Fiche publication
Date publication
décembre 2014
Auteurs
Membres identifiés du Cancéropôle Est :
Pr GUILLEMIN Francis
,
Dr VUISSOZ Pierre-André
Tous les auteurs :
Claudon M, Durand E, Grenier N, Prigent A, Balvay D, Chaumet-Riffaud P, Chaumoitre K, Cuenod CA, Filipovic M, Galloy MA, Lemaitre L, Mandry D, Micard E, Pasquier C, Sebag GH, Soudant M, Vuissoz PA, Guillemin F
Lien Pubmed
Résumé
PURPOSE: To evaluate if measurement of split renal function ( SRF split renal function ) with dynamic contrast material-enhanced ( DCE dynamic contrast enhanced ) magnetic resonance (MR) urography is equivalent to that with renal scintigraphy ( RS renal scintigraphy ) in patients suspected of having chronic urinary obstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study protocol was approved by the institutional ethics committee of the coordinating center on behalf of all participating centers. Informed consent was obtained from all adult patients or both parents of children. This prospective, comparative study included 369 pediatric and adult patients from 14 university hospitals who were suspected of having chronic or intermittent urinary obstruction, and data from 295 patients with complete data were used for analysis. SRF split renal function was measured by using the area under the curve and the Patlak-Rutland methods, including successive review by a senior and an expert reviewer and measurement of intra- and interobserver agreement for each technique. An equivalence test for mean SRF split renal function was conducted with an alpha of 5%. RESULTS: Reproducibility was substantial to almost perfect for both methods. Equivalence of DCE dynamic contrast enhanced MR urography and RS renal scintigraphy for measurement of SRF split renal function was shown in patients with moderately dilated kidneys (P < .001 with the Patlak-Rutland method). However, in severely dilated kidneys, the mean SRF split renal function measurement was underestimated by 4% when DCE dynamic contrast enhanced MR urography was used compared with that when RS renal scintigraphy was used. Age and type of MR imaging device had no significant effect. CONCLUSION: For moderately dilated kidneys, equivalence of DCE dynamic contrast enhanced MR urography to RS renal scintigraphy was shown, with a standard deviation of approximately 12% between the techniques, making substitution of DCE dynamic contrast enhanced MR urography for RS renal scintigraphy acceptable. For severely dilated kidneys, a mean underestimation of SRF split renal function of 4% should be expected with DCE dynamic contrast enhanced MR urography, making substitution questionable.
Référence
Radiology. 2014 Dec;273(3):801-12
