andrologie | Nachrichten

Wie toxische Männlichkeit der Gesundheit von Männern schadet
weitere anzeigen

Update Radiologie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen