CT and clinical features for distinguishing endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma from urothelial carcinoma

Chen, Xin; Chen, Yidi; Leia, Yiwu; Huanga, Fuling; Tanga, Cheng; Longa, Liling

doi:10.5152/dir.2022.211248

Cited by 3 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…RUC was more prone to hydronephrosis due to the close relationship with the collecting system (Figs. 1 and 4 , and 6 ), which was consistent with findings from Prando et al [ 8 ] and Chen et al [ 15 , 16 ]. In this study, the attenuation of RUC (Figs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Although some features were excluded in constructing the predictive model, such as age, CP, NP, and EP, to avoid overfitting, location and pseudo-capsular sign were excluded for predictor screening, they still represented positive function in differentiating RUC from ccRCC. In this study, patients with ccRCC were younger than those with RUC, similar to results from previous reports [ 12 , 13 , 15 , 16 ]. Different from the report of Bata et al (Only in CP and NP, the attenuation of ccRCC was significantly higher than RUCs’) [ 13 ], the attenuation of ccRCC (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Some characteristics of RUCs in our study were different from previous literature. The presence of nephrolith, hydronephrosis, flank pain, hematuria, and cyst-solid lesions was not found in previous research articles [ 12 , 18 , 19 ], except Chen et al [ 15 , 16 ]. These consistencies might be attributed to different populations, lifestyles, and large lesions analyzed in this study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Chen et al reported a pseudo-sign in an RUC case with a kidney rupture [ 15 ]. Moreover, Chen et al have also reported a pseudo-capsule sign in endophytic RUC [ 16 ]. The pseudo-capsule sign for the endophytic RUC case differed from that of RCC (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bata et al only compared the CT values between RUC and ccRCC without considering the CT-derived morphological characteristics [ 13 ]. Chen et al constructed an easy-to-reach differential model for distinguishing exophytic/endophytic RUC mimicking RCC from ccRCC, respectively [ 15 , 16 ]. Previous studies explored the diagnostic potential of CT features in identifying and assessing the prognosis of ccRCCs with CSI [ 14 , 17 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

CT findings and clinical characteristics in distinguishing renal urothelial carcinoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Chen,

Feng,

Chen

et al. 2024

BMC Urol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background We aimed to characterize the clinical and multiphase computed tomography (CT) features, which can distinguish renal urothelial carcinoma (RUC) mimicking renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with collecting system invasion (CSI). Methods Data from 56 patients with RUC (46 men and 10 women) and 366 patients with ccRCC (262 men and 104 women) were collected and assessed retrospectively. The median age was 65.50 (IQR: 56.25–69.75) and 53.50 (IQR: 42.25–62.5) years, respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed on clinical and CT characteristics to determine independent factors for distinguishing RUC and ccRCC, and an integrated predictive model was constructed. Differential diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results The independent predictors for differentiating RUC from ccRCC were infiltrative growth pattern, hydronephrosis, heterogeneous enhancement, preserving reniform contour, and hematuria. The differential diagnostic performance of the integrated predictive model-1 (AUC: 0.947, sensitivity: 89.07%, specificity: 89.29%) and model-2 (AUC: 0.960, sensitivity: 92.1%, specificity: 89.3%) were both better than that of the infiltrative growth pattern (AUC: 0.830, sensitivity: 71.9%, specificity: 92.9%), heterogeneous enhancement (AUC: 0.771, sensitivity: 86.3%, specificity: 67.9%), preserving reniform contour (AUC = 0.758, sensitivity: 85.5%, specificity: 66.1%), hydronephrosis (AUC: 0.733, sensitivity: 87.7%, specificity: 58.9%), or hematuria (AUC: 0.706, sensitivity: 79.5%, specificity: 51.8%). Conclusion The CT and clinical characteristics showed extraordinary discriminative abilities in the differential diagnosis of RUC and ccRCC, which might provide helpful information for clinical decision-making.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

CT findings and clinical characteristics in distinguishing renal urothelial carcinoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Chen,

Feng,

Chen

et al. 2024

BMC Urol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

CT findings and clinical characteristics in distinguishing renal urothelial carcinoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Chen

Feng

Chen

et al. 2023

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: We aimed to characterize the clinical and multiphase computed tomography (CT) features, which can distinguish renal urothelial carcinoma (RUC) mimicking renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) with collecting system invasion (CSI). Methods: Data from 56 patients with RUC (46 men and 10 women) and 366 patients with ccRCC (262 men and 104 women) were collected and assessed retrospectively. The median age was 65.50 (IQR: 56.25–69.75) and 53.50 (IQR: 42.25–62.5) years, respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed on clinical and CT characteristics to determine independent factors for distinguishing RUC and ccRCC, and an integrated predictive model was constructed. Differential diagnostic performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: The independent predictors for differentiating RUC from ccRCC were infiltrative growth pattern, hydronephrosis, heterogeneous enhancement, preserving reniform contour, and hematuria. The differential diagnostic performance of the integrated predictive model (AUC: 0.960, sensitivity: 92.1%, specificity: 89.3%) was better than that of the infiltrative growth pattern (AUC: 0.830, sensitivity: 71.9%, specificity: 92.9%), heterogeneous enhancement (AUC: 0.771, sensitivity: 86.3%, specificity: 67.9%), preserving reniform contour (AUC=0.758, sensitivity: 85.5%, specificity: 66.1%), hydronephrosis (AUC: 0.733, sensitivity: 87.7%, specificity: 58.9%), or hematuria (AUC: 0.706, sensitivity: 79.5%, specificity: 51.8%). Conclusion: The CT and clinical characteristics showed extraordinary discriminative abilities in the differential diagnosis of RUC and ccRCC, which might provide helpful information for clinical decision-making.

show abstract

Ultrasound findings and clinical characteristics in differentiating renal urothelial carcinoma from endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Jin,

Lin,

et al. 2024

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and features of conventional ultrasound (CUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating between renal urothelial carcinomas (RUC) and endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinomas (EccRCC). METHODS: A total of 72 RUCs and 120 EccRCCs confirmed by pathology were assessed retrospectively. Both CUS and CEUS were performed within 4 weeks before the surgery. Logistic regression analyses were used to select statistically significant variables of clinical, CUS, and CEUS features for the differentiation of RUC and EccRCC. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were assessed for diagnostic performance. Inter- and intra-observer agreements of CUS and CEUS features were evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient(ICC). RESULTS: Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that clinical (age >50 years old and hematuria), CUS (size <4.0 cm, hypo-echogenicity, irregular shape, hydronephrosis) and CEUS (absence of non-enhancement area, iso- /hypo-enhancement in cortical phase and absence of rim-like enhancement) features were independent factors for RUC diagnosis. When combining clinical characters with CUS and CEUS features into an integrated diagnostic criterion, the AUC reached 0.917 (95% CI 0.873–0.961), with a sensitivity of 95.8% and specificity of 87.5%. ICC ranged from 0.756 to 0.907 for inter-observer agreement and 0.791 to 0.934 for intra-observer agreement for CUS and CEUSfeatures. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of clinical features of age and hematuria with imaging features of CUS and CEUS can be useful for the differentiation between RUC and EccRCC.

show abstract

CT and clinical features for distinguishing endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma from urothelial carcinoma

Cited by 3 publications

References 42 publications

CT findings and clinical characteristics in distinguishing renal urothelial carcinoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma

CT findings and clinical characteristics in distinguishing renal urothelial carcinoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma

CT findings and clinical characteristics in distinguishing renal urothelial carcinoma mimicking renal cell carcinoma from clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Ultrasound findings and clinical characteristics in differentiating renal urothelial carcinoma from endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About