Related Experiment Videos
Small (< or = 3-cm) renal masses: detection with CT versus US and pathologic correlation
C A Jamis-Dow1, P L Choyke, S B Jennings
1Department of Diagnostic Radiology, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-1182, USA.
Radiology
|March 1, 1996
Summary
Computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) have limitations in detecting small renal lesions, especially those under 1 cm. Neither CT nor US demonstrated superiority in characterizing lesions 3 cm or less in patients with hereditary kidney cancer.
Area of Science:
- Medical Imaging
- Nephrology
- Oncology
Background:
- Small renal lesions are common in hereditary kidney cancer syndromes.
- Accurate detection and characterization of these lesions are crucial for patient management.
- Computed tomography (CT) and ultrasound (US) are primary imaging modalities used for renal lesion assessment.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the diagnostic performance of CT and US in detecting and characterizing small renal lesions.
- To compare the sensitivities of CT and US for small renal masses.
- To correlate imaging findings with surgically verified pathological data.
Main Methods:
- Retrospective analysis of 21 patients with von Hippel-Lindau disease or hereditary papillary renal cancer.
- Patients underwent both CT and US examinations prior to surgical intervention.
- Correlation of imaging detection and characterization accuracy with lesion size and surgical outcomes for 205 renal masses (<3 cm in 92%).
Main Results:
- CT and US detection rates varied significantly with lesion size, with lower sensitivity for lesions <10 mm.
- For lesions 10-35 mm, CT and US correctly characterized morphology in 80% and 82% of cases, respectively.
- Neither modality was superior for characterizing lesions ≤3 cm, and a substantial proportion of lesions <1 cm were missed by both.
Conclusions:
- Both CT and US have limitations in detecting very small renal lesions (<1 cm) in patients with hereditary kidney cancer.
- Characterization accuracy for lesions ≤3 cm is comparable between CT and US, but neither is definitively superior.
- Clinical interpretation of CT and US screening in these high-risk patients requires caution due to the potential for missed or mischaracterized small renal lesions.