Share：
Share this content in WeChat
X
[Chinese][PDF]1150242
• Experience Exchanges •
Clinical characteristics and MR imaging features of metanephric adenoma
SHI Jiayuan  XU Wei  YUAN Jing  BAI Xu  KANG Huanhuan  CUI Mengqiu  YE Huiyi  WANG Haiyi 

Cite this article as: Shi JY, Xu W, Yuan J, et al. Clinical characteristics and MR imaging features of metanephric adenoma[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(7): 64-68. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.013.


[Abstract] Objective To document the clinical characteristics and MR imaging features of metanephric adenoma (MA). Materials andMethods Pathologically-proven MAs with complete MR protocol were retrospectively analyzed between January 2013 and December 2019. The clinical information and MR imaging features were reviewed. Two experienced radiologists in consensus observed the MR imaging features of all the cases.Results Eleven cases of MA (3 males, 8 females) were enrolled in this study with age of (38.5±12.3) years old. All lesions were solitary. The diameter was (3.7±1.7) cm. Ten lesions were detected during routine health checkup. Two patient presented polycythemia. Ten patients underwent partial nephrectomy, and one radical nephrectomy. All lesions were well-defined, 7 lesions demonstrated exophytic growth, and 7 lesions were adjacent to the renal sinus. Two lesions showed complete pseudocapsule on T2WI and 4 incomplete pseudocapsule. Eight lesions showed cystic degeneration or necrosis and 2 hemorrhage. On T2WI 9 lesions showed inhomogeneous hypointensity, all lesion hyperintenisty on DWI, 8 of which showed rim hyperintensity, while on ADC map. All lesions showed hypointensity, 9 of which rim hypointensity. On T1WI 9 lesions showed hypointensity. On contrast-enhanced imaging, the signal intensity of MA lesions was lower than that of renal cortex, and MR lesions demonstrated progressive enhancement pattern.Conclusions MA is common in young and middle-aged women, with unilateral single mass and no obvious clinical symptoms. The main MR imaging features are mainly exophytic, adjacent to renal sinus at the inner edge, hypointensity on T2WI, no or incomplete pseudocapsule, rim diffusion restriction on DWI, visible cystic degeneration and necrosis, rare hemorrhage, no lipid or fat, and mild progressive enhancement. The characteristics of MR imaging can help clinicians and radiologists to accurately diagnose MA.
[Keywords] kidney；kidney neoplasm；magnetic resonance imaging；metanephric adenoma；diagnosis

SHI Jiayuan1, 2   XU Wei1   YUAN Jing3   BAI Xu4   KANG Huanhuan1   CUI Mengqiu1   YE Huiyi1   WANG Haiyi1*  

1 Department of Radiology, the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China

2 Department of Radiology, Shaanxi Sengong Hospital, Xi'an 710300, China

3 Department of Pathology, the First Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China

4 Department of Radiology, the Fifth Medical Center of Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100039, China

Wang HY, E-mail :wanghaiyi301@outlook.com

Conflicts of interest   None.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This article is supported by the National Natural Science Found of China (No. 81971580).
Received  2021-02-24
Accepted  2021-04-19
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.013
Cite this article as: Shi JY, Xu W, Yuan J, et al. Clinical characteristics and MR imaging features of metanephric adenoma[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(7): 64-68. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.013.

1
Moch H, Humphrey PA, Ulbright TM. WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs: consensus and editorial meeting at the University Hospital[M]. Lyon: IARC Press, 2016.
2
Amin MB, Amin MB, Tamboli P, et al. Prognostic impact of histologic subtyping of adult renal epithelial neoplasms: an experience of 405 cases[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2002, 26(3): 281-291. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-200203000-00001.
3
Gordetsky J, Eich ML, Garapati M, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses[J]. Urology, 2019, 123(51-70): 157-166. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2018.09.017.
4
Wilcox Vanden Berg RN, Basourakos SP, Larussa s, et al. Management of the small renal mass: a 2020 update[J]. Curr Oncol Rep, 2020, 22(7):69. DOI: 10.1007/s11912-020-00924-9.
5
Gupta M, Alam R, Patel HD, et al. Use of delayed intervention for small renal masses initially managed with active surveillance[J]. Urol Oncol, 2019, 37(1): 18-25. DOI: 10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.10.001.
6
Ward RD, Tanaka H, Campbell SC, et al. 2017 AUA renal mass and localized renal cancer guidelines: imaging implications[J]. Radiographics, 2018, 38(7): 2021-2033. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2018180127.
7
Fu J, Ye J, Zhu W, et al. Magnetic resonance diffusion kurtosis imaging in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant renal tumors[J]. Cancer Imaging, 2021, 21(1): 6. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-020-00369-0.
8
Nicolau C, Antunes N, Paño B, et al. Imaging characterization of renal masses[J]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2021, 57(1): 51-70. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57010051.
9
Mawi H, Narine R, Schieda N. Adequacy of unenhanced MRI for surveillance of small (clinical T1a) solid renal masses[J]. AJR Am J roentgenol, 2021(4): 960–966. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.20.23458.
10
Davis CJ, Barton JH, Sesterhenn IA, et al. Metanephric adenoma. Clinicopathological study of fifty patients[J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 1995, 19(10): 1101-1114. DOI: 10.1097/00000478-199510000-00001.
11
Hartman DJ, Maclennan GT. Renal metanephric adenoma[J]. J Urol, 2007, 178(3Pt 1): 1058. DOI: 10.1016/j.juro.2007.06.002.
12
Jiang T, Li W, Lin D, et al. Imaging features of metanephric adenoma and their pathological correlation[J]. Clin Radiol, 2019, 74(5): 408.e9-408.e17. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2019.01.013.
13
Roy C, El Ghali S, Buy X, et al. Significance of the pseudocapsule on MRI of renal neoplasms and its potential application for local staging: a retrospective study[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2005, 184(1): 113-120. DOI: 10.2214/Ajr.184.1.01840113.
14
Musaddaq B, Musaddaq T, Gupta A, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: the evolving role of imaging in the 21st century[J]. Semin Ultrasound CT MRI, 2020, 41(4): 344-350. DOI: 10.1053/j.sult.2020.05.002.
15
Maurer MH, Härmä KH, Thoeny H. Diffusion-weighted genitourinary imaging[J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2017, 55(2): 393-411. DOI: 10.1016/j.rcl.2016.10.014.
16
Yin KJ, Xu SW, Tong H, et al. CT and MRI imaging findings of metanephric adenoma[J]. J Med Imaging, 2019, 29(4): 640-643.
17
Luo M, Huang T, Chen SB, et al. Imaging findings and clinicopathologic analysis of metanephric adenoma and literature review[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2019, 38(11): 2139-2143. DOI: 10.13437/j.cnki.jcr.2019.11.031.
18
Shangpliang D, Baishya P, Mishra J, et al. Metanephric adenoma with cystic changes: an uncommon presentation of a rare tumor in a young adult[J]. Autopsy Case Rep, 2020, 10(3): e2020148. DOI: 10.4322/acr.2020.148.
19
Mantoan Padilha M, Billis A, Allende D, et al. Metanephric adenoma and solid variant of papillary renal cell carcinoma: common and distinctive features[J]. Histopathology, 2013, 62(6): 941-953. DOI: 10.1111/his.12106.
20
Kinney SN, Eble JN, Hes O, et al. Metanephric adenoma: the utility of immunohistochemical and cytogenetic analyses in differential diagnosis, including solid variant papillary renal cell carcinoma and epithelial-predominant nephroblastoma[J]. Mod Pathol, 2015, 28(9): 1236-1248. DOI: 10.1038/modpathol.2015.81.
21
Masuda A, Kamai T, Mizuno T, et al. Renal metanephric adenoma mimicking papillary renal cell carcinoma on computed tomography: a case report[J]. Urol Int, 2013, 90(3): 369-372. DOI: 10.1159/000341940.
22
Chiarello MA, Mali RD, Kang SK. Diagnostic accuracy of mri for detection of papillary renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and Meta-analysis[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 211(4): 812-821. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.19462.

PREV Multi-parameter MR scan was used to evaluate the clinical significance of T staging of renal cell carcinoma
NEXT Value of T2WI-FS based radiomics features in the diagnosis of cervical cancer metastasis and lymph vascular space invasion
  


LINK


Tel & Fax: +8610-67113815    E-mail: editor@cjmri.cn