应用多层螺旋CT鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤的研究
|
摘要
目的:通过分析小肾癌与肾错构瘤的多层螺旋CT表现,探讨使用多层螺旋CT鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤的方法,特别是探讨测量肿瘤大范围CT值的方法在鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤中的应用。
方法:回顾性分析2006年3月至2009年6月在苏州大学附属第一医院治疗的93例肾脏小肿瘤(直径≤4cm)患者的CT图像,其中肾癌78例,肾错构瘤15例,均由术后病理证实。具体方法分为:1、分析肿瘤的多层螺旋CT表现特点,并在肿瘤的感兴趣点测量CT值,评价内容包括:①肿瘤的平扫密度;②肿瘤强化是否均匀;③肿瘤的强化程度;④肿瘤的强化形式;⑤肿瘤的边界;⑥肿瘤是否存在钙化;⑦肿瘤是否存在假包膜;同时包括病人的年龄和性别,并对结果进行统计学分析。2、分别于平扫期、皮质期、实质期测量整个肿瘤大范围的CT值,包括平均值、最大值、最小值及最大值与最小值之间的差;同时计算肿瘤的相对CT值。比较良恶性肿瘤组间各个指标的差异,并根据各个指标的受试者工作特征曲线(receive operating characteristic curve,ROC)下面积,分析诊断特异性与敏感性,得出有较高价值的鉴别良恶性肾肿瘤的指标。将得出的各个指标应用于2009年6月至2010年3月在苏州大学附属第一医院治疗的24例肾脏小肿瘤,手术前初步判断其良恶性,根据术后病理结果,进一步验证其实际应用价值。
结果:1、肿瘤的平扫密度、强化形式、假包膜在鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤时具有统计学意义(P<0.05),其中,肾错构瘤的平扫密度低于肾癌(P=0.001);就强化形式而言,肾错构瘤多表现为延迟强化,而肾癌大多数表现为早期强化、快进快出的特点(P=0.001);肾癌部分存在假包膜,而肾错构瘤不存在假包膜(P=0.015)。肿瘤的强化程度、边界、钙化与否、强化是否均匀在鉴别肾脏小肿瘤的良恶性时均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05)。2、在肿瘤的感兴趣点测量CT值,仅平扫期CT值在小肾癌与肾错构瘤组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其ROC曲线下面积仅为0.633;在整个肿瘤大范围测量CT值,其平扫期平均值、平扫期最小值、平扫期差值、皮质期最小值、实质期平均值、实质期最小值共6个指标在两组间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),每个指标的R0C曲线下面积均大于0.633;肿瘤的相对CT值在两组间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),R0C曲线下面积也均大于0.633。R0C曲线下面积前三位依次为平扫期肿瘤大范围最小CT值(0.849)、皮质期肿瘤大范围最小CT值(0.793)、实质期肿瘤大范围最小CT值(0.712)。当平扫期肿瘤大范围最小CT值≤-32Hu时,诊断肾错构瘤的敏感性与特异性最高,分别为76.7%、98.7%,将其作为最佳临界值判断另外24例肾脏肿瘤良恶性时,正确率最高,达83.3%。
结论:对于CT上脂肪成分不明显的肾错构瘤,肿瘤的平扫密度、强化形式、是否存在假包膜是其与小肾癌鉴别的有价值的CT表现特点。CT值的增强幅度即肿瘤的强化程度在鉴别少脂肪错构瘤与肾癌时没有意义。在肿瘤大范围测量CT值的方法可以有效地提高小肾癌与肾错构瘤的诊断与鉴别水平,较传统的测量肿瘤感兴趣点CT值的方法具有更高的价值,其中肿瘤大范围最小CT值能够反映少脂肪肿瘤内部脂肪成分的存在。肿瘤大范围平扫期最小CT值为-32Hu可作为鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤的临界值。
0bjective:To investigate the role of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in the differential diagnosis of small renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and angiomyolipomas (AML).
Methods:①.93 patients with small renal mass (≤4.0 cm) were retrospectively analyzed, 78 were RCC and 15 were AML by pathologic diagnosis through postoperative examination of specimen. Analyze the features of MSCT during unenhanced, corticomedullary phase (CMP) and early excretory phase (EP) scanning. CT number in ROI (region of interest) of these masses was recorded, CT number in ROW (region of whole mass)and Relative CT number of these masses was recorded at the same time, CT number in ROW includes the mean、maximum、minimum and the range between the maximum and minimum. CT features of RCC and AML were compared. Comparison between groups RCC and AML CT number, analyses the difference of each index in the area under the ROC.②. The diagnostic threshold for AML was applied to other 24 patients.
Results:①.The results of comparison of AML and RCC in terms of tumor attenuation on unenhanced scans was valuable predictor for differentiating AML from RCC (P <0.05), High tumor attenuation was more common in cases of RCC than in cases of AML. Enhancement pattern was valuable predictor for differentiating AML from RCC (P <0.05), a prolonged enhancement pattern was observed in more than half (53%) of the patients with AML, whereas an early washout pattern was observed in most (59%) of the patients with RCC. Pseudocapsule was valuable predictor for differentiating AML from RCC too (P <0.05), none of the patients with AML had pseudocapsule, but 30% of the patients with RCC had pseudocapsule. CT number in ROI had difference between groups RCC and AML Only on unenhanced scans (P <0.05), 6 indexes of CT number in ROW and all of Relative CT number had difference between groups RCC and AML (P < 0.05).The area under ROC curve of CT number in ROI on unenhanced scans was 0.633, every area under ROC curve of 6 indexes of CT number in ROW and Relative CT number was beyond 0.633. Top3 of these indexes in descending order was Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans (0.849), Minimum in ROW on CMP(0.793),Minimum in ROW on EP(0.712).When the most optimal diagnostic threshold for AML using Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans≤-32Hu,its sensitivity was 76.7%、specificity was 98.7%; Minimum in ROW on CMP≤-22.5Hu, its sensitivity was 54.5%, specificity was 98%; Minimum in ROW on EP≤-7.5Hu, its sensitivity was 73.3%, specificity was 83.8%.②. The diagnostic threshold for AML (Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans≤-32Hu) was applied to other 24 patients, the precision was 83.3%.
Conclusions: MSCT may be useful in differentiating AML from RCC, with low tumor attenuation, prolonged enhancement pattern and no pseudocapsule being the most valuable CT findings. The way of measuring CT number of tumor in this study can effectively improve the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing AML and small RCC. It may be a kind of new way in the differential diagnosis between AML and RCC, Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans≤-32Hu may be accurate diagnostic threshold for AML. Further prospective work is needed before including this complicated counting system into practice.
方法:回顾性分析2006年3月至2009年6月在苏州大学附属第一医院治疗的93例肾脏小肿瘤(直径≤4cm)患者的CT图像,其中肾癌78例,肾错构瘤15例,均由术后病理证实。具体方法分为:1、分析肿瘤的多层螺旋CT表现特点,并在肿瘤的感兴趣点测量CT值,评价内容包括:①肿瘤的平扫密度;②肿瘤强化是否均匀;③肿瘤的强化程度;④肿瘤的强化形式;⑤肿瘤的边界;⑥肿瘤是否存在钙化;⑦肿瘤是否存在假包膜;同时包括病人的年龄和性别,并对结果进行统计学分析。2、分别于平扫期、皮质期、实质期测量整个肿瘤大范围的CT值,包括平均值、最大值、最小值及最大值与最小值之间的差;同时计算肿瘤的相对CT值。比较良恶性肿瘤组间各个指标的差异,并根据各个指标的受试者工作特征曲线(receive operating characteristic curve,ROC)下面积,分析诊断特异性与敏感性,得出有较高价值的鉴别良恶性肾肿瘤的指标。将得出的各个指标应用于2009年6月至2010年3月在苏州大学附属第一医院治疗的24例肾脏小肿瘤,手术前初步判断其良恶性,根据术后病理结果,进一步验证其实际应用价值。
结果:1、肿瘤的平扫密度、强化形式、假包膜在鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤时具有统计学意义(P<0.05),其中,肾错构瘤的平扫密度低于肾癌(P=0.001);就强化形式而言,肾错构瘤多表现为延迟强化,而肾癌大多数表现为早期强化、快进快出的特点(P=0.001);肾癌部分存在假包膜,而肾错构瘤不存在假包膜(P=0.015)。肿瘤的强化程度、边界、钙化与否、强化是否均匀在鉴别肾脏小肿瘤的良恶性时均无统计学意义(P﹥0.05)。2、在肿瘤的感兴趣点测量CT值,仅平扫期CT值在小肾癌与肾错构瘤组间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),其ROC曲线下面积仅为0.633;在整个肿瘤大范围测量CT值,其平扫期平均值、平扫期最小值、平扫期差值、皮质期最小值、实质期平均值、实质期最小值共6个指标在两组间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),每个指标的R0C曲线下面积均大于0.633;肿瘤的相对CT值在两组间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),R0C曲线下面积也均大于0.633。R0C曲线下面积前三位依次为平扫期肿瘤大范围最小CT值(0.849)、皮质期肿瘤大范围最小CT值(0.793)、实质期肿瘤大范围最小CT值(0.712)。当平扫期肿瘤大范围最小CT值≤-32Hu时,诊断肾错构瘤的敏感性与特异性最高,分别为76.7%、98.7%,将其作为最佳临界值判断另外24例肾脏肿瘤良恶性时,正确率最高,达83.3%。
结论:对于CT上脂肪成分不明显的肾错构瘤,肿瘤的平扫密度、强化形式、是否存在假包膜是其与小肾癌鉴别的有价值的CT表现特点。CT值的增强幅度即肿瘤的强化程度在鉴别少脂肪错构瘤与肾癌时没有意义。在肿瘤大范围测量CT值的方法可以有效地提高小肾癌与肾错构瘤的诊断与鉴别水平,较传统的测量肿瘤感兴趣点CT值的方法具有更高的价值,其中肿瘤大范围最小CT值能够反映少脂肪肿瘤内部脂肪成分的存在。肿瘤大范围平扫期最小CT值为-32Hu可作为鉴别小肾癌与肾错构瘤的临界值。
0bjective:To investigate the role of multi-slice computed tomography (MSCT) in the differential diagnosis of small renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and angiomyolipomas (AML).
Methods:①.93 patients with small renal mass (≤4.0 cm) were retrospectively analyzed, 78 were RCC and 15 were AML by pathologic diagnosis through postoperative examination of specimen. Analyze the features of MSCT during unenhanced, corticomedullary phase (CMP) and early excretory phase (EP) scanning. CT number in ROI (region of interest) of these masses was recorded, CT number in ROW (region of whole mass)and Relative CT number of these masses was recorded at the same time, CT number in ROW includes the mean、maximum、minimum and the range between the maximum and minimum. CT features of RCC and AML were compared. Comparison between groups RCC and AML CT number, analyses the difference of each index in the area under the ROC.②. The diagnostic threshold for AML was applied to other 24 patients.
Results:①.The results of comparison of AML and RCC in terms of tumor attenuation on unenhanced scans was valuable predictor for differentiating AML from RCC (P <0.05), High tumor attenuation was more common in cases of RCC than in cases of AML. Enhancement pattern was valuable predictor for differentiating AML from RCC (P <0.05), a prolonged enhancement pattern was observed in more than half (53%) of the patients with AML, whereas an early washout pattern was observed in most (59%) of the patients with RCC. Pseudocapsule was valuable predictor for differentiating AML from RCC too (P <0.05), none of the patients with AML had pseudocapsule, but 30% of the patients with RCC had pseudocapsule. CT number in ROI had difference between groups RCC and AML Only on unenhanced scans (P <0.05), 6 indexes of CT number in ROW and all of Relative CT number had difference between groups RCC and AML (P < 0.05).The area under ROC curve of CT number in ROI on unenhanced scans was 0.633, every area under ROC curve of 6 indexes of CT number in ROW and Relative CT number was beyond 0.633. Top3 of these indexes in descending order was Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans (0.849), Minimum in ROW on CMP(0.793),Minimum in ROW on EP(0.712).When the most optimal diagnostic threshold for AML using Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans≤-32Hu,its sensitivity was 76.7%、specificity was 98.7%; Minimum in ROW on CMP≤-22.5Hu, its sensitivity was 54.5%, specificity was 98%; Minimum in ROW on EP≤-7.5Hu, its sensitivity was 73.3%, specificity was 83.8%.②. The diagnostic threshold for AML (Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans≤-32Hu) was applied to other 24 patients, the precision was 83.3%.
Conclusions: MSCT may be useful in differentiating AML from RCC, with low tumor attenuation, prolonged enhancement pattern and no pseudocapsule being the most valuable CT findings. The way of measuring CT number of tumor in this study can effectively improve the sensitivity and specificity in diagnosing AML and small RCC. It may be a kind of new way in the differential diagnosis between AML and RCC, Minimum in ROW on unenhanced scans≤-32Hu may be accurate diagnostic threshold for AML. Further prospective work is needed before including this complicated counting system into practice.
引文
1. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et a1.World health organization classification of tumours: pathology & genetics. tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC press, 2004:9-43.
2. John SL, Oleg S, Allan JP. Changing concepts in the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol, 2004,45(3):692-705.
3. Hosokawa YKinouchi T, Sawai Y, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat. Int J Clin Oncol, 2002, 7: 120-123.
4.李松年.肾肿瘤,中华影像医学,北京人民卫生出版社,2002,78-85.
5. Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Watanabe O, et a1. Small renal cell carcinoma:pathologic and radiologic correlation[J].Radiology,2002.184:493.
6.曹国洪,许乙凯,阳红艳.螺旋CT多期增强扫描在小肾癌诊断中的应用[J].医学影像学杂志,2005,l5(l0):904-907.
7.周康荣,主编.螺旋CT.上海:上海医科大学出版杜,l998,220-222.
8. Prasad SR, Humphrey PA, Catena JR, el a1. Common and uncommon histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma:imaging spectrum with pathologic correlation. Radiographics,2006,26:1795-1806.
9.吴阶平.吴阶平泌尿外科学[M].济南:山东科学技术出版社,2004:895-896.
10. Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology,230:677-684, 2004.
11. Brian A. VanderBrink, Ravi Munver, Jennifer A. Tash, R. Ernest Sosa. Renal angiomyolipoma with contrast-enhancing elements mimicking renal malignancy: radiographic and pathologic evaluation. Urology, Volume 63, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 584-586.
12. Jason Hafron, James D. Fogarty, David M. Imaging characteristics of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with histologic correlations.Urology, 2005 ,66: 1155–1159.
13. Jinzaki M , Tan imoto A, Mukai M, et a1. Double-phase helical CT of small renalparenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumor an giogenesis. JCAT 2000; 24:835-842.
14. Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et a1. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT SCan S. AJR 2002;178:1499-1506.
15. E. Simpson, U. Patel. Diagnosis of angiomyolipoma using computed Tomography region of interest≤-10 HU or 4 adjacent. Pixels≤-10 HU are recommended as the diagnostic thresholds. Int J Clinical Radiology (2006) 61, 410–416.
16. Patel U, Simpson E, Kings wood JC, Saggar Malik AK.Tuberose sclerosis complex: analysis of growth rates aids differentiation of renal cell carcinoma from atypical or minimal fat containing angiomyolipoma. Clin Radiol 2005,60:665-73.
17. Bernardini S, Chabannes E, Algros MP, et al.Variants of renal angiomyolipoma closely simulating renal cell carcinoma: difficulties in the histological diagnosis. Urol Int 69:78–81, 2002.
18.韩希年,刘光华,王俭.肾颗粒细胞癌的CT、MRI诊断[J].中国医学计算机成像杂志, 2004, 10(2):101-104.
19.韩希年,彭令荣,刘光华等.肾透明细胞癌的CT、MRI诊断[J].中国医学影像技术, 2005, 21(5):776-778.
20.韩希年,彭令荣,刘光华等.乳头状肾癌的CT、MRI诊断[J].放射学实践, 2005, 20(5):401-404.
21.韩希年,彭令荣.多发肾癌的影像学诊断[J].临床放射杂志, 2005, 24(3):415-418.
22. Herts BR, Coil DM, Novick AC, et a1. Enhancement Characteristics of Papillary Renal Neoplasms Revealed on Triphasic Helical CT of the Kidneys[J]. AJR, 2002,178(2);67-372.
23.王乐三.主编.SPSS在医学科研中的应用.北京:化学工业出版社,2007:249-255.
24. Schuster TG, Ferguson MR, Baker DE, et al: Papillary renal cell carcinoma containing fat without calcification mimicking angiomyolipoma on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183: 1402-1404, 2004.
25. Krishnan B, Lechago J, Ayala G, et al: Intraoperative consultation for renal lesions:implications and diagnostic pitfalls in 324 cases.Am J Clin Pathol. 120: 528-535, 2003.
26. Matthew H. Hayn, Glenn M. Cannon, Jr.Sheldon Bastacky. Renal Cell Carcinoma Containing Fat Without Associated Calcifications: Two Case Reports and Review of Literature[J]. UROLOGY, 2009, 73 (2):443e5-e7.
27. Silverman SG, Pearson GDN, Seltzer SE, et al. Small (<3 cm) hyperechoic renal masses: comparison of helical and conventional CT for diagnosing angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167:877-81.
28. Bozniak MA, Megibow AJ, Halnick DH, Horii S, Raghavendra BN. CT diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma: the importance of detecting small amounts of fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:497-501.
29. Lemaitre L, Claudon M, Dubrulle F, Mazeman E. Imaging of angiomyolipoma. Semin US, CT and MRI 1997;18:100-14.
30. Zagoria RJ. Imaging of small renal masses: a medical success story. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:945-55.
31. Steiner MS, Goldman SM, Fishman EK, Marshall FF. The natural history of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 1993;150:1782-6.
1.那彦群.中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南.2009版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2009.
2.顾方六.肾肿瘤.见:吴阶平.吴阶平泌尿外科学.济南:山东科学技术出版社,2004.889-917.
3. Lindblad p. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J surg,2004,93(2):88-96.
4. Bergstorm A, Hsieh CC, Lindblad p, et al. Obesity and renal cell cancer-a quantitative review. Br J Cancer, 2001, 85:984-990.
5. Pischon T, Lahmann PH, Boeing H, et al. Body size and risk of renal cell carcinoma in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition(EPIC).Int J Cancer,2006,118(3):728-738.
6. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaugh ED, et al. Campbell’s Urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA:WB Saunders Company ,2002. 2672-2719.
7. Ebele JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et al. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon: IARC, 2004.12-43.
8. Reddan DN, Raj GV, Polascik TJ.Management of small renal tumors: an overview.Am J Med,2001,110:558-562.
9. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, et al. Surgical manage of renal tumors 4 cm or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol,2000,163:730-736.
10. Levine E, Huntrakoon M, Wetzel LH. Small renal neoplasms: clinical pathologic and imaging features. AJR, 1989, 153: 69-73.
11. Eschwege P, Saussine C, Steichen G, et a1.Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma 30mm or less: long term follow results.J Urol,1996,155:1196-1199.
12. ZebedinD, Kammerhuber F, Uggowitzer MM, et al. criteria for ultrasound differentiation of small angiomyOlipomas( 13.蔡胜,姜玉新,李建初等.小肾癌的声像图征象及其临床价值[J]中华超声影像学杂志,2001,7:421-423.
14.袁久洪,鲍磊,陈松等.肾脏良性占位病变的术前诊断[J]中华泌尿外科杂志,2000,21:271-273.
15.李建卫,吴松松,林宁等.灰阶超声造影对肾癌与错构瘤的鉴别诊断价值[J]中华超声医学杂志,2009,3:02-304.
16. Pietro Pavlica, Lorenzo Derchi , Giuseppe Martorana, et al. Renal Cell Carcinoma Imaging. European urology supplements ,2006, 5:580-592.
17. Neesha S. Patel, Liina Poder, Zhen J. Wang, et al. The characterization of small hypoattenuating renal masses on contrast-enhanced CT. Clinical Imaging, 2009, 33 :295-300.
18. Urban BA, Ratner LE, Fishman EK. Threedimensional volume rendered CT angiogsaphy of the renal arteries and veins:norm alanatomy, variants,and clinical applications. Radiographics, 2001,21:373-386.
19. D.J. Tuite, T. Geoghegan, G. McCauley, et al.Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance breath-hold FLASH imaging in the diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma. Clinical Radiology, 2006,61:23-30.
20.谢晟,邹英华,吕永兴等.血管造影对小肾癌的诊断和鉴别诊断价值研究[J]实用放射学杂志,2000,16:136-139.
21. Mesut Remzi, Michael Marberger. Renal Tumor Biopsies for Evaluation of Small Renal Tumors:Why, in Whom, and How? European urology , 2009,55: 359-367.
22. Joerg Schmidbauer, Mesut Remzi, Mazda Memarsadeghi, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Renal Masses. European urology , 2008,53: 1003-1012.
23.李青,程继义,王振声等.肾癌369例临床分析[J]中华泌尿外科杂志,2001,23:496-499.
24. Sugao H, Matsuda M, Nakano E, et al. Comparison of lumbar flank approach and transperitoneal approach for radical nephrectomy. Urol Int, 1991, 46: 43-45.
25. Novick AC, Streem S, Montie JE, et al. Conservative surgery for renal cell carcinoma: a single-center experience with 100 patients. J Urol, 1989, 141:835-839.
26. Uzzo RG, Novik AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol, 2001, 166: 6-18.
27. Krejci KG,Blute ML, Cheville JC,et al.Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma; clinicopathologic features predictive of patient outcome.Urology, 2003, 62(4):641-646.
28. Ljungberg B, Hanbury DC, Kuczyk MA, et al. Guidelines on renal cell cancer. Eur Urol, 2008, 1-26.
29. Saranchuk JK, Savage SJ. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: current status. BJU Int, 2005, 2:21-26.
30. Desai MM, Gill IS. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumour: current status at the Cleveland Clinic. BJU Int, 2005, 2:41-45.
31.张旭.保留肾单位的腹腔镜肾肿瘤切除术.中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版).2008,2(3):198-201.
32. Raj GV, Reddan DJ, Honey MB, et a1. Management of small renal tumors with radiofrequency ablation. Urology, 2003, 61:23-29.
33. Rodriguez R, Chan DY, Bishof IT, et al. Renal ablative cryosurgery in Selected Patients with Peripheral renal mass.Uorlogy,2003,55:25-30.
34. Gill IS Novick AC, Meraney AM, et al. Laparoscopic renal cryoablation in 32 patients.Urology, 2000, 56:748-753.
35. Rukstalis DB, Khomdl M, Garcia FU, et al. Clinical experience open renal cryoablation. Urology, 2001, 57:34-39.
36. Wu F, Wang ZB, Chen WZ, et al. Preliminary experience using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the treatment of patients with advanced stage renal malignancy. J UROL ,2003,17:2234-2240.
37.张大鹍综述,董宝玮,梁萍审校.肾脏肿瘤消融治疗的研究进展.中国医学影像技术杂志.2006, 22(7): 1117-1120.
2. John SL, Oleg S, Allan JP. Changing concepts in the surgical management of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol, 2004,45(3):692-705.
3. Hosokawa YKinouchi T, Sawai Y, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat. Int J Clin Oncol, 2002, 7: 120-123.
4.李松年.肾肿瘤,中华影像医学,北京人民卫生出版社,2002,78-85.
5. Yamashita Y, Takahashi M, Watanabe O, et a1. Small renal cell carcinoma:pathologic and radiologic correlation[J].Radiology,2002.184:493.
6.曹国洪,许乙凯,阳红艳.螺旋CT多期增强扫描在小肾癌诊断中的应用[J].医学影像学杂志,2005,l5(l0):904-907.
7.周康荣,主编.螺旋CT.上海:上海医科大学出版杜,l998,220-222.
8. Prasad SR, Humphrey PA, Catena JR, el a1. Common and uncommon histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma:imaging spectrum with pathologic correlation. Radiographics,2006,26:1795-1806.
9.吴阶平.吴阶平泌尿外科学[M].济南:山东科学技术出版社,2004:895-896.
10. Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, et al. Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology,230:677-684, 2004.
11. Brian A. VanderBrink, Ravi Munver, Jennifer A. Tash, R. Ernest Sosa. Renal angiomyolipoma with contrast-enhancing elements mimicking renal malignancy: radiographic and pathologic evaluation. Urology, Volume 63, Issue 3, March 2004, Pages 584-586.
12. Jason Hafron, James D. Fogarty, David M. Imaging characteristics of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with histologic correlations.Urology, 2005 ,66: 1155–1159.
13. Jinzaki M , Tan imoto A, Mukai M, et a1. Double-phase helical CT of small renalparenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumor an giogenesis. JCAT 2000; 24:835-842.
14. Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et a1. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT SCan S. AJR 2002;178:1499-1506.
15. E. Simpson, U. Patel. Diagnosis of angiomyolipoma using computed Tomography region of interest≤-10 HU or 4 adjacent. Pixels≤-10 HU are recommended as the diagnostic thresholds. Int J Clinical Radiology (2006) 61, 410–416.
16. Patel U, Simpson E, Kings wood JC, Saggar Malik AK.Tuberose sclerosis complex: analysis of growth rates aids differentiation of renal cell carcinoma from atypical or minimal fat containing angiomyolipoma. Clin Radiol 2005,60:665-73.
17. Bernardini S, Chabannes E, Algros MP, et al.Variants of renal angiomyolipoma closely simulating renal cell carcinoma: difficulties in the histological diagnosis. Urol Int 69:78–81, 2002.
18.韩希年,刘光华,王俭.肾颗粒细胞癌的CT、MRI诊断[J].中国医学计算机成像杂志, 2004, 10(2):101-104.
19.韩希年,彭令荣,刘光华等.肾透明细胞癌的CT、MRI诊断[J].中国医学影像技术, 2005, 21(5):776-778.
20.韩希年,彭令荣,刘光华等.乳头状肾癌的CT、MRI诊断[J].放射学实践, 2005, 20(5):401-404.
21.韩希年,彭令荣.多发肾癌的影像学诊断[J].临床放射杂志, 2005, 24(3):415-418.
22. Herts BR, Coil DM, Novick AC, et a1. Enhancement Characteristics of Papillary Renal Neoplasms Revealed on Triphasic Helical CT of the Kidneys[J]. AJR, 2002,178(2);67-372.
23.王乐三.主编.SPSS在医学科研中的应用.北京:化学工业出版社,2007:249-255.
24. Schuster TG, Ferguson MR, Baker DE, et al: Papillary renal cell carcinoma containing fat without calcification mimicking angiomyolipoma on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 183: 1402-1404, 2004.
25. Krishnan B, Lechago J, Ayala G, et al: Intraoperative consultation for renal lesions:implications and diagnostic pitfalls in 324 cases.Am J Clin Pathol. 120: 528-535, 2003.
26. Matthew H. Hayn, Glenn M. Cannon, Jr.Sheldon Bastacky. Renal Cell Carcinoma Containing Fat Without Associated Calcifications: Two Case Reports and Review of Literature[J]. UROLOGY, 2009, 73 (2):443e5-e7.
27. Silverman SG, Pearson GDN, Seltzer SE, et al. Small (<3 cm) hyperechoic renal masses: comparison of helical and conventional CT for diagnosing angiomyolipoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996, 167:877-81.
28. Bozniak MA, Megibow AJ, Halnick DH, Horii S, Raghavendra BN. CT diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma: the importance of detecting small amounts of fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988;151:497-501.
29. Lemaitre L, Claudon M, Dubrulle F, Mazeman E. Imaging of angiomyolipoma. Semin US, CT and MRI 1997;18:100-14.
30. Zagoria RJ. Imaging of small renal masses: a medical success story. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:945-55.
31. Steiner MS, Goldman SM, Fishman EK, Marshall FF. The natural history of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 1993;150:1782-6.
1.那彦群.中国泌尿外科疾病诊断治疗指南.2009版.北京:人民卫生出版社,2009.
2.顾方六.肾肿瘤.见:吴阶平.吴阶平泌尿外科学.济南:山东科学技术出版社,2004.889-917.
3. Lindblad p. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Scand J surg,2004,93(2):88-96.
4. Bergstorm A, Hsieh CC, Lindblad p, et al. Obesity and renal cell cancer-a quantitative review. Br J Cancer, 2001, 85:984-990.
5. Pischon T, Lahmann PH, Boeing H, et al. Body size and risk of renal cell carcinoma in the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition(EPIC).Int J Cancer,2006,118(3):728-738.
6. Walsh PC, Retik AB, Vaugh ED, et al. Campbell’s Urology. 8th ed. Philadelphia, PA:WB Saunders Company ,2002. 2672-2719.
7. Ebele JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, et al. Pathology and Genetics of Tumours of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. Lyon: IARC, 2004.12-43.
8. Reddan DN, Raj GV, Polascik TJ.Management of small renal tumors: an overview.Am J Med,2001,110:558-562.
9. Lee CT, Katz J, Shi W, et al. Surgical manage of renal tumors 4 cm or less in a contemporary cohort. J Urol,2000,163:730-736.
10. Levine E, Huntrakoon M, Wetzel LH. Small renal neoplasms: clinical pathologic and imaging features. AJR, 1989, 153: 69-73.
11. Eschwege P, Saussine C, Steichen G, et a1.Radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma 30mm or less: long term follow results.J Urol,1996,155:1196-1199.
12. ZebedinD, Kammerhuber F, Uggowitzer MM, et al. criteria for ultrasound differentiation of small angiomyOlipomas(
14.袁久洪,鲍磊,陈松等.肾脏良性占位病变的术前诊断[J]中华泌尿外科杂志,2000,21:271-273.
15.李建卫,吴松松,林宁等.灰阶超声造影对肾癌与错构瘤的鉴别诊断价值[J]中华超声医学杂志,2009,3:02-304.
16. Pietro Pavlica, Lorenzo Derchi , Giuseppe Martorana, et al. Renal Cell Carcinoma Imaging. European urology supplements ,2006, 5:580-592.
17. Neesha S. Patel, Liina Poder, Zhen J. Wang, et al. The characterization of small hypoattenuating renal masses on contrast-enhanced CT. Clinical Imaging, 2009, 33 :295-300.
18. Urban BA, Ratner LE, Fishman EK. Threedimensional volume rendered CT angiogsaphy of the renal arteries and veins:norm alanatomy, variants,and clinical applications. Radiographics, 2001,21:373-386.
19. D.J. Tuite, T. Geoghegan, G. McCauley, et al.Three-dimensional gadolinium-enhanced magnetic resonance breath-hold FLASH imaging in the diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma. Clinical Radiology, 2006,61:23-30.
20.谢晟,邹英华,吕永兴等.血管造影对小肾癌的诊断和鉴别诊断价值研究[J]实用放射学杂志,2000,16:136-139.
21. Mesut Remzi, Michael Marberger. Renal Tumor Biopsies for Evaluation of Small Renal Tumors:Why, in Whom, and How? European urology , 2009,55: 359-367.
22. Joerg Schmidbauer, Mesut Remzi, Mazda Memarsadeghi, et al. Diagnostic Accuracy of Computed Tomography-Guided Percutaneous Biopsy of Renal Masses. European urology , 2008,53: 1003-1012.
23.李青,程继义,王振声等.肾癌369例临床分析[J]中华泌尿外科杂志,2001,23:496-499.
24. Sugao H, Matsuda M, Nakano E, et al. Comparison of lumbar flank approach and transperitoneal approach for radical nephrectomy. Urol Int, 1991, 46: 43-45.
25. Novick AC, Streem S, Montie JE, et al. Conservative surgery for renal cell carcinoma: a single-center experience with 100 patients. J Urol, 1989, 141:835-839.
26. Uzzo RG, Novik AC. Nephron sparing surgery for renal tumors: indications, techniques and outcomes. J Urol, 2001, 166: 6-18.
27. Krejci KG,Blute ML, Cheville JC,et al.Nephron sparing surgery for renal cell carcinoma; clinicopathologic features predictive of patient outcome.Urology, 2003, 62(4):641-646.
28. Ljungberg B, Hanbury DC, Kuczyk MA, et al. Guidelines on renal cell cancer. Eur Urol, 2008, 1-26.
29. Saranchuk JK, Savage SJ. Laparoscopic radical nephrectomy: current status. BJU Int, 2005, 2:21-26.
30. Desai MM, Gill IS. Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for tumour: current status at the Cleveland Clinic. BJU Int, 2005, 2:41-45.
31.张旭.保留肾单位的腹腔镜肾肿瘤切除术.中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版).2008,2(3):198-201.
32. Raj GV, Reddan DJ, Honey MB, et a1. Management of small renal tumors with radiofrequency ablation. Urology, 2003, 61:23-29.
33. Rodriguez R, Chan DY, Bishof IT, et al. Renal ablative cryosurgery in Selected Patients with Peripheral renal mass.Uorlogy,2003,55:25-30.
34. Gill IS Novick AC, Meraney AM, et al. Laparoscopic renal cryoablation in 32 patients.Urology, 2000, 56:748-753.
35. Rukstalis DB, Khomdl M, Garcia FU, et al. Clinical experience open renal cryoablation. Urology, 2001, 57:34-39.
36. Wu F, Wang ZB, Chen WZ, et al. Preliminary experience using High Intensity Focused Ultrasound for the treatment of patients with advanced stage renal malignancy. J UROL ,2003,17:2234-2240.
37.张大鹍综述,董宝玮,梁萍审校.肾脏肿瘤消融治疗的研究进展.中国医学影像技术杂志.2006, 22(7): 1117-1120.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |