Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published online before print December 19, 2007, 10.1148/radiol.2462061312

(Radiology 2007;246:472.)

A more recent version of this article appeared on December 1, 2007
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
2462061312v1
246/2/472    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Cho, K.-S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kim, J. Y.
Right arrow Articles by Cho, K.-S.
© RSNA, 2007

Genitourinary Imaging

CT Histogram Analysis: Differentiation of Angiomyolipoma without Visible Fat from Renal Cell Carcinoma at CT Imaging1

Ji Yeon Kim, MD, Jeong Kon Kim, MD, Namkug Kim, MS, and Kyoung-Sik Cho, MD

1 From the Department of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan, 388-1 Poongnap-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul 138-736, Korea. Received July 30, 2006; revision requested October 3; revision received January 16, 2007; accepted February 22; final version accepted July 19. Address correspondence to J.K.K. (e-mail: rialto{at}amc.seoul.kr).

Purpose: To retrospectively evaluate the diagnostic performance of computed tomographic (CT) histogram analysis for differentiating angiomyolipoma (AML) without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma (RCC) at CT, by using pathologic analysis and clinical diagnosis as the reference standard.

Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was approved by the institutional review board; informed consent was waived. The authors reviewed the medical records of 144 patients with pathologic confirmation of RCC or AML (105 men, 39 women; mean age, 52 years). Analysis of unenhanced CT histograms was performed on 34 AMLs without visible fat at CT and 110 size-matched RCCs. The percentages of voxels and pixels were compared in the two groups according to the CT number categories. The diagnostic performance of CT histogram analysis in differentiating AML from RCC was determined by using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis.

Results: The percentages of voxels and pixels with a CT number less than –30 HU (2.7% and 3.4% vs 0.1% and 0.0%), less than –20 HU (4.3% and 5.1% vs 0.2% and 0.1%), less than –10 HU (7.0% and 8.1% vs 0.6% and 0.4%), and less than 0 HU (12.0% and 13.9% vs 2.0% and 2.0%) were significantly greater in the AML group than in the RCC group (P < .01), respectively. The area under the ROC curve was as high as 0.706 when a pixel percentage with a CT number less than –10 HU was used as a differentiating parameter. Corresponding to the specificity of 100% for differentiating AML from RCC, the sensitivity was as high as 20% when a pixel percentage of 6% with a CT number less than –10 HU was used as a criterion.

Conclusion: CT histogram analysis may be useful for differentiating AML without visible fat from RCC at CT.

© RSNA, 2007