• Diagnosis of Renal Angiomyolipoma with Hounsfield Unit Thresholds: Effect of Size of Region of Interest and Nephrographic Phase Imaging

    Radiology:Volume 260: Number 1 -July 2011

    Matthew S. Davenport, MD Amy M. Neville, MD James H. Ellis, MD Richard H. Cohan, MD Humaira S. Chaudhry, MD Richard A. Leder, MD

    Purpose: To retrospectively determine the optimal Hounsfield unit threshold and region of interest (ROI) size required to accurately diagnose renal angiomyolipoma (AML) and dif­ferentiate it from renal cell carcinoma (RCC).

    Materials and Methods: This retrospective study was institutional review board approved and HIPAA compliant, and the requirement for written informed patient consent was waived. The radio­logic reports on 4502 dual-phase abdominal computed tomography (CT) examinations (nonenhanced and nephro­graphic phases, 5-mm collimation, 120-140 kVp, variable milliampere-second settings) performed in 2872 patients from June 2002 through October 2007 were reviewed. Solid-component masses reported as suspicious for RCC or AML were correlated with histologic and/or follow-up imaging findings. ROIs of three different sizes-tiny (8-13 mm2), small (19-24 mm2), and medium (30-35 mm2)-were drawn in the lowest-attenuation focus on images obtained during both phases. The test characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, false-positive rate, false-negative rate) of multiple attenuation thresholds at each combination of ROI size and contrast enhancement phase were calculated, and re­ceiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were derived. Areas under the ROC curve were calculated.

    Results: There were 217 RCCs and 65 AMLs. With an attenuation threshold of -10 HU or lower at nonenhanced CT, RCC would be misdiagnosed as AML in 11 (5.1%) cases, one (0.5%) case, and one (0.5%) case with use of the tiny, small, and medium ROIs, respectively. With use of the tiny, small, and medium ROIs, misdiagnosis rates would be 2.3%, 0.5%, and 0.5%, respectively, at a threshold of -15 HU or lower and 1.8%, 0%, and 0%, respectively, at a threshold of -20 HU or lower. Areas under the ROC curve for the nonenhanced phase images (range, 0.874-0.889) were superior to those for the nephrographic phase images (range, 0.790-0.826).

    Conclusion: Nonenhanced CT images were superior to nephrographic phase CT images for the diagnosis of AML. An attenuation threshold of -10 HU or lower with an ROI of at least 19-24 mm2 is optimal for the diagnosis of AML. This thresh­old is not accurate with use of smaller (8-13-mm2) ROIs.