Malignant retroperitoneal fibrosis: MRI characteristics in 50 patients

Tristan Mirault1, Marc Lambert, Philippe Puech

  • 1From the Internal Medicine Department (TM, ML, EH, PYH), Urologic Radiology Department (PP, DA, AR, LL), Biostatistics Department (AD), Nephrology Department (FG), and Urology Department (AV, JB), Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Lille, Université Lille Nord de France, Lille, France.

Medicine
|August 31, 2012
PubMed

Insights

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can help differentiate malignant retroperitoneal fibrosis (mRF) from idiopathic RF (iRF). Key MRI findings include specific patterns of aortic extension and ureteral attraction, aiding in diagnosis before biopsy.

Area of Science:

  • Radiology
  • Oncology
  • Pathology

Background:

  • Retroperitoneal fibrosis (RF) is a condition that can be either idiopathic (iRF) or malignant (mRF).
  • Distinguishing between mRF and iRF is crucial for appropriate patient management and treatment strategies.
  • Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a valuable tool for non-invasive assessment of abdominal pathologies.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze MRI morphologic patterns of retroperitoneal fibrosis (RF).
  • To identify MRI features that can reliably distinguish malignant RF (mRF) from idiopathic RF (iRF).
  • To develop a diagnostic algorithm based on discriminant MRI criteria for mRF.

Main Methods:

  • Retrospective analysis of MRI scans from 50 consecutive patients with RF.
  • Exclusion criteria included prior radiotherapy, surgery, infection, vascular aneurysm, nodular masses, or enlarged lymph nodes.
  • Comparison of MRI findings between histologically confirmed mRF and iRF cases.

Main Results:

  • Malignant RF (mRF) patients were older and had different smoking habits and follow-up durations compared to idiopathic RF (iRF) patients.
  • MRI showed mRF more frequently extended along the aorta from above renal arteries to below the aortic bifurcation (47% vs. 0%; p = 0.001).
  • Medial ureteral attraction was significantly less frequent in mRF than iRF (24% vs. 83%; p < 0.001).

Conclusions:

  • An algorithm using aortic extension pattern and absence of medial ureteral attraction demonstrated 82% sensitivity and 83% specificity for mRF diagnosis.
  • These MRI criteria can serve as supplementary evidence to support the decision for RF biopsy.
  • The developed MRI-based decision tree aids in differentiating mRF from iRF, potentially improving diagnostic accuracy.