Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Imaging Features of Renal Masses to Select Optimal Candidates for Tumor Enucleation Partial Nephrectomy

  • New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter, Section Editors)
  • Published:
Current Urology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

The goal of this paper was to critically evaluate preoperative findings that optimally select candidates for renal tumor enucleation partial nephrectomy.

Recent Findings

Tumor enucleation has been widely accepted as a management option for patients with chronic kidney disease, hereditary renal cell carcinoma, or multifocal disease. Recent evidence suggests safety and efficacy in the management of routine small renal masses. With recent advances in imaging, the literature for ruling out aggressive renal cell carcinoma and selection for tumor enucleation is robust.

Summary

As the incidence of renal cell carcinoma rises, partial nephrectomy continues to be the mainstay of treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma. Tumor enucleation maximizes preservation of renal parenchyma without hindering oncologic outcomes. It is important to recognize key tumor radiologic findings which urologists may use to optimize patient selection for tumor enucleation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 2020;70:7–30. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. • Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, Laversanne M, Soerjomataram I, Jemal A, et al. Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2021;71:209–49. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660. This paper nicely outlines the current epidemiologic status and mortality rate of various malignancies including RCC.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Al-Marhoon MS, Osman AM, Kamal MM, Shokeir AA. Incidental vs symptomatic renal tumours: survival outcomes. Arab J Urol. 2011;9:17–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aju.2011.03.006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chow W-H, Dong LM, Devesa SS. Epidemiology and risk factors for kidney cancer. Nat Rev Urol. 2010;7:245–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrurol.2010.46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. •• Xu C, Lin C, Xu Z, Feng S, Zheng Y. Tumor enucleation vs. partial nephrectomy for T1 renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Oncol. 2019;9:473. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2019.00473. A robust meta-analysis of 13 studies looking at long term outcomes of TE vs SPN with a total of 1792 patients undergoing TE and 3068 SPN. They demonstrate that TE is beneficial for recovery and renal function preservation with comparable cancer outcomes.

  6. Campbell S, Uzzo RG, Allaf ME, Bass EB, Cadeddu JA, Chang A, et al. Renal mass and localized renal cancer: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2017;198:520–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.04.100.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Huang WC, Elkin EB, Levey AS, Jang TL, Russo P. Partial nephrectomy versus radical nephrectomy in patients with small renal tumors—is there a difference in mortality and cardiovascular outcomes? J Urol. 2009;181:55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2008.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Antonelli A, Minervini A, Sandri M, Bertini R, Bertolo R, Carini M, et al. Below safety limits, every unit of glomerular filtration rate counts: assessing the relationship between renal function and cancer-specific mortality in renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2018;74:661–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.07.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Gupta GN, Boris RS, Campbell SC, Zhang Z. Tumor enucleation for sporadic localized kidney cancer: pro and con. J Urol. 2015;194:623–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.06.033.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Mukkamala A, Allam CL, Ellison JS, Hafez KS, Miller DC, Montgomery JS, et al. Tumor enucleation vs sharp excision in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: technical benefit without impact on functional or oncologic outcomes. Urology. 2014;83:1294–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.02.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Minervini A, Ficarra V, Rocco F, Antonelli A, Bertini R, Carmignani G, et al. Simple enucleation is equivalent to traditional partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: results of a nonrandomized, retrospective, comparative study. J Urol. 2011;185:1604–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2010.12.048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Longo N, Minervini A, Antonelli A, Bianchi G, Bocciardi AM, Cunico SC, et al. Simple enucleation versus standard partial nephrectomy for clinical T1 renal masses: perioperative outcomes based on a matched-pair comparison of 396 patients (RECORd project). Eur J Surg Oncol. 2014;40:762–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2014.01.007.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Blackwell RH, Li B, Kozel Z, Zhang Z, Zhao J, Dong W, et al. Functional implications of renal tumor enucleation relative to standard partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2017;99:162–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.07.048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Hricak H, Demas BE, Williams RD, McNamara MT, Hedgcock MW, Amparo EG, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis and staging of renal and perirenal neoplasms. Radiology. 1985;154:709–15. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.154.3.3969475.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Dong W, Gupta GN, Blackwell RH, Wu J, Suk-Ouichai C, Shah A, et al. Functional comparison of renal tumor enucleation versus standard partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol Focus. 2017;3:437–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.euf.2017.06.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Cao D-H, Liu L-R, Fang Y, Tang P, Li T, Bai Y, et al. Simple tumor enucleation may not decrease oncologic outcomes for T1 renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Urol Oncol. 2017;35:661.e15-661.e21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.07.007.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carini M, Minervini A, Masieri L, Lapini A, Serni S. Simple enucleation for the treatment of PT1a renal cell carcinoma: our 20-year experience. Eur Urol. 2006;50:1263–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2006.05.022.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Minervini A, Campi R, Sessa F, Derweesh I, Kaouk JH, Mari A, et al. Positive surgical margins and local recurrence after simple enucleation and standard partial nephrectomy for malignant renal tumors: systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis of prevalence. Minerva Urol Nefrol. 2017;69:523–38. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0393-2249.17.02864-8.

  19. • Dong W, Chen X, Huang M, Chen X, Gao M, Ou D, et al. Long-term oncologic outcomes after laparoscopic and robotic tumor enucleation for renal cell carcinoma. Front Oncol. 2020;10:595457. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2020.595457. This single center study retrospectively reviewed the outcomes of patients undergoing TE with relatively long median follow up of 5 years.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Patel HD, Koehne EL, Gali K, Lanzotti NJ, Rac G, Desai S, Pahouja G, Quek ML, Gupta GN. Robotic-assisted tumor enucleation versus standard margin partial nephrectomy: perioperative, renal functional, and oncologic outcomes for low and intermediate complexity renal masses. Urol Oncol. 2022;40:347.e9–347.e16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2022.04.004. This single center study is a large comparative study of robotic assisted TE vs SPN with relatively long median follow up of 4 years with very comprehensive presentation of surgical outcomes as well as renal functional measures.

  21. •• Papalia R, Panebianco V, Mastroianni R, Monte MD, Altobelli E, Faiella E, et al. Accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging to identify pseudocapsule invasion in renal tumors. World J Urol. 2020;38:407–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-019-02755-1. Novel study that assigns an imaging based MRI-Cap score based on PC invasion status. Their scoring system showed accurate prediction of pathologic PC status based on previously published study on i-Cap score by Snarskis et al. This scoring system is widely applicable and easy to adapt into clinical practice.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Mouracade P, Kara O, Maurice MJ, Dagenais J, Malkoc E, Nelson RJ, et al. Patterns and predictors of recurrence after partial nephrectomy for kidney tumors. J Urol. 2017;197:1403–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.12.046.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Veccia A, Antonelli A, Minervini A, Mottrie A, Dell’Oglio P, Ashrafi AN, et al. Upstaging to pT3a disease in patients undergoing robotic partial nephrectomy for cT1 kidney cancer: outcomes and predictors from a multi-institutional dataset. Urol Oncol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.12.024.10.1016/j.urolonc.2019.12.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. DiBianco JM, Gomella PT, Ball MW. Pathologic T3a renal cell carcinoma: a classification in need of further refinement. Ann Transl Med. 2018: S133. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2018.12.51.

  25. Jeong S-H, Kim JK, Park J, Jeon HJ, Yoon MY, Jeong CW, et al. Pathological T3a upstaging of clinical T1 renal cell carcinoma: outcomes according to surgical technique and predictors of upstaging. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0166183. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0166183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Nayak JG, Patel P, Saarela O, Liu Z, Kapoor A, Finelli A, et al. Pathological upstaging of clinical T1 to pathological T3a renal cell carcinoma: a multi-institutional analysis of short-term outcomes. Urology. 2016;94:154–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2016.03.029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gorin MA, Ball MW, Pierorazio PM, Tanagho YS, Bhayani SB, Kaouk JH, et al. Outcomes and predictors of clinical T1 to pathological T3a tumor up-staging after robotic partial nephrectomy: a multi-institutional analysis. J Urol. 2013;190:1907–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.06.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Vogel C, Ziegelmüller B, Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Bex A, Canfield S, et al. Imaging in suspected renal-cell carcinoma: systematic review. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019;17:e345–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clgc.2018.07.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Srivastava A, Patel HD, Joice GA, Semerjian A, Gorin MA, Johnson MH, Allaf ME, Pierorazio PM. Incidence of T3a up-staging and survival after partial nephrectomy: size-stratified rates and implications for prognosis. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:12.e7-12.e13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2017.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Rosevear HM, Gellhaus PT, Lightfoot AJ, Kresowik TP, Joudi FN, Tracy CR. Utility of the RENAL nephrometry scoring system in the real world: predicting surgeon operative preference and complication risk. BJU Int. 2012;109:700–5. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2011.10452.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Stroup SP, Palazzi K, Kopp RP, Mehrazin R, Santomauro M, Cohen SA, et al. RENAL nephrometry score is associated with operative approach for partial nephrectomy and urine leak. Urology. 2012;80:151–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.04.026.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Tobert CM, Kahnoski RJ, Thompson DE, Anema JG, Kuntzman RS, Lane BR. RENAL nephrometry score predicts surgery type independent of individual surgeon’s use of nephron-sparing surgery. Urology. 2012;80:157–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2012.03.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Tomaszewski JJ, Smaldone MC, Mehrazin R, Kocher N, Ito T, Abbosh P, et al. Anatomic complexity quantitated by nephrometry score is associated with prolonged warm ischemia time during robotic partial nephrectomy. Urology. 2014;84:340–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2014.04.013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Bylund JR, Gayheart D, Fleming T, Venkatesh R, Preston DM, Strup SE, et al. Association of tumor size, location, R.E.N.A.L., PADUA and centrality index score with perioperative outcomes and postoperative renal function. J Urol. 2012;188:1684–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2012.07.043.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Ni D, Ma X, Li H-Z, Gao Y, Li X-T, Zhang Y, et al. Factors associated with postoperative renal sinus invasion and perinephric fat invasion in renal cell cancer: treatment planning implications. Oncotarget. 2018;9:10091–9. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.23497.

  36. Bolster F, Durcan L, Barrett C, Lawler LP, Cronin CG. Renal cell carcinoma: accuracy of multidetector computed tomography in the assessment of renal sinus fat invasion. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2016;40:851–5. https://doi.org/10.1097/RCT.0000000000000448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Kim C, Choi HJ, Cho K-S. Diagnostic value of multidetector computed tomography for renal sinus fat invasion in renal cell carcinoma patients. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83:914–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.02.025.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Sokhi HK, Mok WY, Patel U. Stage T3a renal cell carcinoma: staging accuracy of CT for sinus fat, perinephric fat or renal vein invasion. Br J Radiol. 2015;88:20140504. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20140504.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Zhang Z, Yu C, Velet L, Li Y, Jiang L, Zhou F. The difference in prognosis between renal sinus fat and perinephric fat invasion for pt3a renal cell carcinoma: a meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0149420. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0149420.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Fernando A, Fowler S, O’Brien T, the British Association of Urological Surgeons (BAUS). Nephron-sparing surgery across a nation - outcomes from the British Association of Urological Surgeons 2012 national partial nephrectomy audit. BJU Int. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.13353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. DeCastro GJ, McKiernan JM. Epidemiology, clinical staging, and presentation of renal cell carcinoma. Urol Clin North Am. 2008;35:581–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ucl.2008.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Muglia VF, Prando A. Renal cell carcinoma: histological classification and correlation with imaging findings. Radiol Bras. 2015;48:166–74. https://doi.org/10.1590/0100-3984.2013.1927.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Lopez-Beltran A, Carrasco JC, Cheng L, Scarpelli M, Kirkali Z, Montironi R. 2009 update on the classification of renal epithelial tumors in adults. Int J Urol. 2009;16:432–43. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2009.02302.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Prasad SR, Humphrey PA, Catena JR, Narra VR, Srigley JR, Cortez AD, et al. Common and uncommon histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: imaging spectrum with pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2006;26:1795–806. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.266065010.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, Kim CS, Kim K-R, Cho K-S. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178:1499–506. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.178.6.1781499.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Adibi M, Thomas AZ, Borregales LD, Merrill MM, Slack RS, Chen H-C, et al. Percentage of sarcomatoid component as a prognostic indicator for survival in renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid dedifferentiation. Urol Oncol. 2015;33(427):e17-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2015.04.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Zhang BY, Thompson RH, Lohse CM, Leibovich BC, Boorjian SA, Cheville JC, et al. A novel prognostic model for patients with sarcomatoid renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2015;115:405–11. https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.1278.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. • Jeong D, Raghunand N, Hernando D, Poch M, Jeong K, Eck B, et al. Quantification of sarcomatoid differentiation in renal cell carcinoma on magnetic resonance imaging. Quant Imaging Med Surg. 2018;8:373–82. https://doi.org/10.21037/qims.2018.04.09. This interesting study used previously published data on MRI signals suggestive of sarcomatoid tumor to predict percental sarcomatoid differentiation on pathology. They were able to predict sarcomatoid differentiation with high accuracy.

  49. Takeuchi M, Kawai T, Suzuki T, Naiki T, Kawai N, Fujiyoshi Y, et al. MRI for differentiation of renal cell carcinoma with sarcomatoid component from other renal tumor types. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40:112–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0185-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. •• Ficarra V, Caloggero S, Rossanese M, Giannarini G, Crestani A, Ascenti G, et al. Computed tomography features predicting aggressiveness of malignant parenchymal renal tumors suitable for partial nephrectomy. Minerva Urol Nephrol. 2021;73:17–31. https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6051.20.04073-4. This robust non-systematic review evaluated CT variables that predict aggressive RCC. They found that tumor size, enhancement characteristics, tumor margins, and distance to renal sinus were all highly predictive of aggressive pathology.

  51. Suzuki K, Mizuno R, Mikami S, Tanaka N, Kanao K, Kikuchi E, et al. Prognostic significance of high nuclear grade in patients with pathologic T1a renal cell carcinoma. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2012;42:831–5. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hys109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Canfield S, Dabestani S, Hofmann F, Hora M, et al. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: 2014 update. Eur Urol. 2015;67:913–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT, Coleman JA, Dahm P, Derweesh IH, et al. Follow-up for clinically localized renal neoplasms: AUA guideline. J Urol. 2013;190:407–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2013.04.121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. •• Feng Z, Shen Q, Li Y, Hu Z. CT texture analysis: a potential tool for predicting the Fuhrman grade of clear-cell renal carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. 2019;19:6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-019-0195-7. Fuhrman grade is an important prognostic factor in RCC. This novel study examines the heterogeneity of a mass using CT scan texture analysis to predict pathologic grade.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Minervini A, di Cristofano C, Lapini A, Marchi M, Lanzi F, Giubilei G, et al. Histopathologic analysis of peritumoral pseudocapsule and surgical margin status after tumor enucleation for renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2009;55:1410–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2008.07.038.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Minervini A, Campi R, Maida FD, Mari A, Montagnani I, Tellini R, et al. Tumor–parenchyma interface and long-term oncologic outcomes after robotic tumor enucleation for sporadic renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol. 2018;36:527.e1-527.e11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2018.08.014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Minervini A, Raspollini MR, Tuccio A, Cristofano CD, Siena G, Salvi M, et al. Pathological characteristics and prognostic effect of peritumoral capsule penetration in renal cell carcinoma after tumor enucleation. Urol Oncol. 2014;32:50.e15-50.e22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2013.07.018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Wang L, Hughes I, Snarskis C, Alvarez H, Feng J, Gupta GN, et al. Tumor enucleation specimens of small renal tumors more frequently have a positive surgical margin than partial nephrectomy specimens, but this is not associated with local tumor recurrence. Virchows Arch. 2017;470:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-016-2031-9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Rosenthal CL, Kraft R, Zingg EJ. Organ-preserving surgery in renal cell carcinoma: tumor enucleation versus partial kidney resection. Eur Urol. 1984;10:222–8. https://doi.org/10.1159/000463796.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Jacob JM, Williamson SR, Gondim DD, Leese JA, Terry C, Grignon DJ, et al. Characteristics of the peritumoral pseudocapsule vary predictably with histologic subtype of T1 renal neoplasms. Urology. 2015;86:956–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2015.06.015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Shah PH, Moreira DM, Okhunov Z, Patel VR, Chopra S, Razmaria AA, et al. Positive surgical margins increase risk of recurrence after partial nephrectomy for high risk renal tumors. J Urol. 2016;196:327–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Roy CS, Ghali SE, Buy X, Lindner V, Lang H, Saussine C, et al. Significance of the pseudocapsule on MRI of renal neoplasms and its potential application for local staging: a retrospective study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184:113–20. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.184.1.01840113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. • Xi W, Wang J, Liu L, Xiong Y, Qu Y, Lin Z, et al. Evaluation of tumor pseudocapsule status and its prognostic significance in renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2018;199:915–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2017.10.043. The relevance of the PC in RCC prognosis is often debated; this study suggests that an intact pseudocapsule bodes for an improved prognosis.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Bensalah K, Pantuck AJ, Rioux-Leclercq N, Thuret R, Montorsi F, Karakiewicz PI, et al. Positive surgical margin appears to have negligible impact on survival of renal cell carcinomas treated by nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2010;57:466–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2009.03.048.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  65. Marszalek M, Carini M, Chlosta P, Jeschke K, Kirkali Z, Knüchel R, et al. Positive surgical margins after nephron-sparing surgery. Eur Urol. 2012;61:757–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2011.11.028.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. •• Ward RD, Tanaka H, Campbell SC, Remer EM. 2017 AUA renal mass and localized renal cancer guidelines: imaging implications. Radiographics. 2018;38:2021–33. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2018180127. This paper highlights the important findings for radiologists based on the “2017 Renal Mass and Localized Renal Cancer AUA Guidelines.” Emphasizes the importance of radiologists in evaluation and potential treatment in RCC.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  67. Takahashi S, Ueda J, Furukawa T, Higashino K, Tsujihata M, Itatani H, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: preoperative assessment for enucleative surgery with angiography, CT, and MRI. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 1996;20:863–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004728-199611000-00001.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  68. Yamashita Y, Honda S, Nishiharu T, Urata J, Takahashi M. Detection of pseudocapsule of renal cell carcinoma with MR imaging and CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996;166:1151–5. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.166.5.8615260.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  69. • Toguchi M, Takagi T, Ogawa Y, Morita S, Yoshida K, Kondo T, et al. Detection of a peritumoral pseudocapsule in patients with renal cell carcinoma undergoing robot-assisted partial nephrectomy using enhanced MDCT. Sci Rep. 2021;11:2245. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-81922-0. A well designed retrospective single institution study that describes the appearance of PC on CT as opposed to MRI which is more commonly studied.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  70. Snarskis C, Calaway AC, Wang L, Gondim D, Hughes I, Idrees MT, et al. Standardized reporting of microscopic renal tumor margins: introduction of the renal tumor capsule invasion scoring system. J Urol. 2017;197:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.07.086.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. Kiefer C, Schroth G, Gralla J, Diehm N, Baumgartner I, Husmann M. A feasibility study on model-based evaluation of kidney perfusion measured by means of FAIR prepared true-FISP arterial spin labeling (ASL) on a 3-T MR scanner. Acad Radiol. 2009;16:79–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2008.04.024.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. Zhang H, Wu Y, Xue W, Zuo P, Oesingmann N, Gan Q, et al. Arterial spin labelling MRI for detecting pseudocapsule defects and predicting renal capsule invasion in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Radiol. 2017;72:936–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2017.06.003.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Loyola University Medical Center, 2160 S. First Avenue, Fahey Center, Room 241, Maywood, IL, 60153, USA

    Shalin Desai, Goran Rac, Hiten D. Patel & Gopal N. Gupta

Authors
  1. Shalin Desai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Goran Rac
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hiten D. Patel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gopal N. Gupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shalin Desai.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Shalin Desai, Goran Rac, Hiten Patel, and Gopal Gupta each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Desai, S., Rac, G., Patel, H.D. et al. Imaging Features of Renal Masses to Select Optimal Candidates for Tumor Enucleation Partial Nephrectomy. Curr Urol Rep 23, 345–353 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01121-w

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11934-022-01121-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation