Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Multi-institutional analysis of CT and MRI reports evaluating indeterminate renal masses: comparison to a national survey investigating desired report elements

Abdominal Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Author Correction to this article was published on 16 May 2018

This article has been updated

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.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

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

  1. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Lipworth L, Tarone RE, McLaughlin JK (2006) The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 176:2353–2358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Ljungberg B, Campbell SC, Choi HY, et al. (2011) The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 60:615–621

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, et al. (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249:16–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology 236:441–450

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bosniak MA (2011) The Bosniak renal cyst classification: 25 years later. Radiology 262:781–785

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Silverman SG, Israel GM (2015) Trinh, Qouc-Dien. Incompletely characterized incidental renal masses: emerging data support conservative management. Radiology 275:28–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Silverman SG, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, et al. (2007) Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. RadioGraphics 27:1131–1143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew S. Davenport.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1609-x

Keywords

Navigation