Multicenter Evaluation of Multiparametric MRI Clear Cell Likelihood Scores in Solid Indeterminate Small Renal Masses.

Background Solid small renal masses (SRMs) (≤4 cm) represent benign and malignant tumors. Among SRMs, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is frequently aggressive. When compared with invasive percutaneous biopsies, the objective of the proposed clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) is to classify ccRCC noninvasively by using multiparametric MRI, but it lacks external validation. Purpose To evaluate the performance of and interobserver agreement for ccLS to diagnose ccRCC among solid SRMs. Materials and Methods This retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study included patients with consecutive solid (≥25% approximate volume enhancement) SRMs undergoing multiparametric MRI between December 2012 and December 2019 at five academic medical centers with histologic confirmation of diagnosis. Masses with macroscopic fat were excluded. After a 1.5-hour training session, two abdominal radiologists per center independently rendered a ccLS for 50 masses. The diagnostic performance for ccRCC was calculated using random-effects logistic regression modeling. The distribution of ccRCC by ccLS was tabulated. Interobserver agreement for ccLS was evaluated with the Fleiss κ statistic. Results A total of 241 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 13 [SD]; 174 men) with 250 solid SRMs were evaluated. The mean size was 25 mm ± 8 (range, 10-39 mm). Of the 250 SRMs, 119 (48%) were ccRCC. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of ccRCC when ccLS was 4 or higher were 75% (95% CI: 68, 81), 78% (72, 84), and 76% (69, 81), respectively. The negative predictive value of a ccLS of 2 or lower was 88% (95% CI: 81, 93). The percentages of ccRCC according to the ccLS were 6% (range, 0%-18%), 38% (range, 0%-100%), 32% (range, 60%-83%), 72% (range, 40%-88%), and 81% (range, 73%-100%) for ccLSs of 1-5, respectively. The mean interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.75). Conclusion The clear cell likelihood score applied to multiparametric MRI had moderate interobserver agreement and differentiated clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other solid renal masses, with a negative predictive value of 88%. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mileto and Potretzke in this issue.

Diagnostic performance of 2D-shear wave elastography and serum fibrosis markers for evaluation of hepatic graft fibrosis in pediatric liver-inclusive transplant recipients: A prospective pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Liver biopsy is the gold standard for hepatic fibrosis staging, but it is invasive and has potential severe complications. We aimed to determine the diagnostic performance of 2D-SWE and serum markers to predict significant hepatic graft fibrosis (≥F2) in pediatric liver-inclusive transplant recipients. METHODS: This prospective, cross-sectional pilot study included children younger than 19 years who had received a LT or LSBT and underwent a liver biopsy performed for clinical indications. LS was measured using 2D-SWE. The AUROC was calculated to evaluate the diagnostic performance of 2D-SWE and biomarkers (AST/ALT ratio, APRI, FIB4) for predicting significant fibrosis. RESULTS: Twenty-two children (13 males, 8 LSBT) were included. Eighteen (81.8%) children received a whole liver graft. Thirteen (59.1%) patients had hepatic fibrosis (≥F1) and four (18.2%) had significant fibrosis. The AUROCs of AST/ALT ratio, APRI, and FIB4 for predicting significant hepatic graft fibrosis were 0.71 (p = .29), 0.85 (p = .0001), and 0.76 (p = .03), respectively. When FIB4 was calculated using the hepatic graft's age, its AUROC improved to 0.85 (p < .0001). The AUROC of 2D-SWE for predicting significant hepatic graft fibrosis was 0.80 (p = .046). When 2D-SWE was combined with APRI or FIB4, its AUROC improved to 0.82 (p = .08) and 0.87 (p = .002), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: APRI and FIB4 can accurately predict significant hepatic graft fibrosis. 2D-SWE may serve as a valuable adjunct tool to detect significant graft fibrosis, especially when combined with these serum markers.

MRI and mammography surveillance of women at increased risk for breast cancer: recommendations using an evidence-based approach.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: To evaluate breast cancer screening with mammography and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in high-risk populations, including women with the BRCA mutation, using an evidence-based approach. METHODS: The MEDLINE, PubMed, EBM Reviews, ACP Journal Club, Cochrane Database MEDSEARCH, and SCOPUS databases were accessed and searched for articles up to August 2007. Articles were collected using the following terms and medical subject headings (MeSH) that applied to the focused clinical question: "BRCA1" and "BRCA2" with "mammography," "MRI," "prevention," "screening," and "surveillance." References from retrieved articles were also used to identify relevant papers. Abstracts were screened and relevant papers retrieved. Retrieved papers were graded for quality. Summary performance measures were obtained by random effects modeling of study-specific performance estimates and standard errors derived from the multiple 2 x 2 tables. Additionally, studies meeting the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level 2b quality were reviewed. RESULTS: In women with an increased risk without the BRCA gene, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.011 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.003-0.019), by mammography 0.005 (95% CI 0.002-0.008), and by a combination of both, 0.012 (95% CI 0.004-0.020). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.03-0.18), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.06), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24). In BRCA positive women, cancer detection rates by MRI were 0.027 (95% CI 0.015-0.040), by mammography 0.010 (95% CI 0.005-0.016), and by a combination of both 0.031 (95% CI 0.018-0.045). False-positive rates by MRI, mammography, or a combination of both were 0.10 (95% CI 0.01-0.19), 0.05 (95% CI 0.03-0.07), and 0.14 (95% CI 0.04-0.24), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The data support an essential role for screening MRI in women with an increased risk for breast cancer.