Role of multi detector computed tomography (MDCT) in evaluation of renal masses

Authors

  • M. A. Karthikeyan Department of Radiodiagnosis, PGIMER and Dr. R. M. L. Hospital, New Delhi, India
  • Poonam Vohra Department of Radiodiagnosis, PGIMER and Dr. R. M. L. Hospital, New Delhi, India

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20180625

Keywords:

Multidetector computed tomography, Renal masses

Abstract

Background: Due to rapid pace in development of imaging techniques and increasing number of investigations being done, more number of renal masses are discovered incidentally during evaluation of unrelated or unspecific symptoms. Hence it is vital to differentiate neoplastic and non-neoplastic masses. Among the neoplastic masses, there is a need to differentiate benign and malignant masses so that appropriate treatment strategies like nephron sparing surgery, radio frequency ablation etc. can be planned at an early stage and avoiding unnecessary radical treatments for improved patients survival.

Methods: A Cross-sectional Observational study was done in 35 patients. Patients of either sex in any age group who had presented with suspected renal mass by clinical signs and symptoms (palpable renal angle mass, renal angle pain, hematuria) confirmed on USG examination or an incidental Renal mass diagnosed on USG/CT examination were included in our study.

Results: Ultrasound is the initial imaging modality of choice since it is inexpensive, easy to perform and no radiation exposure. On USG, the renal lesions are classified as solid or cystic. Anechoic, thin walled cyst without any septations or solid components is usually Bosniak I cyst (simple cyst) and does not need any further evaluation. Rest of the cystic and solid lesions cannot be characterized by ultrasound and hence need further evaluation.

Conclusions: Multidetector Computed Tomography is the imaging modality of choice for further evaluation and characterization. CT is done in four phases viz., unenhanced, corticomedullary, nephrographic and excretory phase especially in cases of malignancy while in benign conditions like angiomyolipoma and abscess, evaluation with unenhanced and single phase post contrast in portovenous phase is sufficient.

References

Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, Napoli A, Pediconi F, Danti M, et al. High-resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;180(5):1271-7.

Tsili AC, Argyropoulou MI. Advances of multidetector computed tomography in the characterization and staging of renal cell carcinoma. World J Radiol. 2015;7(6):110-27.

Patel NS, Poder L, Wang ZJ, Yeh BM, Qayyum A, Jin H, et al. The characterization of small hypoattenuating renal masses on contrast-enhanced CT. Clin Imaging. 2009;33(4):295-300.

Ng CS, Wood CG, Silverman PM, Tannir NM, Tamboli P, Sandler CM. Renal cell carcinoma: diagnosis, staging, and surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(4):1220-32.

Kopka L, Fischer U, Zoeller G, Schmidt C, Ringert RH, Grabbe E. Dual-phase helical CT of the kidney: value of the corticomedullary and nephrographic phase for evaluation of renal lesions and preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1997;169(6):1573-8.

Agnihotri S, Kumar J, Jain M, Kapoor R, Mandhani A. Renal cell carcinoma in India demonstrates early age of onset & a late stage of presentation. Indian J Med Res. 2014;140(5):624-9.

Hatimota P, Vashist S, Aggarwal K, Kapoor A, Gupta NP. Spectrum of US and CT findings in renal neoplasms with pathologic correlation. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2005;15(1):117.

Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E, Murray T, Xu J, Smigal C, et al. Cancer statistics, 2006. CA Cancer J Clin. 2006;56(2):106-30.

Sivaramakrishna B, Gupta NP, Wadhwa P, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, et al. Pattern of metastases in renal cell carcinoma: A single institution study. Indian J Cancer. 2005;42(4):173.

Davidoff AM. Wilms’ tumor. Curr Opin Pediatr. 2009;21(3):357-64.

Raza SA, Sohaib SA, Sahdev A, Bharwani N, Heenan S, Verma H, et al. Centrally infiltrating renal masses on CT: differentiating intrarenal transitional cell carcinoma from centrally located renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(4):846-53.

Rathmell WK, Godley PA. Recent updates in renal cell carcinoma. Curr Opin Oncol. 2010;22(3):250-6.

Choyke PL, White EM, Zeman RK, Jaffe MH, Clark LR. Renal metastases: clinicopathologic and radiologic correlation. Radiology. 1987;162(2):359-63.

Akasbi Y, Arifi S, Lahlaidi K, Namad T, Mellas N, El Fassi MJ, et al. Renal metastases of a femur osteosarcoma: a case report and a review of the literature. Case Rep Urol. 2012;2012:259193.

Griffin N, Gore ME, Sohaib SA. Imaging in Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):360-70.

Downloads

Published

2018-02-22

How to Cite

Karthikeyan, M. A., & Vohra, P. (2018). Role of multi detector computed tomography (MDCT) in evaluation of renal masses. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 6(3), 974–980. https://doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20180625

Issue

Section

Original Research Articles