To retrospectively compare the accuracy of delayed enhanced computed tomography (CT) and chemical shift magnetic resonance (MR) imaging for characterizing hyperattenuating adrenal masses at CT, with either follow-up imaging or pathologic review as the reference standard. The institutional review board approved this retrospective study with a waiver of patient informed consent. Forty-three hyperattenuating adrenal masses (>10 HU) on unenhanced CT images were found in 34 patients (23 men and 11 women; mean age, 52.7 years) by reviewing radiologic reports. These lesions were retrospectively analyzed with delayed enhanced CT and chemical shift MR. The diagnostic accuracy of CT by using absolute percentage loss of enhancement (PLE) and relative PLE and of chemical shift MR by using adrenal-to-spleen ratio (ASR) or signal intensity index (SII) were obtained to determine which modality was more accurate for lipid-poor adenoma. For CT, an adenoma was diagnosed if a mass had an absolute PLE greater than 60% and a relative PLE greater than 40%. For MR, an adenoma was diagnosed if a mass had an ASR of 0.71 or an SII greater than 16.5%. McNemar test was used to compare diagnostic performance of CT and MR. Hyperattenuating adrenal masses included 37 adenomas and six nonadenomas. The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for adenoma at CT were 97% (36 of 37), 100% (six of six), and 98% (42 of 43), respectively, and at MR were 86% (32 of 37), 50% (three of six), and 49% (21 of 43), respectively. CT helped confirm five more adenomas and three more metastatic tumors than did MR. However, there was no significant difference for diagnostic accuracy between these two imaging modalities (P>.05) Delayed enhanced CT can characterize additional hyperattenuating adrenal masses that cannot be characterized with chemical shift MR.

OBJECTIVE. The purposes of this article are to introduce the radiologic classifications of renal angiomyolipoma (AML) and the clinical implications, to show the imaging features of each type of AML, and to describe which types of AML should be biopsied. CONCLUSION. Renal AML can be classified according to amount of fat as fat rich, fat poor, or fat invisible. To detect fat, one needs to thoroughly evaluate the entire AML by controlling the size and shape of the ROI. Fat-invisible AML should be biopsied, and fat-poor AML requires further investigation to determine whether biopsy is necessary to differentiate it from renal cell carcinoma. If differentiation between AML and renal cell carcinoma is not clear with CT and MRI, percutaneous biopsy may be performed.

To retrospectively evaluate local staging accuracy for prostate cancer at 3.0-T magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) by comparing with that at 1.5-T MRI. Two groups, each consisting of 54 patients, were included by matching for age, prostate specific antigen, and Gleason score. Before radical prostatectomy, 1 group underwent 3.0-T MRI using a phased-array coil, and the other 1.5-T MRI using an endorectal coil. T2-weighted MR images at 3.0 and 1.5 T were analyzed in consensus by 2 radiologists, and their staging accuracy was compared with histology. Artifact and overall image quality were compared at both 3.0 and 1.5 T. Accuracy for T3 stage at 3.0 and 1.5 T were 72% (39/54) and 70% (38/54), respectively (P > 0.05). The 3.0-T MRI had a lower incidence of MR artifacts than the 1.5-T MRI (P < 0.05). However, overall imaging quality at both 3.0 and 1.5 T had no significant difference (P > 0.05). The 3.0-T phased-array MRI is equivalent to the 1.5-T endorectal MRI in evaluating local staging accuracy for prostate cancer without significant loss of imaging quality.

Adrenocortical adenoma is the most common adrenal tumour. This lesion is frequently encountered on cross-sectional imaging that has been performed for unrelated reasons. Adrenal adenoma manifests variously on computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and positron emission tomography/computed tomography. The learning objectives of this review are to describe the imaging findings of adrenocortical adenoma, to compare the sensitivities of different imaging modalities for adenoma characterization, and to introduce differential diagnoses.