Quantitative differentiation of minimal-fat angiomyolipomas from renal cell carcinomas using grating-based x-ray phase-contrast computed tomography: An ex vivo study.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
04
12
2022
accepted:
03
04
2023
medline:
18
4
2023
entrez:
14
4
2023
pubmed:
15
4
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The differentiation of minimal-fat-or low-fat-angiomyolipomas from other renal lesions is clinically challenging in conventional computed tomography. In this work, we have assessed the potential of grating-based x-ray phase-contrast computed tomography (GBPC-CT) for visualization and quantitative differentiation of minimal-fat angiomyolipomas (mfAMLs) and oncocytomas from renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) on ex vivo renal samples. Laboratory GBPC-CT was performed at 40 kVp on 28 ex vivo kidney specimens including five angiomyolipomas with three minimal-fat (mfAMLs) and two high-fat (hfAMLs) subtypes as well as three oncocytomas and 20 RCCs with eight clear cell (ccRCCs), seven papillary (pRCCs) and five chromophobe RCC (chrRCC) subtypes. Quantitative values of conventional Hounsfield units (HU) and phase-contrast Hounsfield units (HUp) were determined and histogram analysis was performed on GBPC-CT and grating-based attenuation-contrast computed tomography (GBAC-CT) slices for each specimen. For comparison, the same specimens were imaged at a 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner. We have successfully matched GBPC-CT images with clinical MRI and histology, as GBPC-CT presented with increased soft tissue contrast compared to absorption-based images. GBPC-CT images revealed a qualitative and quantitative difference between mfAML samples (58±4 HUp) and oncocytomas (44±10 HUp, p = 0.057) and RCCs (ccRCCs: 40±12 HUp, p = 0.012; pRCCs: 43±9 HUp, p = 0.017; chrRCCs: 40±7 HUp, p = 0.057) in contrast to corresponding laboratory attenuation-contrast CT and clinical MRI, although not all differences were statistically significant. Due to the heterogeneity and lower signal of oncocytomas, quantitative differentiation of the samples based on HUp or in combination with HUs was not possible. GBPC-CT allows quantitative differentiation of minimal-fat angiomyolipomas from pRCCs and ccRCCs in contrast to absorption-based imaging and clinical MRI.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
The differentiation of minimal-fat-or low-fat-angiomyolipomas from other renal lesions is clinically challenging in conventional computed tomography. In this work, we have assessed the potential of grating-based x-ray phase-contrast computed tomography (GBPC-CT) for visualization and quantitative differentiation of minimal-fat angiomyolipomas (mfAMLs) and oncocytomas from renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) on ex vivo renal samples.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Laboratory GBPC-CT was performed at 40 kVp on 28 ex vivo kidney specimens including five angiomyolipomas with three minimal-fat (mfAMLs) and two high-fat (hfAMLs) subtypes as well as three oncocytomas and 20 RCCs with eight clear cell (ccRCCs), seven papillary (pRCCs) and five chromophobe RCC (chrRCC) subtypes. Quantitative values of conventional Hounsfield units (HU) and phase-contrast Hounsfield units (HUp) were determined and histogram analysis was performed on GBPC-CT and grating-based attenuation-contrast computed tomography (GBAC-CT) slices for each specimen. For comparison, the same specimens were imaged at a 3T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanner.
RESULTS
We have successfully matched GBPC-CT images with clinical MRI and histology, as GBPC-CT presented with increased soft tissue contrast compared to absorption-based images. GBPC-CT images revealed a qualitative and quantitative difference between mfAML samples (58±4 HUp) and oncocytomas (44±10 HUp, p = 0.057) and RCCs (ccRCCs: 40±12 HUp, p = 0.012; pRCCs: 43±9 HUp, p = 0.017; chrRCCs: 40±7 HUp, p = 0.057) in contrast to corresponding laboratory attenuation-contrast CT and clinical MRI, although not all differences were statistically significant. Due to the heterogeneity and lower signal of oncocytomas, quantitative differentiation of the samples based on HUp or in combination with HUs was not possible.
CONCLUSIONS
GBPC-CT allows quantitative differentiation of minimal-fat angiomyolipomas from pRCCs and ccRCCs in contrast to absorption-based imaging and clinical MRI.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37058505
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279323
pii: PONE-D-22-31191
pmc: PMC10104346
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0279323Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Birnbacher et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
Eur Urol. 2009 Oct;56(4):636-43
pubmed: 19595500
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Nov;203(5):W516-24
pubmed: 25341166
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Feb;198(2):377-83
pubmed: 22268181
Radiology. 1997 Nov;205(2):497-502
pubmed: 9356635
Radiol Clin North Am. 2017 Mar;55(2):243-258
pubmed: 28126214
Radiology. 2008 Jun;247(3):738-46
pubmed: 18413886
Sci Rep. 2017 Mar 31;7:45400
pubmed: 28361951
Radiology. 2014 Sep;272(3):739-48
pubmed: 24814175
Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1994 Jul;118(7):732-4
pubmed: 8024410
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jan;208(1):124-130
pubmed: 27824487
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Nov;205(5):999-1007
pubmed: 26496547
Radiology. 2014 Jun;271(3):870-8
pubmed: 24588675
Clin Radiol. 2013 Apr;68(4):365-70
pubmed: 23321146
Sci Rep. 2016 Apr 04;6:24022
pubmed: 27040492
Eur Radiol. 2013 Feb;23(2):381-7
pubmed: 22932738
J Endourol. 2017 Apr;31(4):412-417
pubmed: 28068796
Br J Radiol. 1986 Dec;59(708):1209-18
pubmed: 3801800
Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):472-9
pubmed: 18094264
Invest Radiol. 2015 Oct;50(10):686-94
pubmed: 26002622
Opt Express. 2013 Feb 25;21(4):4155-66
pubmed: 23481949
Curr Urol Rep. 2015 Mar;16(3):12
pubmed: 25677233
Cancer Imaging. 2021 Jul 5;21(1):47
pubmed: 34225784
Z Med Phys. 2013 Sep;23(3):212-21
pubmed: 23489931
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2015 Dec;205(6):1215-21
pubmed: 26587928
BJU Int. 2012 Nov;110(10):1444-8
pubmed: 22520366
Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2017 Feb;38(1):37-46
pubmed: 28237279
Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):494-504
pubmed: 17641370
Nat Mater. 2008 Feb;7(2):134-7
pubmed: 18204454
Clin Radiol. 2009 May;64(5):517-22
pubmed: 19348848
Phys Med Biol. 2014 Apr 7;59(7):1557-71
pubmed: 24614413
Phys Med Biol. 2013 Jan 7;58(1):R1-35
pubmed: 23220766
Radiology. 2013 May;267(2):444-53
pubmed: 23382290
PLoS One. 2019 Jan 9;14(1):e0210291
pubmed: 30625220
Eur Radiol. 2016 Feb;26(2):592-600
pubmed: 26032880
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017 May;42(5):1485-1492
pubmed: 28025654
Radiology. 2012 Nov;265(2):468-77
pubmed: 23012463
World J Urol. 2011 Dec;29(6):787-92
pubmed: 20717829
Dan Med J. 2014 Oct;61(10):A4932
pubmed: 25283622
Opt Express. 2018 Jun 11;26(12):15153-15166
pubmed: 30114766
Sci Rep. 2017 Feb 27;7:42847
pubmed: 28240235
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Nov;201(5):1017-28
pubmed: 24147472
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 20;98(18):1331-4
pubmed: 16985252
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Oct;209(4):W221-W230
pubmed: 28705069
Invest Radiol. 2010 Jul;45(7):445-52
pubmed: 20498610
Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):677-84
pubmed: 14990834
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2022 Feb 22;119(8):
pubmed: 35131900
Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021 Dec;48(13):4171-4188
pubmed: 33846846