Advertisement

Abdominal Radiology

, Volume 43, Issue 7, pp 1756–1763 | Cite as

Renal cancer at unenhanced CT: imaging features, detection rates, and outcomes

  • Stacy D. O’Connor
  • Stuart G. Silverman
  • Laila R. Cochon
  • Ramin K. Khorasani
Article
  • 208 Downloads

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.

Keywords

Renal mass Renal cell carcinoma Renal cancer Unenhanced CT CT 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

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.

References

  1. 1.
    Jayson M, Sanders H (1998) Increased incidence of serendipitously discovered renal cell carcinoma. Urology 51(2):203–205CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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):58–62CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    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)CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    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):708–714CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2008) Pitfalls in Renal Mass Evaluation and How to Avoid Them. RadioGraphics 28(5):1325–1338CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249(1):16–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) An update of the Bosniak renal cyst classification system. Urology 66(3):484–488CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Silverman SG, Israel GM, Trinh Q-D (2015) Incompletely characterized incidental renal masses: emerging data support conservative management. Radiology 275(1):28–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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):588–604CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    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):445–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    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):793–800CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pooler BD, Pickhardt PJ, O’Connor SD, et al. (2012) Renal cell carcinoma: attenuation values on unenhanced CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(5):1115–1120CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    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):139–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    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):348–357CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    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):71–76CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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):173–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Horton KM, Johnson PT, Fishman EK (2010) MDCT of the abdomen: common misdiagnoses at a busy academic center. Am J Roentgenol 194(3):660–667CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. (eds) (2002) AJCC Cancer Staging Manual, 6th edn. New York: SpringerGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    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):e64366CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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):425–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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):1227–1234CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mues AC, Haramis G, Badani K, et al. (2010) Active surveillance for larger (cT1bN0M0 and cT2N0M0) renal cortical neoplasms. Urology 76(3):620–623CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    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):787–791CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krupinski EA (2010) Current perspectives in medical image perception. Atten Percept Psychophys 72(5):1205–1217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Provenzale JM, Kranz PG (2011) Understanding errors in diagnostic radiology: proposal of a classification scheme and application to emergency radiology. Emerg Radiol. 18(5):403–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    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):1138–1142CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Evidence-Based Imaging and Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukeeUSA
  3. 3.Center for Evidence-Based Imaging and Department of RadiologyBrigham and Women’s HospitalBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations