Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 REVIEW ARTICLE Imaging of Renal Angiomyolipomatosis Federico Greco, Carlo Augusto Mallio, Vincenzo Cirimele, Pasquale D’Alessio, Bruno Beomonte Zobel, Rosario Francesco Grasso Unit of Diagnostic Imaging, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Rome, Italy Abstract Angiomyolipoma is a type of benign renal tumor. It is sporadic and isolated in 80% of cases. The remaining 20% is associated with tuberous sclerosis complex or pulmonary lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Generally, angiomyolipomas manifest themselves as angiomyolipomatosis, in which the angiomyolipomas are larger, bilateral, and widespread. Understanding whether angiomyolipomas are present in the context of angiomyolipomatosis is of considerable importance because it might be associated with malignant lesions. This article provides an overview of the radiological features of renal angiomyolipomatosis under different imaging techniques such as ultrasound, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance. Keywords: angiomyolipoma; lymphangioleiomyomatosis; PEComa; renal angiomyolipomatosis; tuberous sclerosis Received: 05 September 2018; Accepted after revision: 21 October 2018; Published: 14 November 2018 Author for correspondence: Federico Greco, Unit of Diagnostic Imaging, Università Campus Bio-Medico di Roma, Via Alvaro del Portillo, 21, 00128, Rome, Italy. Email: federico.greco@unicampus.it How to cite: Greco F, Mallio CA, Cirimele V, D’Alessio P, Beomonte Zobel B, Grasso RF. Imaging of renal angiomyolipomatosis. J Ren Hepat Disord. 2018;2(2):10–19. Doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.15586/jrenhep.2018.37 Copyright: Greco F et al. License: This open access article is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 Introduction Angiomyolipoma (AML) is a type of benign renal tumor, with an estimated prevalence of 0.3–3% of all renal tumors and a greater female predilection (1, 2). It is characteristi- cally a solid “triphasic” tumor composed of dysmorphic blood vessels, smooth muscle components, and mature adipose tissue which may be present in varying amounts (3). AML was once considered a hamartoma and, most re- cently, a choristoma; it is now considered a part of perivas- cular epithelioid cell tumors (PEComa) (4–6). PEComa are mesenchymal neoplasms formed by nests and sheets of epithelioid and spindle cells that show immunoreactiv- ity for both smooth muscle and melanocytic markers (7). The PEComas now include AML, pulmonary clear cell “sugar” tumor and lymphangioleiomyomatosis (LAM), primary extrapulmonary sugar tumor, clear cell myomela- nocytic tumor of the falciform ligament/ligamentum teres, abdominopelvic sarcoma of perivascular epithelioid cells, and other neoplasms with similar characteristics (8). Renal angiomyolipomatosis is a common manifestation in patients with tuberous sclerosis (TS) and LAM, where AMLs are larger, multiple, almost always bilateral, and have a greater predisposition to bleeding. AML is sporadic and isolated in 80% of cases, while the remaining 20% is associated with tu- berous sclerosis complex (TSC) or pulmonary LAM (9, 10). Radiologically, the sporadic AML is predominantly classi- fied into classic (common) and fat-poor AML (uncommon). Fat-poor AML is further classified into three subtypes: hy- perattenuating AML (approximately 4.5% of all AMLs), isoattenuating AML (rare), and AML with epithelial cyst codonpublications.comjrenhep.com mailto:federico.greco@unicampus.it http://dx.doi.org/10.15586/jrenhep.2018.37 Renal angiomyolipomatosis Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 11 Figure 1. CT axial scan of the abdomen during venous phase of a 45-year-old woman with TS showing the presence of renal angiomyolipomatosis (A and B) and caliectasia at the level of the left upper calyceal group (A). Furthermore, a cystic lesion with solid peripheral tissue indissociable from the left inferior renal pole is evident (B). At the follow-up CT scan performed approx- imately 6 months later, the cystic lesion showed an increase of the solid component. Consequently, the patient underwent left nephrectomy and tumorectomy. Histological examination revealed the diagnosis of dedifferentiated liposarcoma. (rare). Another type of sporadic AML is epithelioid AML (rare). Syndromic AML is subdivided into AML in TSC and AML in LAM (11).The majority (>80%) of AMLs are detected incidentally during imaging. Most patients are asymptomatic when AML is diagnosed (10). The most common presentation is spontaneous retroperitoneal hem- orrhage, although this happens in less than 15% of cases (10). Other clinical presentations are anemia, hematuria, palpable mass, flank pain, urinary tract infection, or renal failure (12, 13). As most classic AMLs do not increase in size and remain asymptomatic, the management is conservative. However, some grow gradually, showing a growth rate of 5% or 0.19 cm per year (14, 15). Oesterling et al. (16) proposed an algorithm for the management of AML based on tumor size and symptoms. For small AML (≤ 4 cm), follow-up with ultrasound (US) imaging is recommended every 12 months; for small AML in symptomatic patients, arterial emboliza- tion or partial nephrectomy can be chosen although ob- servation is often favored in clinical practice. Treatment is recommended for symptomatic patients with large tumors, especially if the AML has bled. In asymptomatic patients with large AML, follow-up with computed tomography (CT) or US is recommended (16). Other options introduced for AML treatment are transarterial ethanol and percutane- ous ablation using cryoablation or radiofrequency (17–19). In this article, we describe the radiological features of renal angiomyolipomatosis. A PubMed search was performed by a radiologist for the term “angiomyolipomatosis.” The research showed 20 articles published in a period from 1969 to 2013. A total of 10 articles were excluded: four in German, three in French, one in Russian, and two did not describe the radio- logical features of renal angiomyolipomatosis. The remaining 10 articles in English, Italian, and Spanish languages describ- ing radiological features of renal angiomyolipomatosis were selected. Angiomyolipomatosis in Tuberous Sclerosis Complex Tuberous sclerosis is largely the result of loss-of-function mutations of TSC1 (9q34) or TSC2 (16p13.3) genes. In ad- dition to conditions such as mental retardation and seizures, TSC is associated with AMLs, LAM, pulmonary multifocal micronodular hyperplasia, subependymal giant cell tumors, cutaneous angiofibromas, and cardiac rabdomyomas (20). AMLs occur in 55–75% of patients with TS; AMLs in TS typically develop at a young age and are frequently multiple, almost always bilateral and larger in size, presenting as an- giomyolipomatosis (Figure 1) (11, 21). Patients with TSC are more likely to show multiple, bilateral, and larger AMLs than AMLs in sporadic cases (22, 23). Most of the AMLs in TSC manifest as the classic type, while fat-poor AMLs are found in over one-third of these patients. Fat-poor AMLs in TSC tend to be larger than those of the sporadic form (24). As renal cell carcinoma may occur in patients with TSC, renal masses without visible characteristic adipose tissue may require a percutaneous biopsy or closer follow-up (15). Patients with TSC have also shown the presence of epithe- lioid AML and AML with epithelial cysts; TSC patients are more likely to show these two variants of AML compared to AMLs found sporadically (25, 26). Epithelioid AML shows variable biological behavior including malignancy; in fact, during adulthood, it can infiltrate adjacent tissue or metasta- size to the lungs, liver, peritoneum, or bone (27, 28). As patients with TSC risk premature loss of nephrons due to increasing numbers and dimensions of cysts and AMLs, selective arterial embolization, percutaneous ablation, or partial nephrectomy are preferred conservative therapies for the treatment of these lesions (29). Moreover, these patients present a high risk of spontaneous hemorrhage; AML >4 cm and AML aneurysms >0.5 cm are risk factors for AML Greco F et al. Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 12 hemorrhage (30, 31). Approximately 43% of patients with TSC may have recurrent AML bleeding, which is not usually seen in sporadic AMLs (32, 33). Indeed, angiomyolipoma- tosis is often associated with multiple spontaneous bleeding events. The mTOR inhibitor sirolimus allows the prevention of tumor growth and recurrence of bleeding in patients with TSC by inhibiting the activation of the mTOR pathway (34). Transcatheter embolization is an effective treatment for con- trolling bleeding in the acute context and can be performed in combination with surgery (17). Angiomyolipomatosis in Lymphangioleiomyomatosis Renal angiomyolipomatosis can be detected in patients with LAM, a rare disease characterized by destructive cys- tic changes in the lungs. Sporadic LAM manifests itself in one in 400,000 adult females; it may also happen in TSC, occurring in 30–40% of adult females and rarely in males and children (11, 35). In addition to renal AMLs, LAM presents other disorders including lymphangioleiomyomas, abdominal lymphadenopathy, and chylous ascites, and an in- crease in the frequency of meningioma (11, 35–38). As well as sporadic AMLs, the guidelines for LAM patients with AMLs recommend US examination per year for small AMLs (<4 cm), while larger AMLs and AMLs with aneurysms of 5 mm or greater diameter should be checked twice a year with US examination. The treatments of choice for a bleeding AML are renal arterial embolization and partial nephrec- tomy. Furthermore, the mTOR inhibitor sirolimus reduces the volume of AML (34, 35, 39). Imaging Features of Angiomyolipomatosis Several studies have described the radiological features of angiomyolipomatosis; for this review, we analyzed the radio- logical features described in several clinical cases. Imaging features of the cases of renal angiomyolipomatosis described in the literature are listed in Table 1 (40–49). Renal angiomyolipomatosis generally occurs with multi- ple and diffuse AMLs, bilaterally localized. Often the masses extend almost entirely covering the abdomen, displacing the Table 1. Imaging features of cases of renal angiomyolipomatosis References Imaging method Imaging features Segal et al. (40) Angiography Hypervascular Renal enlargement Deformed calyces Ahuja et al. (41) Radiography Thick mass of soft tissue with many thin cloud-like calcification figures Excretory urogram Marked congestion and stenosis of the left ureteral outlet Left kidney well delimited Right calico-pielic cavities deformed Right kidney not well defined Angiography Prominent vascular tortuosity with aneurysmal dilatation at lower pole of the left kidney Altered vascular architecture with peripheral ectasies and microan- eurysm of the right kidney; furthermore, the lower pole showed a region with a roundish morphology, highly vascularized, sur- rounded by wide arteries and a number of blood pools Delayed passage time Kalra et al. (42) Ultrasound Dimensional increase of the kidneys Multiple bilateral echogenic masses Contrast enhancement com- puted tomography Numerous irregular hypodense areas of adipose tissue density Numerous isodense to hyperdense areas varying from soft tissue density to blood density Poor excretion of contrast medium (Continued ) Renal angiomyolipomatosis Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 13 Table 1. (Continued ) References Imaging method Imaging features Granata et al. (43) Ultrasound and color-power-doppler (first patient) Dimensional increase of the kidneys Hyperechogenic parenchyma No evidence of cortico-medullary differentiation Absence of localized hypervascularization areas Four renal cysts Hypoechoic area in the right upper pole Contrast enhancement magnetic resonance imaging (first patient) Coarse localized mass at the right upper pole of difficult interpre- tation. The differential diagnosis was with fat-poor AML, epithe- lioid AML, and renal cell carcinoma; biopsy examination showed a diagnosis of fat-poor AML Ultrasound (second patient) Dimensional increase of the kidneys Irregular profiles of the kidneys Structural subversion of the renal parenchyma with numerous and coarse nodules that alter to cysts Magnetic resonance imaging (second patient) Numerous bilateral AMLs Liu et al. (44) Unenhanced computed tomography Huge bilateral masses consisting primarily of adipose tissue Ponce Díaz-Reixa et al. (45) Ultrasound and contrast enhancement computed tomography (first patient) Bilateral AMLs Ultrasound (second patient) Nodule of the right kidney isoecogenous compared to perirenal adipose tissue Contrast enhancement com- puted tomography (second patient) Mass at the right kidney, with heterogeneous appearance and adi- pose areas in the context, highly suggestive of AML Histological and immunohistochemical examination confirmed the diagnosis of AML Computed tomography (third patient) Mass at the right kidney, compatible with AML Histological examination of the tumor demonstrated AML with epithelioid areas with infiltration of two lymph nodes that showed the same histological diagnosis Er et al. (46) Unenhanced computed tomography Bilateral, renal masses (massive in the right kidney), with the den- sity of adipose tissue Incedayi et al. (47) Ultrasound Multiple bilateral hyperechogenic renal masses Unenhanced computed tomography Massive renal masses Fluid accumulation and high-density areas at the right kidney, developed following the previous hemorrhage Stallone et al. (48) Ultrasound Multiple renal hyperechogenic lesions Contrast enhancement com- puted tomography Multiple renal lesions, describing a framework compatible with angiomyolipomatosis. Histological analysis confirmed the diagno- sis of angiomyolipomatosis Vergnani et al. (49) Unenhanced computed tomography Widespread angiomyolipomatosis in the context of which fat com- ponents and soft-tissue tumor components were evident; hemato- mas were also present AML, angiomyolipoma. Greco F et al. Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 14 intestine. Signs of previous bleeding may be present. Renal cysts could also be detected. In AMLs with a predominantly fatty component, the adipose tissue localized within these le- sions assumes fundamental importance in the diagnosis. On US examination, it appears hyperechoic compared to renal cortex. In CT examination, it appears as hypodense area of adipose tissue density, mixed, or with soft-tissue attenuation due to vascular or smooth muscle components, hemorrhage or fibrosis (2). Bosniak described the angiographic features of AML. The author observed three patterns in particular: aneurysmal and tortuous vessels, berry-like aneurysms, and slow-flowing ves- sels with contrast medium retention (50). On magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), it appears isoin- tense compared with fat on T1-weighted images; moreover, with the use of in-phase and opposed-phase imaging, AMLs with predominant adipose component show the characteris- tic India ink artifact that appears at the interface between the lesion and the normal renal parenchyma on opposed-phase T1-weighted images. In T2-weighted images, however, the intensity can be variable, depending on the amount of ad- ipose tissue present in the lesion, resulting homogeneously high in AMLs with a higher adipose component (Figure 2) (51–54). The diagnosis is more difficult if there is the presence of fat-poor AML, epithelial AML, and AML with epithelial cysts, as we must discriminate these lesions from malignant lesions, such as renal cell carcinoma or the same epithelioid AML with malignant biological behavior, being able to be present in renal angiomyolipomatosis. For example, it is dif- ficult to differentiate fat-poor AML from other solid tumors, especially renal cell carcinoma. In this case, double-echo gra- dient-echo chemical-shift MRI could be used in which the values of the signal intensity are measured on the renal le- sion and on the spleen in on-phase and opposed-phase T1- weighted gradient-echo MRI (54). The presence of small calcifications within the lesion, which can be easily detected with CT, is considered to be suggestive of renal cell carci- noma (55). Furthermore, central necrosis is indicative of renal cell carcinoma, this being frequently present in medi- um-to-large clear cell renal cell carcinoma and very rare in AML. In fat-poor AML, the low amounts of adipose tissue can be detected on opposed-phase and in-phase imaging. It also appears homogeneously hypointense on T2-weighted images (53). Finally, even contrast enhancement US can be used in the differential diagnosis between malignant and benign renal lesions (56). In a retrospective study, Lu et al. found a slow Figure 2. MRI axial scan of the abdomen shows two AMLs of the left kidney. (A) Opposed-phase shows the charac- teristic  India ink artifact of the AMLs. (B) AMLs appear hyperintense on T2-weighted images and (C) hypointense on T2-weighted images with fat suppression. (D) T1-weighted image with fat suppression shows contrast enhancement of the AMLs. Renal angiomyolipomatosis Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 15 Figure 3. Unenhanced CT axial scan of the abdomen (A and C) and CT of the abdomen during arterious phase (B and D) of a 53-year-old woman showing the presence of classic AMLs, recognizable by the adipose component of the lesion. centripetal enhancement in the cortical phase and a homoge- neous enhancement in the peak phase in fat-poor renal AML (57). Radiologic Diagnosis of Renal Angiomyolipoma Jinzaki et al. proposed an AML classification in which clin- ical features, radiologic features, and pathologic features co- exist. This section focuses on the radiologic characteristics indicated in the AML classification of Jinzaki et al. (11). Classic angiomyolipoma Classic AML is a subtype of triphasic AML. The typical characteristic of classic AML is the presence of abundant adipose tissue (11). This AML almost always appears mark- edly hyperechoic compared to the renal parenchyma. In ad- dition, 21–33% of AMLs smaller than 3 cm show acoustic shadowing (58, 59). The fat present in AML can be identified on unenhanced CT with a region of interest (ROI) showing an attenuation less than −10 HU (Figure 3) (50, 60, 61). The CT features of classic AML vary due to variable amounts of the three components present in the lesion (11). Further- more, intralesional hemorrhage may be present, especially in tumors larger than 4 cm (62). MRI can be used to diagnose AML also by detecting fat cells; India ink artifact visible with a loss of signal at the boundary between the mass and the renal parenchyma is indicative of AML (52). Differential diagnosis of classic AML is with renal cell car- cinoma, Wilms tumor, and retroperitoneal liposarcoma and teratoma (11). Fat-poor angiomyolipoma Fat-poor AMLs are those triphasic AMLs that contain too little fat to be identified with unenhanced CT (4, 63). There are three subtypes of fat-poor AML; their subdivision is based on the number of fat cells and their distribution within the lesion; they are hyperattenuating and isoattenuating AMLs, and AML with epithelial cysts (64). Hyperattenuating angiomyolipoma Hyperattenuating AML makes up about 4–5% of all AMLs (65). This subtype of fat-poor AML is generally small, with an average of 3 cm of diameter, and accounts for only 4% (3–10% range) of fat cells (65–67). As there is an abundant amount of smooth muscle component, they present char- acteristics similar to those of smooth muscle: they appear Greco F et al. Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 16 hyperattenuating compared to renal parenchyma on unen- hanced CT (usually greater than 45 HU); T1-hypointense and T2-hypointense on MRI; no signal loss on fat-sup- pressed pulse sequences, and chemical shift suppression; and isoechoic on US, with one study suggesting could be hyper- echoic (65–67). Differential diagnosis of hyperattenuating AML is with renal cell carcinoma (typically the papillary renal cell carcinoma), metastases, oncocytoma, lymphoma, metanephric adenoma, and leiomyoma (63, 68). Isoattenuating angiomyolipoma Isoattenuating AMLs possess CT attenuations similar to those of the renal parenchyma on unenhanced CT. This type of AML does not possess regions of adipose tissue at- tenuation at unenhanced CT. In particular, fat cells are dis- persed between smooth muscle and vessel components, too few to be detected with imaging but in sufficient quantities to reduce the overall attenuation compared to hyperattenu- ating AML (69). On MRI, this subtype of fat-poor AML appears typically T2-hypointense. This feature is given by its smooth muscle component (70). Furthermore, Jinzaki et al. claim that isoattenuating AML characteristics on all MRI pulse sequences are not well known because it is a rare lesion; this lesion may or may not show signal loss on fat- suppressed pulse sequences; the loss of signal depends both on the quantity and the distribution of fat cells within the lesion (11). It also shows chemical shift suppression (54, 70). Jinzaki et al. also state that, based on their experience, isoat- tenuating AML appears slightly hyperechoic on US (11). Differential diagnosis of isoattenuating AML is with renal cell carcinoma (11). Angiomyolipoma with epithelial cysts AML with epithelial cysts is a very rare variant of the fat- poor AML which contains epithelial-lined cysts. These AMLs have very few or no fat cells (71). This subtype of AML is benign and more common in female (69, 71–74). AML with epithelial cysts contains smooth muscle compo- nent, which represents the predominant component, and epithelial cysts and subepithelial stroma, which are typical of this subtype of fat-poor AML (69, 72). The imaging features of AML with epithelial cyst are not fully under- stood. A case was described in which the lesion presented a small cyst, and a non-cystic part that enhanced homoge- neously. This lesion appeared hyperattenuating on unen- hanced CT and, on MRI, T2-hypointense for the smooth muscle component (71). Another case described a multi- locular cystic mass with the cystic component separated from that smooth muscle (73). Differential diagnosis is with multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma, multilocular cyst, cystic nephroma, and a mixed epithelial and stromal tumor (73, 75). Epithelioid angiomyolipoma Epithelioid AML is a subtype of extremely rare potentially malignant AML (3, 25). Male and female are equally affected and the average age is 38 years (3). Approximately one-third has local extension or metastasis at diagnosis (76). Epithe- lioid AML contains numerous atypical epithelioid muscle cells; in most of these lesions there are few or no fat cells (25, 77, 78). This AML subtype typically appears as large masses (≥5 cm in size) with intralesional hemorrhage and necrosis; it can also be detected as spontaneous perirenal hematoma (79–85). These lesions may show small foci of adipose tissue on CT or MRI; moreover, epithelioid AML appears hyperat- tenuating on unenhanced CT (typically greater than 45 HU) and T2-hypointense (due to epithelioid muscle component) (83, 84). Furthermore, this AML subtype may appear as solid masses that enhance homogeneously or heterogeneously or as multilocular cystic masses (84). Differential diagnosis of epithelioid AML is with renal cell carcinoma and cystic renal cell carcinoma (25, 77, 84). New Radiologic Classification of Renal Angiomyolipoma Song et al. classified renal AML into fat-rich, fat-poor, and fat-invisible AML based on the amount of fat detected by CT or MRI (86). Fat-rich AML was identified by attenua- tion value less than or equal to −10 HU obtained by placing a ROI in the most hypodense area of the lesion (61). When the most hypodense area showed attenuation value greater than −10 HU, the chemical shift imaging was evaluated. Tu- mor-to-spleen ratio and signal intensity index were calculated using the values obtained by placing the ROI in the most hy- pointense area on opposed-phase images. Fat-poor AML was detected when the tumor-to-spleen ratio was <0.71 or when the signal intensity index value was >16.5%. Fat-invis- ible AML was detected when the tumor-to-spleen ratio was ≥0.71 and when the signal intensity index value was ≤16.5% (86). Both fat-poor AML and fat-invisible AML exhibit at- tenuation values greater than –10 HU on unenhanced CT. Song et al. showed that the attenuation value of fat-invisible AML detected in the ROI located in the most hypodense area of the lesion was greater than that of the fat-poor AML (86). Conclusion Renal angiomyolipomatosis is a common manifestation in patients with TS and LAM. AMLs are larger, multiple, almost always bilateral, and have a greater predisposition to bleeding, which is the reason why follow-up must be per- formed in these patients. Furthermore, specific subtypes of AML, such as poor-fat AML, are difficult to distinguish from malignant lesions. For this reason, further imaging ex- aminations must be performed to obtain further information on the nature of the lesions. Renal angiomyolipomatosis Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 17 Conflict of Interest The authors declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to research, authorship, and/or publication of this article. References 1. Bissler JJ, Kingswood JC. Renal angiomyolipomata. Kidney Int. 2004 Sep;66(3):924–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/ j. 1523- 1755. 2004.00838.x 2. Wagner BJ, Wong-You-Cheong JJ, Davis CJ, Jr. Adult renal hamartomas. Radiographics. 1997 Jan–Feb;17(1):155–69. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.17.1.9017806 3. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA. World Health Organization classification of tumors: Pathology and genetics. Tumors of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC Press; 2004. 4. Lane BR, Aydin H, Danforth TL, Zhou M, Remer EM, Novick AC, et al. Clinical correlates of renal angiomyolipoma subtypes in 209 patients: Classic, fat poor, tuberous sclerosis associated and epithelioid. J Urol. 2008 Sep;180(3):836–43. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.041 5. Tamboli P, Ro JY, Amin MB, Ligato S, Ayala AG. Benign tu- mors and tumor-like lesions of the adult kidney. Part II: Be- nign mesenchymal and mixed neoplasms, and tumor-like lesions. Adv Anat Pathol. 2000 Jan;7(1):47–66. https://doi. org/10.1097/00125480-200007010-00007 6. Zamboni G, Pea M, Martignoni G, Zancanaro C, Fac- cioli G, Gilioli E, et al. Clear cell “sugar” tumor of the pancreas. A novel member of the family of lesions char- acterized by the presence of perivascular epithelioid cells. Am J Surg Pathol. 1996 Jun;20(6):722–30. https://doi. org/10.1097/00000478-199606000-00010 7. Hornick JL, Fletcher CD. PEComa: What do we know so far? Histopathology. 2006 Jan;48(1):75–82. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02316.x 8. Thway K, Fisher C. PEComa: Morphology and genetics of a complex tumor family. Ann Diagn Pathol. 2015 Oct;19(5): 359–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.06.003 9. Fittschen A, Wendlik I, Oeztuerk S, Kratzer W, Akinli AS, Haenle MM, et al. Prevalence of sporadic renal angiomy- olipoma: A retrospective analysis of 61,389 in- and out-pa- tients. Abdom Imaging. 2014 Oct;39(5):1009–13. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00261-014-0129-6 10. Flum AS, Hamoui N, Said MA, Yang XJ, Casalino DD, Mc- Guire BB, et al. Update on the diagnosis and management of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol. 2016 Apr;195(4 Pt 1):834–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.126 11. Jinzaki M, Silverman SG, Akita H, Nagashima Y, Mikami S, Oya M. Renal angiomyolipoma: A radiological classification and update on recent developments in diagnosis and manage- ment. Abdom Imaging. 2014 Jun;39(3):588–604. https://doi. org/10.1007/s00261-014-0083-3 12. Halpenny D, Snow A, McNeill G, Torreggiani WC. The radio- logical diagnosis and treatment of renal angiomyolipoma-cur- rent status. Clin Radiol. 2010 Feb;65(2):99–108. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.09.014 13. Logue LG, Acker RE, Sienko AE. Best cases from the AFIP: Angiomyolipomas in tuberous sclerosis. Radiographics. 2003 Jan–Feb;23(1):241–6. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.231025109 14. Seyam RM, Bissada NK, Kattan SA, Mokhtar AA, Aslam M, Fahmy WE, et al. Changing trends in presentation, diagnosis and management of renal angiomyolipoma: Comparison of sporadic and tuberous sclerosis complex-associated forms. Urology. 2008 Nov;72(5):1077–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. urology.2008.07.049 15. Lemaitre L, Robert Y, Dubrulle F, Claudon M, Duhamel A, Danjou P, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma: Growth followed up with CT and/or US. Radiology. 1995 Dec;197(3):598–602. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480725 16. Oesterling JE, Fishman EK, Goldman SM, Marshall FF. The management of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol. 1986 Jun;135(6): 1121–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)46013-7 17. Takebayashi S, Horikawa A, Arai M, Iso S, Noguchi K. Transarterial ethanol ablation for sporadic and non-hemor- rhaging angiomyolipoma in the kidney. Eur J Radiol. 2009 Oct;72(1):139–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.017 18. Castle SM, Gorbatiy V, Ekwenna O, Young E, Leveillee RJ. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) therapy for renal angiomyoli- poma (AML): An alternative to angio-embolization and neph- ron-sparing surgery. BJU Int. 2012 Feb;109(3):384–7. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10376.x 19. Byrd GF, Lawatsch EJ, Mesrobian HG, Begun F, Langen- stroer P. Laparoscopic cryoablation of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol. 2006 Oct;176(4 Pt 1):1512–16; discussion 6. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.013 20. Martignoni G, Pea M, Reghellin D, Zamboni G, Bonetti F. PE- Comas: The past, the present and the future. Virchows Arch. 2008 Feb;452(2):119–32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-007-0509-1 21. Crino PB, Nathanson KL, Henske EP. The tuberous sclerosis complex. N Engl J Med. 2006 Sep 28;355(13):1345–56. https:// doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra055323 22. Castagnetti M, Vezzu B, Laverda A, Zampieri S, Rigamonti W. Urological counseling and followup in pediatric tuberous sclerosis complex. J Urol. 2007 Nov;178(5):2155–9. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.058 23. Ewalt DH, Sheffield E, Sparagana SP, Delgado MR, Roach ES. Renal lesion growth in children with tuberous sclerosis com- plex. J Urol. 1998 Jul;160(1):141–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-5347(01)63072-6 24. Lemaitre L, Claudon M, Dubrulle F, Mazeman E. Imaging of angio- myolipomas. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1997 Apr;18(2):100–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2171(97)90054-8 25. Eble JN, Amin MB, Young RH. Epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney: A report of five cases with a prominent and diagnostically confusing epithelioid smooth muscle compo- nent. Am J Surg Pathol. 1997 Oct;21(10):1123–30. https://doi. org/10.1097/00000478-199710000-00001 26. Aydin H, Magi-Galluzzi C, Lane BR, Sercia L, Lopez JI, Rini BI, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma: Clinicopathologic study of 194 cases with emphasis on the epithelioid histology and tuberous sclerosis association. Am J Surg Pathol. 2009 Feb;33(2):289–97. https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817ed7a6 27. Schieda N, Kielar AZ, Al Dandan O, McInnes MD, Flood TA. Ten uncommon and unusual variants of renal angiomyolipoma (AML): Radiologic-pathologic correlation. Clin Radiol. 2015 Feb;70(2):206–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.10.001 28. Tirumani SH, Shinagare AB, Hargreaves J, Jagannathan JP, Hornick JL, Wagner AJ, et al. Imaging features of primary and metastatic malignant perivascular epithelioid cell tumors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2014 Feb;202(2):252–8. https://doi. org/10.2214/AJR.13.10909 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00838.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1755.2004.00838.x https://doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.17.1.9017806 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.041 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.05.041 https://doi.org/10.1097/00125480-200007010-00007 https://doi.org/10.1097/00125480-200007010-00007 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199606000-00010 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199606000-00010 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02316.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2559.2005.02316.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anndiagpath.2015.06.003 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0129-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0129-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.07.126 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0083-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0083-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.09.014 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2009.09.014 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.231025109 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.049 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2008.07.049 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480725 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)46013-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.06.017 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10376.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10376.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.06.013 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-007-0509-1 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra055323 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra055323 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.058 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2007.07.058 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63072-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(01)63072-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0887-2171(97)90054-8 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199710000-00001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00000478-199710000-00001 https://doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31817ed7a6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2014.10.001 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10909 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.13.10909 Greco F et al. Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 18 29. Geller E, Kochan PS. Renal neoplasms of childhood. Ra- diol Clin North Am. 2011 Jul;49(4):689–709, vi. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.rcl.2011.05.003 30. Yamakado K, Tanaka N, Nakagawa T, Kobayashi S, Yanagawa M, Takeda K. Renal angiomyolipoma: Relationships between tumor size, aneurysm formation, and rupture. Radiology. 2002 Oct;225(1):78–82. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011477 31. Pirson Y. Tuberous sclerosis complex-associated kidney an- giomyolipoma: From contemplation to action. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2013 Jul;28(7):1680–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/ gft009 32. Kothary N, Soulen MC, Clark TW, Wein AJ, Shlansky- Goldberg RD, Crino PB, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma: Long-term results after arterial embolization. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 2005 Jan;16(1):45–50. https://doi.org/10.1097/01. RVI.0000143769.79774.70 33. Lee W, Kim TS, Chung JW, Han JK, Kim SH, Park JH. Renal angiomyolipoma: Embolotherapy with a mixture of alcohol and iodized oil. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 1998 Mar-Apr;9(2):255–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(98)70266-0 34. Bissler JJ, McCormack FX, Young LR, Elwing JM, Chuck G, Leonard JM, et al. Sirolimus for angiomyolipoma in tuber- ous sclerosis complex or lymphangioleiomyomatosis. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 10;358(2):140–51. https://doi.org/10.1056/ NEJMoa063564 35. Johnson SR, Cordier JF, Lazor R, Cottin V, Costabel U, Harari S, et al. European respiratory society guidelines for the diagnosis and management of lymphangioleiomy- omatosis. Eur Respir J. 2010 Jan;35(1):14–26. https://doi. org/10.1183/09031936.00076209 36. Avila NA, Kelly JA, Chu SC, Dwyer AJ, Moss J. Lymphangi- oleiomyomatosis: Abdominopelvic CT and US findings. Radiology. 2000 Jul;216(1):147–53. https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiology.216.1.r00jl42147 37. Maziak DE, Kesten S, Rappaport DC, Maurer J. Extrathoracic angiomyolipomas in lymphangioleiomyomatosis. Eur Respir J. 1996 Mar;9(3):402–5. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.96.0903 0402 38. Kenerson H, Folpe AL, Takayama TK, Yeung RS. Acti- vation of the mTOR pathway in sporadic angiomyolipo- mas and other perivascular epithelioid cell neoplasms. Hum Pathol. 2007 Sep;38(9):1361–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. humpath.2007.01.028 39. Davies DM, Johnson SR, Tattersfield AE, Kingswood JC, Cox JA, McCartney DL, et al. Sirolimus therapy in tuberous sclero- sis or sporadic lymphangioleiomyomatosis. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 10;358(2):200–3. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc072500 40. Segal AJ, Spataro RF, Barbaric ZL. Adult polycystic kidney disease: A review of 100 cases. J Urol. 1977 Nov;118(5):711–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)58169-0 41. Ahuja S, Loffler W, Wegener OH, Ernst H. Tuberous sclero- sis with angiomyolipoma and metastasized hypernephroma. Urology. 1986 Nov;28(5):413–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/0090- 4295(86)90076-2 42. Kalra OP, Verma PP, Kochhar S, Jha V, Sakhuja V. Bilateral renal angiomyolipomatosis in tuberous sclerosis presenting with chronic renal failure: Case report and review of the literature. Nephron. 1994 68(2):256–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000188267 43. Granata A, Sessa A, Pitangolo F, Spata C, Sicurezza E, Cos- tantino G, et al. [Chronic renal failure and tuberous sclero- sis. Report of two clinical cases]. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2002 Dec;54(4):243–8. 44. Liu H, Cooke K, Frager D. Bilateral massive renal angiomyoli- pomatosis in tuberous sclerosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Oct;185(4):1085–6. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1906 45. Ponce Diaz-Reixa J, Barbagelata Lopez A, Romero Selas E, Marcos Rodriguez P, Sanchez Rodriguez-Losada J, Alvarez Castelo L, et al. [Renal angiomyolipomatosis and pulmonary lymphangiomyomatosis. Its relationship with Bourneville syn- drome]. Actas Urol Esp. 2006 Apr;30(4):386–93. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0210-4806(06)73462-3 46. Er A, Yildirim CA. Giant renal angiomyolipomatosis in asso- ciation with pulmonary lymphangiomyomatosis. Intern Med J. 2010 May;40(5):384–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994. 2010.02218.x 47. Incedayi M, Sonmez G, Basekim C. Massive bilateral renal an- giomyolipomatosis and multifocal micronodular pneumocytes hyperplasia associated with tuberous sclerosis: A case report. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2011 Nov;123(21–22):674–6. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s00508-011-0073-1 48. Stallone G, Infante B, Tartaglia L, Bruno F, Gesualdo L, Grandaliano G. Renal angiomyolipomatosis and Kaposi’s sar- coma: A possible link disrupted by sirolimus. Intern Emerg Med. 2012 Sep;7 (Suppl 2):S127–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11739-012-0833-6 49. Vergnani J, Graham JD. Renal angiomyolipomatosis in a pa- tient with tuberous sclerosis complex. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 2013 Jan;113(1):104. 50. Bosniak MA. Angiomyolipoma (hamartoma) of the kidney: A preoperative diagnosis is possible in virtually every case. Urol Radiol. 1981;3(3):135–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02938781 51. Rofsky NM, Bosniak MA. MR imaging in the evaluation of small (< or =3.0 cm) renal masses. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 1997 Feb;5(1):67–81. 52. Israel GM, Hindman N, Hecht E, Krinsky G. The use of op- posed-phase chemical shift MRI in the diagnosis of renal angio- myolipomas. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005 Jun;184(6):1868–72. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841868 53. Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M, Genega EM, Olumi AF, Dewolf WC, et al. MR imaging of renal masses: Correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis. Radiograph- ics. 2008 Jul–Aug;28(4):985–1003. https://doi.org/10.1148/ rg.284065018 54. Kim JK, Kim SH, Jang YJ, Ahn H, Kim CS, Park H, et al. Renal angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: Differentiation from other neoplasms at double-echo chemical shift FLASH MR imaging. Radiology. 2006 Apr;239(1):174–80. https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiol.2391050102 55. Dillon RC, Friedman AC, Miller FH. MR signal intensity calculations are not reliable for differentiating renal cell car- cinoma from lipid poor angiomyolipoma. Radiology. 2010 Oct;257(1):299–300. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.100520 56. Blomley M, Claudon M, Cosgrove D. WFUMB safety sympo- sium on ultrasound contrast agents: Clinical applications and safety concerns. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2007 Feb;33(2):180–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.07.007 57. Lu Q, Wang W, Huang B, Li C, Li C. Minimal fat renal an- giomyolipoma: The initial study with contrast-enhanced ultra- sonography. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2012 Nov;38(11):1896–901. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.07.014 58. Siegel CL, Middleton WD, Teefey SA, McClennan BL. Angiomyolipoma and renal cell carcinoma: US differentiation. Radiology. 1996 Mar;198(3):789–93. https://doi.org/10.1148/ radiology.198.3.8628873 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2011.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rcl.2011.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2251011477 https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gft009 https://doi.org/10.1093/ndt/gft009 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000143769.79774.70 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.RVI.0000143769.79774.70 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1051-0443(98)70266-0 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa063564 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa063564 https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00076209 https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00076209 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.1.r00jl42147 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.216.1.r00jl42147 https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.96.09030402 https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.96.09030402 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2007.01.028 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2007.01.028 https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMc072500 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5347(17)58169-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(86)90076-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/0090-4295(86)90076-2 https://doi.org/10.1159/000188267 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.04.1906 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(06)73462-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0210-4806(06)73462-3 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02218.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2010.02218.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-011-0073-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s00508-011-0073-1 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-012-0833-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-012-0833-6 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02938781 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.6.01841868 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.284065018 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.284065018 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391050102 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391050102 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.100520 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.07.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.07.014 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628873 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.198.3.8628873 Renal angiomyolipomatosis Journal of Renal and Hepatic Disorders 2018; 2(2): 10–19 19 59. Jinzaki M, Ohkuma K, Tanimoto A, Mukai M, Hiramatsu K, Murai M, et al. Small solid renal lesions: Usefulness of power Doppler US. Radiology. 1998 Nov;209(2):543–50. https://doi. org/10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807587 60. Bosniak MA, Megibow AJ, Hulnick DH, Horii S, Raghavendra BN. CT diagnosis of renal angiomyolipoma: The importance of detecting small amounts of fat. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1988 Sep;151(3):497–501. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.151.3.497 61. Simpson E, Patel U. Diagnosis of angiomyolipoma using com- puted tomography-region of interest < or =-10 HU or 4 adja- cent pixels < or =-10 HU are recommended as the diagnostic thresholds. Clin Radiol. 2006 May;61(5):410–16. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.12.013 62. Corr P, Yang WT, Tan I. Spontaneous haemorrhage from renal angiomyolipomata. Australas Radiol. 1994 May;38(2):132–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1994.tb00153.x 63. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP. Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology. 2008 Oct;249(1):16–31. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2491070783 64. Milner J, McNeil B, Alioto J, Proud K, Rubinas T, Picken M, et al. Fat poor renal angiomyolipoma: Patient, comput- erized tomography and histological findings. J Urol. 2006 Sep;176(3):905–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.016 65. Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Narimatsu Y, Ohkuma K, Kurata T, Shinmoto H, et al. Angiomyolipoma: Imaging findings in le- sions with minimal fat. Radiology. 1997 Nov;205(2):497–502. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356635 66. Hafron J, Fogarty JD, Hoenig DM, Li M, Berkenblit R, Ghavamian R. Imaging characteristics of minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma with histologic correlations. Urology. 2005 Dec;66(6):1155–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.119 67. Trigaux JP, Pauls C, Van Beers B. Atypical renal hamartomas: Ultrasonography, computed tomography, and angiographic findings. J Clin Ultrasound. 1993 Jan;21(1):41–4. https://doi. org/10.1002/jcu.1870210109 68. Silverman SG, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, Jinzaki M, Cibas ES. Hyperattenuating renal masses: Etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. Radiographics. 2007 Jul–Aug;27(4): 1131–43. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.274065147 69. Fine SW, Reuter VE, Epstein JI, Argani P. Angiomyolipoma with epithelial cysts (AMLEC): A distinct cystic variant of angiomyolipoma. Am J Surg Pathol. 2006 May;30(5):593–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000194298.19839.b4 70. Sasiwimonphan K, Takahashi N, Leibovich BC, Carter RE, Atwell TD, Kawashima A. Small (<4 cm) renal mass: Dif- ferentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma utilizing MR imaging. Radiology. 2012 Apr;263(1):160–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111205 71. Rosenkrantz AB, Hecht EM, Taneja SS, Melamed J. Angio- myolipoma with epithelial cysts: Mimic of renal cell carci- noma. Clin Imaging. 2010 Jan–Feb;34(1):65–8. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2009.04.026 72. Davis CJ, Barton JH, Sesterhenn IA. Cystic angiomyolipoma of the kidney: A clinicopathologic description of 11 cases. Mod Pathol. 2006 May;19(5):669–74. https://doi.org/10.1038/ modpathol.3800572 73. Mikami S, Oya M, Mukai M. Angiomyolipoma with epithelial cysts of the kidney in a man. Pathol Int. 2008 Oct;58(10):664–7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1827.2008.02287.x 74. Armah HB, Yin M, Rao UN, Parwani AV. Angiomyolipoma with epithelial cysts (AMLEC): A rare but distinct variant of angiomyolipoma. Diagn Pathol. 2007 Mar 21;2:11. https://doi. org/10.1186/1746-1596-2-11 75. Greco F, Faiella E, Santucci D, De Lisi D, Lo Vullo G, Beomonte Zobel B, et al. Ultrasound imaging of cystic ne- phroma. J  Kidney Cancer VHL. 2017;4(3):1–9. https://doi. org/10.15586/jkcvhl.2017.79 76. Tsai CC, Wu WJ, Li CC, Wang CJ, Wu CH, Wu CC. Epithe- lioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney mimicking renal cell car- cinoma: A clinicopathologic analysis of cases and literature review. Kaohsiung J Med Sci. 2009 Mar;25(3):133–40. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70052-X 77. Park HK, Zhang S, Wong MK, Kim HL. Clinical presentation of epithelioid angiomyolipoma. Int J Urol. 2007 Jan;14(1):21–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01665.x 78. Warakaulle DR, Phillips RR, Turner GD, Davies D, Prothe- roe AS. Malignant monotypic epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney. Clin Radiol. 2004 Sep;59(9):849–52. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.02.009 79. Bharwani N, Christmas TJ, Jameson C, Moat N, Sohaib SA. Epithelioid angiomyolipoma: Imaging appearances. Br J Radiol. 2009 Dec;82(984):e249–52. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/ 27259024 80. Chen J, Wang P, Wang CJ, Cai SL, Ren GP, Li YY. Highly aggressive epithelioid renal angiomyolipoma with a very poor prognosis. Chin Med J (Engl). 2010 Mar 20;123(6):765–6. 81. Radin R, Ma Y. Malignant epithelioid renal angiomyoli- poma in a patient with tuberous sclerosis. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2001 Nov–Dec;25(6):873–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/ 00004728-200111000-00008 82. Hung MS, Chang JH, Chang CP, Tai HL. Massive epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney in a young girl. Int J Urol. 2005  Nov;12(11):998–1000. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j. 1442- 2042. 2005.01194.x 83. Froemming AT, Boland J, Cheville J, Takahashi N, Kawashima A. Renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma: Imaging characteristics in nine cases with radiologic-pathologic cor- relation and review of the literature. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013 Feb;200(2):W178–86. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR. 12.8776 84. Tsukada J, Jinzaki M, Yao M, Nagashima Y, Mikami S, Yashiro H, et al. Epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney: Radiolog- ical imaging. Int J Urol. 2013 Nov;20(11):1105–11. https://doi. org/10.1111/iju.12117 85. Zhan R, Li YQ, Chen CY, Hu HY, Zhang C. Primary kidney malignant epithelioid angiomyolipoma: Two cases report and review of literature. Medicine (Baltimore). 2018 Aug;97(32):e11805. https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.00000000000 11805 86. Song S, Park BK, Park JJ. New radiologic classification of renal angiomyolipomas. Eur J Radiol. 2016 Oct;85(10):1835–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.012 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807587 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.209.2.9807587 https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.151.3.497 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.12.013 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2005.12.013 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1673.1994.tb00153.x https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2491070783 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2006.04.016 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.205.2.9356635 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2005.06.119 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1870210109 https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1870210109 https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.274065147 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pas.0000194298.19839.b4 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12111205 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2009.04.026 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2009.04.026 https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800572 https://doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3800572 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1440-1827.2008.02287.x https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-2-11 https://doi.org/10.1186/1746-1596-2-11 https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.2017.79 https://doi.org/10.15586/jkcvhl.2017.79 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70052-X https://doi.org/10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70052-X https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2006.01665.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.02.009 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2004.02.009 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/27259024 https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/27259024 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200111000-00008 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-200111000-00008 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01194.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2005.01194.x https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8776 https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8776 https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12117 https://doi.org/10.1111/iju.12117 https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011805 https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000011805 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2016.08.012