T1 hyperintense renal lesions: characterization with diffusion-weighted MR imaging versus contrast-enhanced MR imaging.

PURPOSE: To compare the performance of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) measurement obtained with diffusion-weighted (DW) magnetic resonance (MR) imaging in the characterization of non-fat-containing T1 hyperintense renal lesions with that of contrast material-enhanced MR imaging, with histopathologic analysis and follow-up imaging as the reference standards.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: Institutional review board approval was obtained for this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study, and the informed consent requirement was waived. Two independent observers retrospectively assessed MR images obtained in 41 patients with non-fat-containing T1 hyperintense renal lesions. The MR examination included acquisition of DW and contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images. For each index lesion, the observers assessed the (a) mean (+/- standard deviation) of ADC, (b) enhancement ratio, and (c) subtracted images for the presence of enhancement (confidence score, 1-5). Histopathologic analysis of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) and follow-up imaging for benign lesions were the reference standards. ADCs of benign lesions and RCCs were compared. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the accuracy of DW imaging, enhancement ratio, and subtraction for the diagnosis of RCC.

RESULTS: A total of 64 lesions (mean diameter, 3.9 cm), including 38 benign T1 hyperintense cysts and 26 RCCs, were assessed. Mean ADCs of RCCs were significantly lower than those of benign cysts ([1.75 +/- 0.57] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec vs [2.50 +/- 0.53] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, P < .0001). ADCs of solid and cystic portions of complex cystic RCCs were significantly different ([1.37 +/- 0.55] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec vs [2.45 +/- 0.63] x 10(-3) mm(2)/sec, P < .0001). When data from both observers were pooled, area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity were 0.846, 71%, and 91%, respectively, for DW imaging; 0.865, 65%, and 96%, respectively, for enhancement ratio (at the excretory phase); and 0.861, 83%, and 89%, respectively, for subtraction (P = .48 and P = .85, respectively). The combination of DW imaging and subtraction resulted in area under the ROC curve, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.893, 87%, and 92%, respectively, with significantly improved reader confidence compared with subtraction alone (P = .041).

CONCLUSION: The performance of DW imaging was equivalent to that of enhancement ratio in the characterization of T1 hyperintense renal lesions, with both methods having lower sensitivity than image subtraction without reaching significance.