RESUMO
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.
RESUMO
PURPOSE: Clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) may be a reliable diagnostic method for distinguishing renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma (EAML) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In this study, we aim to explore the value of ccLS in differentiating EAML from ccRCC. METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis in which 27 EAML patients and 60 ccRCC patients underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at our institution. Two radiologists trained in the ccLS algorithm scored independently and the consistency of their interpretation was evaluated. The difference of the ccLS score was compared between EAML and ccRCC in the whole study cohort and two subgroups [small renal masses (SRM; ≤ 4 cm) and large renal masses (LRM; > 4 cm)]. RESULTS: In total, 87 patients (59 men, 28 women; mean age, 55±11 years) with 90 renal masses (EAML: ccRCC = 1: 2) were identified. The interobserver agreement of two radiologists for the ccLS system to differentiate EAML from ccRCC was good (k = 0.71). The ccLS score in the EAML group and the ccRCC group ranged from 1 to 5 (73.3% in scores 1-2) and 2 to 5 (76.7% in scores 4-5), respectively, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). With the threshold value of 2, ccLS can distinguish EAML from ccRCC with the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 87.8%, 95.0%, 73.3%, 87.7%, and 88.0%, respectively. The AUC (area under the curve) was 0.913. And the distribution of the ccLS score between the two diseases was not affected by tumor size (P = 0.780). CONCLUSION: The ccLS can distinguish EAML from ccRCC with high accuracy and efficiency.
