World Journal of Urology

, Volume 22, Issue 5, pp 307–315 | Cite as

Preoperative imaging in renal cell cancer

  • Axel Heidenreich
  • Vincent Ravery
Topic Paper


Renal cell cancer (RCC) represents the fifth most common cancer in men, with a rising incidence. Radical cancer surgery remains the only curative treatment in localized and advanced RCC. Therefore, preoperative imaging is most important for the planning of the surgical approach and strategy. The aim of any preoperative imaging in RCC is to differentiate benign from malignant lesions, to adequately assess tumor size, localization and organ confinement, to identify lymph node and/or visceral metastases, and to reliably predict the presence and extent of any thrombus of the vena cava. It is our aim to review the current status of preoperative imaging modalities in RCC. Computed tomography (CT) remains the most appropriate imaging modality to differentiate benign from malignant lesions. Although RCC can appear as iso-, hyper- or hypodense lesions on native CT scans, it usually demonstrates a significant contrast enhancement of about 115 HU and intratumoral areas of necrosis following the intravenous application of contrast medium. Benign masses such as renal oncocytoma are most often homogenous lesions exhibiting hypodensity compared to the normal renal parenchyma following the i.v. application of contrast dye. CT accurately predicts the tumor size with only a 0.5 cm difference as compared to the pathological size of the lesion. The identification of lymph node metastases still remains a problem since the limiting size is 4 mm and CT will result in a false negative rate of about 10%, especially in the presence of micrometastases; the false positive rate of 3–43% is mainly due to reactive hyperplasia. New technologies, such as the multidetector CT with thin collimation and multiplanar reformatting, might result in a diagnostic improvement. The involvement of the adrenal gland can be accurately predicted by CT scans or MRI, allowing an adrenal sparing approach in the case of unsuspicious findings. The detection of visceral metastases appears to be crucial since it has been shown that even patients with metastatic disease might benefit from radical nephrectomy followed by systemic immunotherapy in the case of a good performance status, and the presence of lymph node and pulmonary metastases only. Involvement of the renal vein and the vena cava with tumor thrombus formation will change the surgical strategy. Preoperatively, the presence and the cranial extent of the thrombus need to be known in order to plan the surgical approach. With regard to the extent of renal vein thrombi, a three phase helical CT scan is most appropriate; for vena caval thrombi only a MRI examination is able to accurately identify any infra- or suprahepatic as well as intracardial extension of the thrombus. The identification of multifocal lesions remains another unsolved problem in preoperative imaging techniques for RCC. Compared to the pathohistological analysis of nephrectomy specimens, neither ultrasonography, color duplex sonography nor regular CT scans are able to identify multifocal lesions with acceptable sensitivity and specificity. The evaluation of unenhanced CT scans together with the enhanced corticomedullary and the nephrogenic phase result in a 100% sensitivity and might represent a valuable option. Angiography has basically been abandoned from the armory of routine imaging techniques. It has, however, a current role in terms of the embolization of large tumors to reduce intraoperative blood loss, and in the palliative management of pain and bleeding due to RCC not amenable to surgery. Finally, we present a diagnostic algorithm for the most informative imaging techniques in the evaluation of RCC.


Computed tomography Magnetic resonance imaging Caval thrombus Radical nephrectomy Nephron sparing surgery 


  1. 1.
    Isreal GM, Bosniak MA (2003) Renal imaging for diagnosis and staging of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am 30:499–514PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn KJ, Kim CS, Kim KR, Cho KS (2002) Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. Am J Roentgenol 178:1499–1506Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Mukai M, Ikeda E, Kobayashi S, Yuasa Y, Narimatsu Y, Murai M (2000) Double-phase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumour angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24:835–842CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kopka L, Fischer U, Zoeller G, Schmidt C, Ringert RH, Grabbe E (1997) Dual-phase helical CT of the kidney: value of corticomedullary and nephrographic phase for evaluation of renal lesions and preoperative staging of renal cell carcinomas. Am J Roentgenol 169:1573–1578Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garant M, Bonaldi VM, Taourel P, Pinsky MF, Bret PM (1998) Enhancement patterns of renal masses during multiphase helical CT acquisitions. Abdom Imaging 23:431–436CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Spahn M, Portillo FM, Michel MS, Siegsmund M, Gaa J, Alken P, Juenemann KP (2001) Color duplex sonography vs computed tomography: accuracy of the preoperative evaluation of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 40:337–342CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Helenon O, Correas JM, Balleyguier C, Ghouadni M, Cornud F (2001) Ultrasound of renal tumors. Eur Radiol 11:1890–1901CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schatz SM, Lieber MM (2003) Update on oncocytoma. Curr Urol Rep 4:30–35PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heidenreich A, Becker T, Hegele A, Hofmann R (2001) Preoperative Imaging of renal oncocytomas. Eur Urol 39 [Suppl 5]:55Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Heidenreich A, Hegele A, Varga Z, Von Knobloch R, Hofmann R (2002) Nephron sparing surgery for renal angiomyolipoma. Eur Urol 41:267–273CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, Cho KS (2004) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology 230:677–684PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Herr HW, Lee CT, Sharma S, Hilton S (2001) Radiographic versus pathologic size of renal tumors: implication for partial nephrectomy. Urology 58:157–160CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Tann M, Sopov V, Croitoru S, Nativ O, Moskovitz B, Bar-Meir E, Groshar D (2001) How accurate is helical CT volumetric assessment in renal tumors? Eur Radiol 11:1435–1438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yaycioglu O, Rutman MP, Balasubramaniam M, Peters KM, Gonzales JA (2002) Clinical and pathological tumor size in renal cell carcinoma: difference, correlation, and analysis of the influencing factors. Urology 60:33–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, Napoli A, Pediconi F, Danti M, Passariello R (2003) High-resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 180:1271–1277Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Choyke PL, Walther MM, Wagner JR, Rayford W, Lyne JC, Lineham WM (1997) Renal cancer: preoperative evaluation with dual-phase three-dimensional MR angiography. Radiology 205:767–771PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wunderlich H, Reichelt O, Schubert R, Zermann DH, Schubert J (2000) Preoperative simulation of partial nephrectomy with three-dimensional computed tomography. BJU Int 86:777–781CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Karayiannis A, Varkarakis I, Chort M, Alivizatos G, Fragiskos S (2002) Multifocality of renal cell tumours is a factor to consider before performing a partial nephrectomy. Anticancer Res 22:3103–3107PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baltaci S, Orhan D, Soyupek S, Beduk Y, Tulunay O, Gogus O (2000) Influence of tumor stage, size, grade, vascular involvement, histological cell type and histological pattern on multifocality in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 164:36–39CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Whang M, O’Toole K, Bixon R, Brunetti J, Ikeguchi E, Olsson CA, Sawczuk TS, Benson MC (1995) The incidence of multifocal renal cell carcinoma in patients who are candidates for partial nephrectomy. J Urol 154:968–970PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schlichter A, Schubert R, Werner W, Zermann DH, Schubert J (2000) How accurate is diagnostic imaging in determination of size and multifocality of renal cell carcinoma as a prerequisite for nephron sparing surgery? Urol Int 64:192–197CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Polascik TJ, Meng MV, Epstein JI, Marshall FF (1995) Intraoperative sonography for the evaluation and management of renal tumors: experience with 100 patients. J Urol 154:1676–1680CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campbell SC, Fichtner J, Novick AC, Steinbach F, Stöckle M, Klein EA, Filipas D, Levin HS, Störkel S, Schweden F, Obuchowski NA, Hale J (1996) Intraoperative evaluation of renal cell carcinoma: a prospective study of the role of ultrasonography and histopathological sections. J Urol 155:1191–1195PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mickisch GHJ (2002) Principles of nephrectomy for malignant disease. BJU Int 89:488–495CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vaselli JR, Yang JC, Lineham WM, White DE, Rosenberg SA, Walther MM (2001) Lack of retroperitoneal lymphadenopathy predicts survival of patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 166:68–72CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pantuck AJ, Zisman A, Dorey F, Chao DH, Han KR, Said J, Gilitz B, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS (2003) Renal cell carcinoma with retroperitoneal lymph nodes: role of lymph node dissection. J Urol 169:2076–2083PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Studer UE, Scherz S, Scheidegger J, Kraft R, Sonntag R, Ackermann D, Zingg EJ (1990) Enlargement of regional lymph nodes in renal cell carcinoma is often not due to metastases. J Urol 144:243–245PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Constantinides C, Recker F, Bruehlmann W, Von Schulthess G, Geobel M, Zollikofer C, Jaeger P, Hauri D (1991) Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging compared to computerized tomography and renal selective angiography in preoperatively staging renal cell carcinoma. Urol Int 47:181–185PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Choyke PL, Amis ES, Bigongiari LR, Bluth EI, Bush WH, Fritz P, Holder L, Newhouse JH, Sandler CM, Segal AJ, Resnick MI, Rutsky EA (2000) Renal cell carcinoma staging. American College of Radiology ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology 215 [Suppl]:721–725Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mickisch GH, Garin A, Van Poppel H De Prijck L, Sylverster R, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2001) Radical nephrectomy plus interferon-alfa-based immunotherapy compared with interferon-alfa alone in metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a randomised trial. Lancet 358:966–970CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Flanigan RC, Salmon SE, Blumenstein BA, Bearman SI, Roy V, McGrath PC, Canton JR Jr, Munshi N, Crawford ED (2001) Nephrectomy followed by interferon alfa-2b compared ith interferon-alfa 2b alone for metastatic renal-cell cancer. N Engl J Med 345:1655–1659CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Goldfarb DA, Novick AC, Lorig R, Bretan PN, Montie JE, Pontes JE, Streem SB, Siegel SW (1990) Magnetic resonance imaging for assessment of vena caval tumour thrombi: a comparative study with venocavography and computerized tomography scanning. J Urol 144:1100–1103PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hallscheidt P, Pomer S, Roeren T, Kauffmann GW, Staehler G (2000) Preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma with caval thrombus: is staging MRI justified? Prospective histopathological correlated study. Urol A 39:36–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Laissy JP, Menegazzo D, Debray MP, Toublanc M, Ravery V, Dumont G, Schouman-Claeys E (2000) Renal carcinoma: diagnosis of venous invasion with Gd-enhanced MR venography. Eur Radiol 10:1138–1143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Glazer A, Novick AC (1997) Preoperative transoesophageal echocardiography for assessment of vena caval tumor thrombi: a comparative study with venacavography and magnetic resonance imaging. Urology 49:32–34CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sigman DB, Hasnain JU, Del Pizzo JJ, Sklar GN (1999) Real-time transesophageal echocardiography for intraoperative surveillance of patients with renal cell carcinoma and vena caval extension undergoing radical nephrectomy. J Urol 161:36–38CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Aslam Sohaib SA, The J, Nargund VH, Lumley JS, Hendry WF, Reznek RH (2002) Assessment of tumor invasion of the vena caval wall in renal cell carcinoma cases by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 167:1271–1276CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Gill IS, McClennan BL, Kerbl K, Carbone JM, Wick M, Clayman R (1994) Adrenal involvement from renal cell carcinoma: predictive value of computerized tomography. J Urol 152:1082–1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Barbaric Z, Figlin R, DeKernion JB, Belldegrun A (2000) Is adrenalectomy a necessary component of radical nephrectomy? UCLA experience with 511 radical nephrectomies. J Urol 163:437–441PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Autorino R, Di Lorenzo G, Damiano R, Perdona S, Oliva A, D’Armiento M, De Sio M (2003) Adrenal sparing surgery in the treatment of renal cell carcinoma: when is it possible? World J Urol 21:153–158CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kuczyk M, Munch T, Machtens S, Bokemeyer C, Wefer A, Hartmann A, Kollmannsberger C, Kondo M, Jonas U (2002) The need for routine adrenalectomy during surgical treatment for renal cell cancer: the Hanover experience. BJU Int 89:517 - 511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Roy C, Tuchmann C, Morel M, Saussine C, Jacqmin D, Tongio J (1999) Is there still a place for angiography in the management of renal mass lesions? Eur Radiol 9:329–335CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zielinski H, Szmigeilski S, Petrovich Z (2000) Comparison of preoperative embolization followed by radical nephrectomy with radical nephrectomy alone for renal cell carcinoma. Am J Clin Oncol 23:6–12CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Nelson CP, Sanda MG (2002) Contemporary diagnosis and management of renal angiomyolipoma. J Urol 168:1315–1325CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Albani JM, Novick AC (2003) Renal artery pseudoaneurysm after partial nephrectomy: three case reports and a literature review. Urology 62:227–231CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Vogel J, Gorich J, Von Ahlen H, Harder T, Friedrich JM, Rilinger N, Merkle E, Brambs HJ (1995) Results of catheter embolization of renal cell carcinoma. Aktuelle Radiol 5: 301–304PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Fichtner J, Swoboda A, Hutschenreiter G, Neuerburg J (2003) Percutaneous embolization of the kidney: indications and clinical results. Akt Urol 34:475–477CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Oncological UrologyDepartment of UrologyGermany
  2. 2.Department of UrologyHopital Bichat-Claude Bernard

Personalised recommendations