Computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging characteristics of renal cell carcinoma: Differences between subtypes and clinical evaluation.

Ahmet Baytok, G��khan Ecer, Mehmet Balasar, Mustafa Koplay
Author Information
  1. Ahmet Baytok: Department of Radiology, Karap��nar State Hospital, Konya, Turkey. ORCID
  2. G��khan Ecer: Department of Urology, Karap��nar State Hospital, Konya, Turkey. ORCID
  3. Mehmet Balasar: Department of Urology, Necmettin Erbakan University, School of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Konya, Turkey. ORCID
  4. Mustafa Koplay: Department of Radiology, Selcuk University, School of Medicine, Medical Faculty, Konya, Turkey. ORCID

Abstract

This review discusses the evaluation of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes using computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). RCC is a malignancy with different histopathological subtypes, constituting approximately 90% of adult kidney tumors. It has been reported that these subtypes show significant differences in terms of clinical behavior, treatment response, and prognosis. In the study, CT and MRI findings of subtypes such as clear cell RCC (ccRCC), papillary RCC (pRCC), chromophobe RCC (chRCC), medullary RCC (mRCC), collecting duct RCC (cdRCC), and multiloculated cystic RCC (mcRCC) were compared. It was stated that CT is the first-choice imaging method in the staging and surgical planning of RCC and provides detailed information about the tumor size, vascularity, and metastatic spread. On the other hand, it has been emphasized that MRI allows better characterization of RCC subtypes with its soft-tissue resolution and contrast agent usage advantage. The study draws attention to the different imaging features of each subtype and details the role of these findings in the clinical decision-making process. It has been stated that ccRCC exhibits intense contrast enhancement and rapid washout pattern in the corticomedullary phase on CT and appears hyperintense on T2A and hypointense on T1 weighted imaging (T1A) on MRI. It has been stated that pRCC has hypovascular features, has lower contrast enhancement, and has homogeneous borders. It has been stated that chRCC has a less vascular structure and exhibits moderate contrast enhancement in the corticomedullary phase. It has been reported that mRCC has invasive features and is usually diagnosed at an advanced stage while cdRCC has a very aggressive clinical course. It has been stated that mcRCC contains distinct cystic areas between the septa, has a well-circumscribed structure, and generally has a low malignancy potential. As a result, it has been stated that detailed evaluation of CT and MRI findings of RCC subtypes plays a critical role in the diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of these subtypes. It has been emphasized that the findings presented in this study will contribute to the development of more targeted treatment approaches in RCC management.

Keywords

References

  1. Eur Urol. 2011 Jan;59(1):135-41 [PMID: 21035250]
  2. Front Oncol. 2022 Oct 04;12:970199 [PMID: 36267983]
  3. Eur Urol Oncol. 2024 Jul 15;: [PMID: 39013742]
  4. Eur Urol. 2022 Oct;82(4):399-410 [PMID: 35346519]
  5. Urology. 2002 Dec;60(6):941-6 [PMID: 12475646]
  6. Urol Clin North Am. 2012 May;39(2):161-70, vi [PMID: 22487759]
  7. BMC Urol. 2021 Apr 22;21(1):67 [PMID: 33888122]
  8. Oncol Lett. 2016 Mar;11(3):2327-2331 [PMID: 26998171]
  9. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2008 Apr;134(4):433-7 [PMID: 17846788]
  10. Eur Radiol. 2021 Jan;31(1):314-324 [PMID: 32770377]
  11. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015 Sep-Oct;39(5):730-6 [PMID: 25955396]
  12. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 Jan;208(1):124-130 [PMID: 27824487]
  13. Radiology. 2018 May;287(2):543-553 [PMID: 29390196]
  14. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Dec;211(6):1234-1245 [PMID: 30240294]
  15. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Aug;201(2):347-55 [PMID: 23883215]
  16. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012 Jan;198(1):W20-6 [PMID: 22194510]
  17. Radiology. 2009 Mar;250(3):793-802 [PMID: 19244046]
  18. J Urol. 2012 Jan;187(1):54-9 [PMID: 22088335]
  19. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009 Jun;192(6):1524-30 [PMID: 19457814]
  20. Acta Radiol. 2013 Dec;54(10):1201-9 [PMID: 23864062]
  21. Cancers (Basel). 2023 Feb 22;15(5): [PMID: 36900194]
  22. Am J Surg Pathol. 2011 Jul;35(7):962-70 [PMID: 21602658]
  23. N Engl J Med. 2016 Jan 14;374(2):135-45 [PMID: 26536169]
  24. Chin Med J (Engl). 2015 Jan 20;128(2):175-9 [PMID: 25591558]
  25. Am J Surg Pathol. 2003 May;27(5):612-24 [PMID: 12717246]
  26. Diagn Interv Radiol. 2023 Jan 27;29(2):205-211 [PMID: 36960636]
  27. Radiology. 2008 Feb;246(2):472-9 [PMID: 18094264]
  28. Mod Pathol. 1997 Jun;10(6):537-44 [PMID: 9195569]
  29. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2022 Nov;219(5):793-803 [PMID: 35642765]
  30. Radiographics. 2017 Nov-Dec;37(7):2026-2042 [PMID: 29131770]
  31. Cancer Genet Cytogenet. 2010 Jun;199(2):128-33 [PMID: 20471516]
  32. Lancet. 2009 Mar 28;373(9669):1119-32 [PMID: 19269025]
  33. Cancer Imaging. 2021 Jul 5;21(1):47 [PMID: 34225784]
  34. World J Surg Oncol. 2024 Jun 1;22(1):145 [PMID: 38822338]
  35. Cancer. 2009 May 15;115(10 Suppl):2334-45 [PMID: 19402070]
  36. Urol Oncol. 2019 Dec;37(12):941-946 [PMID: 31540830]
  37. Oncol Lett. 2014 Feb;7(2):519-524 [PMID: 24396480]
  38. Radiology. 2007 Aug;244(2):494-504 [PMID: 17641370]
  39. Cancer Imaging. 2021 Sep 7;21(1):52 [PMID: 34493335]
  40. Am J Clin Pathol. 2006 Feb;125(2):217-22 [PMID: 16393684]
  41. Urol Oncol. 2017 Nov;35(11):661.e7-661.e14 [PMID: 28728748]
  42. Urol Oncol. 2021 Dec;39(12):837.e19-837.e28 [PMID: 34654644]
  43. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012 Sep;36(9):1265-78 [PMID: 22895263]
  44. Mod Pathol. 2022 Jun;35(6):825-835 [PMID: 34949764]
  45. Radiographics. 2006 Nov-Dec;26(6):1795-806; discussion 1806-10 [PMID: 17102051]
  46. J Urol. 2017 Oct;198(4):780-786 [PMID: 28457802]
  47. Radiology. 2012 Nov;265(2):468-77 [PMID: 23012463]
  48. BMC Urol. 2024 Sep 2;24(1):189 [PMID: 39218886]
  49. J Kidney Cancer VHL. 2017 Mar 21;4(1):1-7 [PMID: 28405543]
  50. Urology. 2002 Dec;60(6):1083-9 [PMID: 12475675]
  51. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Sep;207(3):585-91 [PMID: 27275530]
  52. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2016 Feb;14(1):e25-36 [PMID: 26422014]
  53. Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Feb 15;15(4):1162-9 [PMID: 19228721]
  54. Cureus. 2021 Feb 8;13(2):e13231 [PMID: 33728180]
  55. J Clin Pathol. 2014 Feb;67(2):97-104 [PMID: 24170213]
  56. Radiology. 2004 Mar;230(3):677-84 [PMID: 14990834]
  57. Am J Surg Pathol. 2002 Mar;26(3):281-91 [PMID: 11859199]
  58. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016 Feb;206(2):340-7 [PMID: 26797361]
  59. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2010 Dec;195(6):W421-7 [PMID: 21098174]
  60. Eur Radiol. 2014 May;24(5):1068-80 [PMID: 24557052]
  61. Eur Urol. 2016 Jul;70(1):106-119 [PMID: 26996659]
  62. Eur Radiol. 2018 May;28(5):1854-1861 [PMID: 29178029]
  63. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jul;185(1):268-72 [PMID: 15972435]
  64. Abdom Imaging. 2014 Jun;39(3):588-604 [PMID: 24504542]
  65. Radiol Bras. 2015 May-Jun;48(3):166-74 [PMID: 26185343]
  66. Clin Radiol. 2013 Oct;68(10):1002-7 [PMID: 23726725]
  67. Eur Urol. 2007 Oct;52(4):1140-5 [PMID: 17336449]
  68. Radiol Med. 2020 Dec;125(12):1280-1287 [PMID: 32385827]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0RCCsubtypescellimagingstatedCTMRIrenalcarcinomaclinicalfindingscontrastevaluationtomographyresonancetreatmentstudyfeaturesenhancementmagneticmalignancydifferentreportedprognosisccRCCpRCCchRCCmRCCcdRCCcysticmcRCCdetailedemphasizedroleexhibitscorticomedullaryphasestructureComputedreviewdiscussesusingcomputedhistopathologicalconstitutingapproximately90%adultkidneytumorsshowsignificantdifferencestermsbehaviorresponseclearpapillarychromophobemedullarycollectingductmultiloculatedcomparedfirst-choicemethodstagingsurgicalplanningprovidesinformationtumorsizevascularitymetastaticspreadhandallowsbettercharacterizationsoft-tissueresolutionagentusageadvantagedrawsattentionsubtypedetailsdecision-makingprocessintenserapidwashoutpatternappearshyperintenseT2AhypointenseT1weightedT1Ahypovascularlowerhomogeneousborderslessvascularmoderateinvasiveusuallydiagnosedadvancedstageaggressivecoursecontainsdistinctareasseptawell-circumscribedgenerallylowpotentialresultplayscriticaldiagnosispresentedwillcontributedevelopmenttargetedapproachesmanagementcharacteristicscarcinoma:DifferencesClearMagneticPapillaryRenal

Similar Articles

Cited By