Adequacy of Unenhanced MRI for Surveillance of Small (Clinical T1a) Solid Renal Masses

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine if contrast enhancement is necessary for MRI surveillance of clinical T1a (cT1a) solid renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. With institutional review board approval, 36 patients who underwent two or more contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI examinations (median, four examinations; range, two to 10 examinations) for surveillance of 39 cT1a solid renal masses between 2009 and 2019 (median time between scans, 2 years; range, 1-7 years) were evaluated. Two radiologists independently measured renal mass size and assessed tumor stage in two sessions for baseline and follow-up examinations using T1-weighted nephrographic phase CE-MRI and unenhanced single-shot T2-weighted MRI in mixed order with a 4-week washout period. Comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon sign-rank test and Pearson correlation. Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation determined interobserver agreement. RESULTS. Mean size ± SD of renal masses on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI were 18 ± 5 mm (range, 9-37 mm) and 18 ± 5 mm (range, 9-37 mm) for radiologist 1 and 19 ± 7 mm (range, 10-39 mm) and 19 ± 6 mm (range, 10-39 mm) for radiologist 2 with near perfect correlation (for radiologist 1, β = 0.9897; for radiologist 2, β = 0.9317; p < .001). Interob-server agreement for measurements comparing radiologist 1 and radiologist 2 on CEMRI and T2-weighted MRI and intraobserver agreement for measurements on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI were excellent. Mean growth rate of renal masses measured on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI were 2 ± 2 mm (range, -5 to 8 mm) and 2 ± 3 mm (range, -3 to 8 mm) for radiologist 1 and 3 ± 5 mm (range, -1 to 18 mm) and 3 ± 6 mm (range, -1 to 24 mm) for radiologist 2 with high correlation (for radiologist 1, β = 0.8313 [p < .001]; for radiologist 2, β = 0.848 [p = .002]). At baseline, all tumors were subjectively cT1a on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI (p > .99, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 1). During follow-up, one mass progressed to T3 on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI for radiologist 1 and radiologist 2 (p > .99, ICC = 1). CONCLUSION. In this study, size measurements on unenhanced T2-weighted MRI had near perfect correlation to measurements using CE-MRI in cT1a solid renal masses undergoing surveillance, with high agreement between and within observers. Clinical staging did not differ comparing T2-weighted MRI and CE-MRI, with near perfect agreement. Contrast enhancement is not necessary for follow-up size measurements in cT1a solid renal masses with MRI.