Diagnostic Value of Clear Cell Likelihood Score v1.0 and v2.0 for Common Subtypes of Small Renal Masses: A Multicenter Comparative Study.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) is reliable for diagnosing small renal masses (SRMs). However, the diagnostic value of Clear cell likelihood score version 1.0 (ccLS v1.0) and v2.0 for common subtypes of SRMs might be a potential score extension. PURPOSE: To compare the diagnostic performance and interobserver agreement of ccLS v1.0 and v2.0 for characterizing five common subtypes of SRMs. STUDY TYPE Retrospective. POPULATION 797 patients (563 males, 234 females; mean age, 53 ± 12 years) with 867 histologically proven renal masses. FIELD STRENGTH/SEQUENCES 3.0 and 1.5 T/T2 weighted imaging, T1 weighted imaging, diffusion-weighted imaging, a dual-echo chemical shift (in- and opposed-phase) T1 weighted imaging, multiphase dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging. ASSESSMENT Six abdominal radiologists were trained in the ccLS algorithm and independently scored each SRM using ccLS v1.0 and v2.0, respectively. All SRMs had definite pathological results. The pooled area under curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity were calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of ccLS v1.0 and v2.0 for characterizing common subtypes of SRMs. The average κ values were calculated to evaluate the interobserver agreement of the two scoring versions. STATISTICAL TESTS Random-effects logistic regression; Receiver operating characteristic analysis; DeLong test; Weighted Kappa test; Z test. The statistical significance level was P < 0.05. RESULTS: The pooled AUCs of clear cell likelihood score version 2.0 (ccLS v2.0) were statistically superior to those of ccLS v1.0 for diagnosing clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) (0.907 vs. 0.851), papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) (0.926 vs. 0.888), renal oncocytoma (RO) (0.745 vs. 0.679), and angiomyolipoma without visible fat (AMLwvf) (0.826 vs. 0.766). Interobserver agreement for SRMs between ccLS v1.0 and v2.0 is comparable and was not statistically significant (P = 0.993). CONCLUSION: The diagnostic performance of ccLS v2.0 surpasses that of ccLS v1.0 for characterizing ccRCC, pRCC, RO, and AMLwvf. Especially, the standardized algorithm has optimal performance for ccRCC and pRCC. ccLS has potential as a supportive clinical tool. EVIDENCE LEVEL 4. TECHNICAL EFFICACY Stage 2.