Evaluating Malignancy Detection in Small Renal Masses: Integrating the Pseudocapsule Into the Clear Cell Likelihood
Yu-Wei Hao1, Xue-Yi Ning1, He Wang2
1Department of Radiology, First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing, China.
Background:
Although the clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) v2.0 demonstrates high specificity for clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), its performance to characterize general malignancy in small renal masses (SRMs) remains limited.
Purpose:
To develop and validate a modified clear cell likelihood score (m-ccLS) incorporating the pseudocapsule to improve malignancy detection in SRMs while preserving specificity for diagnosing ccRCC.
Study Type:
This study was retrospective in type.
Subjects:
352 patients with pathologically proven SRMs were included: development (n = 235), internal validation (n = 60), and external validation (n = 57).
Field Strength/Sequence:
Imaging was performed at 3.0 and 1.5 T using fast spin-echo T2-weighted imaging, single-shot echo planar diffusion-weighted imaging, 3D spoiled gradient echo (GRE) T1-weighted dynamic contrast-enhanced imaging, and in- and opposed-phase using T1-weighted GRE.
Assessment:
14 radiologists blinded to histopathology independently evaluated each SRM using ccLS v2.0 and m-ccLS scores in separate reading sessions; four, five, and five readers interpreted the development, internal, and external cohorts, respectively.
Statistical Tests:
Random-effects logistic regression, receiver operating characteristic curve, DeLong test, net reclassification improvement (NRI), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), and Fleiss Kappa test were used. The statistical significance level was p < 0.05.
Results:
For malignancy detection, m-ccLS showed a significantly higher area under the curve (AUC) than ccLS v2.0 across the development (0.850 vs. 0.772), internal validation (0.856 vs. 0.779), and external validation (0.803 vs. 0.720) cohorts with improved classification (NRI = 0.270, 0.045, and 0.028) and discrimination (IDI = 0.132, 0.206, and 0.120). For diagnosing ccRCC, m-ccLS and ccLS v2.0 showed similar results (0.908 vs. 0.894, p = 0.250; 0.912 vs. 0.898, p = 0.134; 0.865 vs. 0.838, p = 0.065) in development, internal, and external validation cohorts, respectively. m-ccLS category 3 contained fewer ccRCCs (33.3% vs. 72.5%; 15.8% vs. 47.2%; 7.6% vs. 26.9%) and malignancies (79.2% vs. 88.7%; 71.6% vs. 73.0%; 55.4% vs. 63.9%) than ccLS v2.0 category 3.
Data Conclusion:
m-ccLS improves malignancy detection in SRMs compared with ccLS v2.0 without impairing diagnostic performance for ccRCC.
Evidence Level:
4.
Technical Efficacy:
Stage 2.
Related Concept Videos
01:30Applications of Integration to Find Centers of Mass
01:06Introduction to z Scores
z scores...
01:05Introduction to z Scores
z scores...
01:17z Scores and Area Under the Curve
01:07z Scores and Unusual Values
This score indicates how far a value is from the mean in terms of standard deviation. For example, if a data value has a z score of +1, the researcher can infer that the particular data value is one standard deviation above the mean. If another data...
01:17Factors Affecting Renal Clearance: Renal Impairment
One condition associated with renal failure is uremia. Uremia is characterized by impaired glomerular filtration and fluid accumulation in the body. This condition hinders the renal clearance of drugs, resulting in drug accumulation and potential...