Abstract
Purpose
To determine the need for a standardized renal mass reporting template by analyzing reports of indeterminate renal masses and comparing their contents to stated preferences of radiologists and urologists.
Methods
The host IRB waived regulatory oversight for this multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant quality improvement effort. CT and MRI reports created to characterize an indeterminate renal mass were analyzed from 6 community (median: 17 reports/site) and 6 academic (median: 23 reports/site) United States practices. Report contents were compared to a published national survey of stated preferences by academic radiologists and urologists from 9 institutions. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were calculated.
Results
Of 319 reports, 85% (271; 192 CT, 79 MRI) reported a possibly malignant mass (236 solid, 35 cystic). Some essential elements were commonly described: size (99% [269/271]), mass type (solid vs. cystic; 99% [268/271]), enhancement (presence vs. absence; 92% [248/271]). Other essential elements had incomplete penetrance: the presence or absence of fat in solid masses (14% [34/236]), size comparisons when available (79% [111/140]), Bosniak classification for cystic masses (54% [19/35]). Preferred but non-essential elements generally were described in less than half of reports. Nephrometry scores usually were not included for local therapy candidates (12% [30/257]). Academic practices were significantly more likely than community practices to include mass characterization details, probability of malignancy, and staging. Community practices were significantly more likely to include management recommendations.
Conclusions
Renal mass reporting elements considered essential or preferred often are omitted in radiology reports. Variation exists across radiologists and practice settings. A standardized template may mitigate these inconsistencies.
Similar content being viewed by others
Change history
16 May 2018
The original version of this article contained an error in author name. The co-author’s name was published as Ivan M. Pedrosa, instead it should be Ivan Pedrosa. The original article has been corrected.
References
Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1331–1334
Lipworth L, Tarone RE, McLaughlin JK (2006) The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 176:2353–2358
Ljungberg B, Campbell SC, Choi HY, et al. (2011) The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 60:615–621
Bjorge T, Tretli S, Engeland A (2004) Relation of height and body mass index to renal cell carcinoma in two million Norwegian men and women. Am J Epidemiol 160:1168–1176
Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, et al. (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249:16–31
Herts BR, Silverman SG, Hindman NM, et al. (2017) Management of the incidental renal mass on CT: a white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.04.028
Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology 236:441–450
Bosniak MA (2011) The Bosniak renal cyst classification: 25 years later. Radiology 262:781–785
Silverman SG, Israel GM (2015) Trinh, Qouc-Dien. Incompletely characterized incidental renal masses: emerging data support conservative management. Radiology 275:28–42
Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma. CT renal mass protocols v.1.0. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abdominalradiology.org/resource/resmgr/education_dfp/RCC/RCC.CTprotocolsfinal-7-15-17.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma. MR renal mass protocols v.1.0. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abdominalradiology.org//resource/resmgr/education_dfp/RCC/RCC.MRIprotocolfinal-7-15-17.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
Davenport MS, Hu EM, Smith AD, et al. (2017) Reporting standards for the imaging-based diagnosis of renal masses on CT and MRI: a national survey of academic abdominal radiologists and urologists. Abdom Radiol 42:1229–1240
Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. (2012) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiology 265:468–477
Silverman SG, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, et al. (2007) Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. RadioGraphics 27:1131–1143
Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M, et al. (2008) MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis. RadioGraphics 28:985–1003
Sun MR, Ngo I, Genega EM, et al. (2009) Renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes—correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 250:793–802
Pedrosa I, Alsop DC, Rofsky NM (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer . https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24237
Canvasser NE, Kay FU, Xi Y, et al. (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to identify clear cell renal cell carcinoma in cT1a renal masses. J Urol 198:780–786
Young JR, Margolis D, Sauk S, et al. (2013) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT. Radiology 267:444–453
Oliva MR, Glickman JN, Zou KH, et al. (2009) Renal cell carcinoma: t1 and t2 signal intensity characteristics of papillary and clear cell types correlated with pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1524–1530
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location, and depth. J Urol 182:844–853
Dodelzon K, Mussi TC, Babb JS, et al. (2012) Prediction of growth rate of solid renal masses: utility of MR imaging features—preliminary experience. Radiology 262:884–893
Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F, et al. (2017) Effect of template reporting of brain MRIs for multiple sclerosis on report thoroughness and neurologist-rated quality: results of a prospective quality improvement project. J Am Coll Radiol 14:371–379
Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, et al. (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472
Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588
Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, et al. (2014) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology 270:248–260
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
No funding was solicited or used for this work.
Conflict of interest
Matthew Davenport: Royalties from Wolters Kluwer. Zhen Wang: Unrelated stockholder in Nextrast Inc. Andrew Smith: Unrelated: president of Radiostics LLC, president of and patents received and pending for Liver Nodularity LLC, president of and patents received and pending for eRadioMetrics LLC, presidents of and patents received and pending for Color Enhanced Detection LLC. Hersh Chandarana: Unrelated hardware and software support from Siemens Healthcare. Atul Shinagare: Unrelated consultant to Arog Pharmaceuticals and research funding with GTx Inc. David Miller: Salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for serving as the director of the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). Eric Hu, Andrew Zhang, Stuart Silverman, Ivan Pedrosa, Ankur Doshi, Erick Remer, Sam Kaffenberger declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All study procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.
Informed consent
Institutional review board approval was obtained and subjects consented to participate in the survey.
Additional information
The original version of this article was revised: The typo in the co-author name has been corrected.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hu, E.M., Zhang, A., Silverman, S.G. et al. Multi-institutional analysis of CT and MRI reports evaluating indeterminate renal masses: comparison to a national survey investigating desired report elements. Abdom Radiol 43, 3493–3502 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1609-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1609-x