Abstract
Purpose
To describe and quantify the rate of detection of renal cancer on unenhanced CT.
Methods
This retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study was approved by the Institutional Review Board. Electronic health records for all patients who underwent unenhanced abdominal CT at our institution between 2000 and 2005 were reviewed to identify patients subsequently diagnosed with renal cancer during a follow-up period of up to 12 years. Images were reviewed to determine if the cancer was visible at index (first) unenhanced CT and their findings recorded. Original radiology reports were reviewed to determine whether the renal cancer was reported; Fisher’s Exact Test compared imaging features of detected and missed cancers. Clinical outcomes including time until diagnosis and stage at diagnosis were used to assess the potential impact of missed cancers.
Results
Of 15,695 patients, 82 (0.52%) were diagnosed with renal cancer. Of these, 43/82 (52%) cancers were retrospectively detectable on index unenhanced CT. Among retrospectively detectable cancers, 63% (27/43) were originally detected and reported on index CT and 37% (16/43) were missed. Size was the only feature associated with detection; 83% (20/24) of cancers > 3.0 cm were detected versus 37% (7/19) of cancers ≤ 3.0 cm (p = 0.0036). Although none of the 16 missed renal cancers developed metastases between index CT and time of diagnosis (median 33.5 months), 4 (25%) progressed in stage.
Conclusions
Renal cancer was rare in patients undergoing unenhanced abdominal CT. Over one-third of potentially detectable cancers were missed prospectively. However, missed cancers did not metastasize and infrequently progressed in stage before being diagnosed.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jayson M, Sanders H (1998) Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 51(2):203–205
Luciani LG, Cestari R, Tallarigo C (2000) Incidental renal cell carcinoma-age and stage characterization and clinical implications: study of 1092 patients (1982–1997). Urology 56(1):58–62
Schlomer B, Figenshau RS, Yan Y, Venkatesh R, Bhayani SB (2006) Pathological features of renal neoplasms classified by size and symptomatology. J Urol 176(4):1317–1320 (discussion 1320)
Rabjerg M, Mikkelsen MN, Walter S, Marcussen N (2014) Incidental renal neoplasms: is there a need for routine screening? A Danish single-center epidemiological study. APMIS 122(8):708–714
Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2008) Pitfalls in Renal Mass Evaluation and How to Avoid Them. RadioGraphics 28(5):1325–1338
Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249(1):16–31
Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) An update of the Bosniak renal cyst classification system. Urology 66(3):484–488
Silverman SG, Israel GM, Trinh Q-D (2015) Incompletely characterized incidental renal masses: emerging data support conservative management. Radiology 275(1):28–42
Jinzaki M, Silverman SG, Akita H, et al. (2014) Renal angiomyolipoma: a radiological classification and update on recent developments in diagnosis and management. Abdom Imaging 39(3):588–604
Jonisch AI, Rubinowitz AN, Mutalik PG, Israel GM (2007) Can high-attenuation renal cysts be differentiated from renal cell carcinoma at unenhanced CT? Radiology 243(2):445–450
O’Connor SD, Silverman SG, Ip IK, Maehara CK, Khorasani R (2013) Simple cyst-appearing renal masses at unenhanced CT: can they be presumed to be benign? Radiology 269(3):793–800
Pooler BD, Pickhardt PJ, O’Connor SD, et al. (2012) Renal cell carcinoma: attenuation values on unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(5):1115–1120
O’Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Oliva MR, Silverman SG (2011) Incidental finding of renal masses at unenhanced CT: prevalence and analysis of features for guiding management. Am J Roentgenol 197(1):139–145
Jung SI, Park HS, Kim YJ, Jeon HJ (2014) Unenhanced CT for the detection of renal cell carcinoma: effect of tumor size and contour type. Abdominal Imaging 39(2):348–357
Sahi K, Jackson S, Wiebe E, et al. (2014) The value of “liver windows” settings in the detection of small renal cell carcinomas on unenhanced computed tomography. Can Assoc Radiol J 65(1):71–76
Donald JJ, Barnard SA (2012) Common patterns in 558 diagnostic radiology errors: Common patterns of diagnostic errors. J Med Imaging and Radiat Oncol 56(2):173–178
Horton KM, Johnson PT, Fishman EK (2010) MDCT of the abdomen: common misdiagnoses at a busy academic center. Am J Roentgenol 194(3):660–667
Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. (eds) (2002) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn. New York: Springer
Evans KK, Birdwell RL, Wolfe JM (2013) If you don’t find it often, you often don’t find it: why some cancers are missed in breast cancer screening. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64366
Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. (2006) The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 175(2):425–431
Kunkle DA, Egleston BL, Uzzo RG (2008) Excise, ablate or observe: the small renal mass dilemma–a meta-analysis and review. J Urol 179(4):1227–1234
Mues AC, Haramis G, Badani K, et al. (2010) Active surveillance for larger (cT1bN0M0 and cT2N0M0) renal cortical neoplasms. Urology 76(3):620–623
Haramis G, Mues AC, Rosales JC, et al. (2011) Natural history of renal cortical neoplasms during active surveillance with follow-up longer than 5 years. Urology 77(4):787–791
Krupinski EA (2010) Current perspectives in medical image perception. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(5):1205–1217
Provenzale JM, Kranz PG (2011) Understanding errors in diagnostic radiology: proposal of a classification scheme and application to emergency radiology. Emerg Radiol. 18(5):403–408
Tay MHW, Thamboo TP, Wu FMW, et al. (2014) High R.E.N.A.L. Nephrometry scores are associated with pathologic upstaging of clinical T1 renal-cell carcinomas in radical nephrectomy specimens: implications for nephron-sparing surgery. J Endourol 28(9):1138–1142
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Drs. Silverman and Khorasani have no Grants or other assistance to disclose; Dr. O’Connor received support from the Boston Area Research Training Program in Biomedical Informatics (National Library of Medicine Grant T15LM007092).
Conflict of interest
Dr. O’Connor declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Silverman declares that he has no conflict of interest. Dr. Cochon declares that she has no conflict of interest. Dr. Khorasani declares that he has no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent
The requirement to obtain informed consent was waived by the study site’s Institutional Review Board.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
O’Connor, S.D., Silverman, S.G., Cochon, L.R. et al. Renal cancer at unenhanced CT: imaging features, detection rates, and outcomes. Abdom Radiol 43, 1756–1763 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1376-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1376-0