Update on Indications for Percutaneous Renal Mass Biopsy in the Era of Advanced CT and MRI

Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of renal biopsy cytology

BACKGROUND

The role of fine needle biopsy cytology in the workup of renal mass lesions remains controversial. With advances in imaging technology and clinical management for renal masses, a critical reevaluation of the role of renal biopsy is needed. This study was designed to provide a comprehensive evaluation of the performance and clinical impact of fine needle biopsy in patients with renal masses.

METHODS

A 5-year retrospective study of ultrasound or computer tomography (CT)-guided fine needle biopsies of renal masses diagnosed via cytopathology was conducted. Overall diagnostic rate, sensitivity, and diagnostic accuracy were calculated. Further analysis of the impact of fine needle biopsy cytology on clinical management was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 227 cases of fine-needle aspiration and/or biopsy (FNA/B) of renal masses were identified, including 76 with subsequent nephrectomies. Complications were rare (<1%). The diagnostic rate and sensitivity of FNA/B were 83.3% and 89.5%, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy was 98.7% at the major categorical level and 94.7% at the tumor subtype level. Subsequent clinical actions were associated with a definitive cytologic diagnosis of malignancy/neoplasia (p < .05) and were affected by tumor subtype (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that FNA/B of renal masses is a safe and reliable minimally invasive diagnostic tool with excellent accuracy in confirmation of malignancy and subclassification of tumors. Diagnoses made on FNA/B play a key role in guiding a personalized clinical treatment plan.

Differentiation between renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma using clear cell likelihood score

PURPOSE

Clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) may be a reliable diagnostic method for distinguishing renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma (EAML) and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). In this study, we aim to explore the value of ccLS in differentiating EAML from ccRCC.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis in which 27 EAML patients and 60 ccRCC patients underwent preoperative magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) at our institution. Two radiologists trained in the ccLS algorithm scored independently and the consistency of their interpretation was evaluated. The difference of the ccLS score was compared between EAML and ccRCC in the whole study cohort and two subgroups [small renal masses (SRM; ≤ 4 cm) and large renal masses (LRM; > 4 cm)].

RESULTS

In total, 87 patients (59 men, 28 women; mean age, 55±11 years) with 90 renal masses (EAML: ccRCC = 1: 2) were identified. The interobserver agreement of two radiologists for the ccLS system to differentiate EAML from ccRCC was good (k = 0.71). The ccLS score in the EAML group and the ccRCC group ranged from 1 to 5 (73.3% in scores 1-2) and 2 to 5 (76.7% in scores 4-5), respectively, with statistically significant differences (P < 0.001). With the threshold value of 2, ccLS can distinguish EAML from ccRCC with the accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 87.8%, 95.0%, 73.3%, 87.7%, and 88.0%, respectively. The AUC (area under the curve) was 0.913. And the distribution of the ccLS score between the two diseases was not affected by tumor size (P = 0.780).

CONCLUSION

The ccLS can distinguish EAML from ccRCC with high accuracy and efficiency.

Complications After Renal Mass Biopsy: Frequency, Nature, Timing, and Associated Characteristics

BACKGROUND. Observation periods after renal mass biopsy (RMB) range from 1 hour to overnight hospitalization. Short observation may improve efficiency by allowing use of the same recovery bed and other resources for RMBs in additional patients. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the frequency, timing, and nature of complications after RMB, as well as to identify characteristics associated with such complications. METHODS. This retrospective study included 576 patients (mean age, 64.9 years; 345 men, 231 women) who underwent percutaneous ultrasound- or CT-guided RMB at one of three hospitals, performed by 22 radiologists, between January 1, 2008, and June 1, 2020. The EHR was reviewed to identify postbiopsy complications, which were classified as bleeding-related or non-bleeding-related and as acute (< 24 hours), subacute (24 hours to 30 days), or delayed (> 30 days). Deviations from normal clinical management (analgesia, unplanned laboratory testing, or additional imaging) were identified. RESULTS. Acute and subacute complications occurred after 3.6% (21/576) and 0.7% (4/576) of RMBs, respectively. No delayed complication or patient death occurred. A total of 76.2% (16/21) of acute complications were bleeding-related. A deviation from normal clinical management occurred after 1.6% (9/551) of RMBs that had no associated postbiopsy complication. Among the 16 patients with bleeding-related acute complications, all experienced a deviation, with mean time to deviation of 56 ± 47 (SD) minutes (range, 10-162 minutes; ≤ 120 minutes in 13/16 patients). The five non-bleeding-related acute complications all presented at the time of RMB completion. The four subacute complications occurred from 28 hours to 18 days after RMB. Patients with, versus those without, a bleeding-related complication had a lower platelet count (mean, 197.7 vs 250.4 × 109/L, p = .01) and greater frequency of entirely endophytic renal masses (47.4% vs 19.6%, p = .01). CONCLUSION. Complications after RMB were uncommon and presented either within 3 hours after biopsy or more than 24 hours after biopsy. CLINICAL IMPACT. A 3-hour monitoring window after RMB before patient discharge (in the absence of deviation from normal clinical management and complemented by informing patients of the low risk of a subacute complication) may provide both safe patient management and appropriate resource utilization.

Development of a Multiparametric Renal CT Algorithm for Diagnosis of Clear Cell Renal Cell Carcinoma Among Small (≤ 4 cm) Solid Renal Masses

BACKGROUND. The MRI clear cell likelihood score predicts the likelihood that a renal mass is clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). A CT-based algorithm has not yet been established. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of our study was to develop and evaluate a CT-based algorithm for diagnosing ccRCC among small (≤ 4 cm) solid renal masses. METHODS. This retrospective study included 148 patients (73 men, 75 women; mean age, 58 ± 12 [SD] years) with 148 small (≤ 4 cm) solid (> 25% enhancing tissue) renal masses that underwent renal mass CT (unenhanced, corticomedullary, and nephrographic phases) before resection between January 2016 and December 2019. Two radiologists independently evaluated CT examinations and recorded calcification, mass attenuation in all phases, mass-to-cortex corticomedullary attenuation ratio, and heterogeneity score (score on a 5-point Likert scale, assessed in corticomedullary phase). Features associated with ccRCC were identified by multivariable logistic regression analysis and then used to create a five-tiered CT score for diagnosing ccRCC. RESULTS. The masses comprised 53% (78/148) ccRCC and 47% (70/148) other histologic diagnoses. The mass-to-cortex corticomedullary attenuation ratio was higher for ccRCC than for other diagnoses (reader 1: 0.84 ± 0.68 vs 0.68 ± 0.65, p = .02; reader 2: 0.75 ± 0.29 vs 0.59 ± 0.25, p = .02). The heterogeneity score was higher for ccRCC than other diagnoses (reader 1: 4.0 ± 1.1 vs 1.5 ± 1.6, p < .001; reader 2: 4.4 ± 0.9 vs 3.3 ± 1.5, p < .001). Other features showed no difference. A five-tiered diagnostic algorithm including the mass-to-cortex corticomedullary attenuation ratio and heterogeneity score had interobserver agreement of 0.71 (weighted κ) and achieved an AUC for diagnosing ccRCC of 0.75 (95% CI, 0.68-0.82) for reader 1 and 0.72 (95% CI, 0.66-0.82) for reader 2. A CT score of 4 or greater achieved sensitivity, specificity, and PPV of 71% (95% CI, 59-80%), 79% (95% CI, 67-87%), and 79% (95% CI, 67-87%) for reader 1 and 42% (95% CI, 31-54%), 81% (95% CI, 70-90%), and 72% (95% CI, 56-84%) for reader 2. A CT score of 2 or less had NPV of 85% (95% CI, 69-95%) for reader 1 and 88% (95% CI, 69-97%) for reader 2. CONCLUSION. A five-tiered renal CT algorithm, including the mass-to-cortex corticomedullary attenuation ratio and heterogeneity score, had substantial interobserver agreement, moderate AUC and PPV, and high NPV for diagnosing ccRCC. CLINICAL IMPACT. The CT algorithm, if validated, may represent a useful clinical tool for diagnosing ccRCC.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of multiparametric MRI clear cell likelihood scores for classification of small renal masses

Purpose

To systematically assess the multiparametric MRI clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) algorithm for the classification of small renal masses (SRM).

Methods

We conducted an electronic literature search on Web of Science, MEDLINE (Ovid and PubMed), Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Google Scholar to identify relevant articles from 2017 up to June 30, 2022. We included studies reporting the diagnostic performance of the ccLS for characterization of solid SRM. The bivariate model and hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic (HSROC) model were used to pool sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (LR+), negative likelihood ratio (LR−), and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR). The quality evaluation was performed with the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 tool.

Results

A total of 6 studies with 825 renal masses (785 patients) were included in the current meta-analysis. The pooled sensitivity and specificity for cT1a renal masses were 0.80 (95% CI 0.75–0.85) and 0.74 (95% CI 0.65–0.81) at the threshold of ccLS ≥4, the pooled LR+, LR−, and DOR were 3.04 (95% CI 2.34-3.95), 0.27 (95% CI 0.22–0.33), and 11.4 (95% CI 8.2-15.9), respectively. The area under the HSROC curve was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81–0.87). For all cT1 renal masses, the pooled sensitivity and specificity were 0.80 (95% CI 0.74–0.85) and 0.76 (95% CI 0.67–0.83).

Conclusions

The ccLS had moderate to high accuracy for identifying ccRCC from other RCC subtypes and with a moderate inter-reader agreement. However, its diagnostic performance remain needs multi-center, large cohort studies to validate in the future.

Multicenter Evaluation of Multiparametric MRI Clear Cell Likelihood Scores in Solid Indeterminate Small Renal Masses

Background Solid small renal masses (SRMs) (≤4 cm) represent benign and malignant tumors. Among SRMs, clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) is frequently aggressive. When compared with invasive percutaneous biopsies, the objective of the proposed clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) is to classify ccRCC noninvasively by using multiparametric MRI, but it lacks external validation. Purpose To evaluate the performance of and interobserver agreement for ccLS to diagnose ccRCC among solid SRMs. Materials and Methods This retrospective multicenter cross-sectional study included patients with consecutive solid (≥25% approximate volume enhancement) SRMs undergoing multiparametric MRI between December 2012 and December 2019 at five academic medical centers with histologic confirmation of diagnosis. Masses with macroscopic fat were excluded. After a 1.5-hour training session, two abdominal radiologists per center independently rendered a ccLS for 50 masses. The diagnostic performance for ccRCC was calculated using random-effects logistic regression modeling. The distribution of ccRCC by ccLS was tabulated. Interobserver agreement for ccLS was evaluated with the Fleiss κ statistic. Results A total of 241 patients (mean age, 60 years ± 13 [SD]; 174 men) with 250 solid SRMs were evaluated. The mean size was 25 mm ± 8 (range, 10-39 mm). Of the 250 SRMs, 119 (48%) were ccRCC. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive value for the diagnosis of ccRCC when ccLS was 4 or higher were 75% (95% CI: 68, 81), 78% (72, 84), and 76% (69, 81), respectively. The negative predictive value of a ccLS of 2 or lower was 88% (95% CI: 81, 93). The percentages of ccRCC according to the ccLS were 6% (range, 0%-18%), 38% (range, 0%-100%), 32% (range, 60%-83%), 72% (range, 40%-88%), and 81% (range, 73%-100%) for ccLSs of 1-5, respectively. The mean interobserver agreement was moderate (κ = 0.58; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.75). Conclusion The clear cell likelihood score applied to multiparametric MRI had moderate interobserver agreement and differentiated clear cell renal cell carcinoma from other solid renal masses, with a negative predictive value of 88%. © RSNA, 2022 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Mileto and Potretzke in this issue.

Multimodality imaging review of focal renal lesions

Background

Focal lesions of the kidney comprise a spectrum of entities that can be broadly classified as malignant tumors, benign tumors, and non-neoplastic lesions. Malignant tumors include renal cell carcinoma subtypes, urothelial carcinoma, lymphoma, post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease, metastases to the kidney, and rare malignant lesions. Benign tumors include angiomyolipoma (fat-rich and fat-poor) and oncocytoma. Non-neoplastic lesions include infective, inflammatory, and vascular entities. Anatomical variants can also mimic focal masses.

Main body of the abstract

A range of imaging modalities are available to facilitate characterization; ultrasound (US), contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, and positron emission tomography (PET), each with their own strengths and limitations. Renal lesions are being detected with increasing frequency due to escalating imaging volumes. Accurate diagnosis is central to guiding clinical management and determining prognosis. Certain lesions require intervention, whereas others may be managed conservatively or deemed clinically insignificant. Challenging cases often benefit from a multimodality imaging approach combining the morphology, enhancement and metabolic features.

Short conclusion

Knowledge of the relevant clinical details and key imaging features is crucial for accurate characterization and differentiation of renal lesions.

Active Surveillance of Renal Masses: The Role of Radiology

Active surveillance of renal masses, which includes serial imaging with the possibility of delayed treatment, has emerged as a viable alternative to immediate therapeutic intervention in selected patients. Active surveillance is supported by evidence that many benign masses are resected unnecessarily, and treatment of small cancers has not substantially reduced cancer-specific mortality. These data are a call to radiologists to improve the diagnosis of benign renal masses and differentiate cancers that are biologically aggressive (prompting treatment) from those that are indolent (allowing treatment deferral). Current evidence suggests that active surveillance results in comparable cancer-specific survival with a low risk of developing metastasis. Radiology is central in this. Imaging is used at the outset to estimate the probability of malignancy and degree of aggressiveness in malignant masses and to follow up masses for growth and morphologic change. Percutaneous biopsy is used to provide a more definitive histologic diagnosis and to guide treatment decisions, including whether active surveillance is appropriate. Emerging applications that may improve imaging assessment of renal masses include standardized assessment of cystic and solid masses and radiomic analysis. This article reviews the current and future role of radiology in the care of patients with renal masses undergoing active surveillance.

Complications of renal interventions: a pictorial review of CT findings

A number of potential vascular and non-vascular complications can arise from surgical, extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy, radiotherapy and radiological renal interventions, including percutaneous image-guided biopsy and drainage. Computed tomography scan is usually one of the first and most important diagnostic imaging examinations requested when a potential complication is suspected. There are a wide range of common and uncommon potential complications from renal interventions. An understanding of underlying risk factors is important to reduce potential complications from renal intervention. Radiologists play a crucial role in recognising and diagnosing post-renal intervention complications on computed tomography scans, which could significantly improve the patient’s prognosis.

Role of Imaging in Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Multidisciplinary Perspective

With the expansion in cross-sectional imaging over the past few decades, there has been an increase in the number of incidentally detected renal masses and an increase in the incidence of renal cell carcinomas (RCCs). The complete characterization of an indeterminate renal mass on CT or MR images is challenging, and the authors provide a critical review of the best imaging methods and essential, important, and optional reporting elements used to describe the indeterminate renal mass. While surgical staging remains the standard of care for RCC, the role of renal mass CT or MRI in staging RCC is reviewed, specifically with reference to areas that may be overlooked at imaging such as detection of invasion through the renal capsule or perirenal (Gerota) fascia. Treatment options for localized RCC are expanding, and a multidisciplinary group of experts presents an overview of the role of advanced medical imaging in surgery, percutaneous ablation, transarterial embolization, active surveillance, and stereotactic body radiation therapy. Finally, the arsenal of treatments for advanced renal cancer continues to grow to improve response to therapy while limiting treatment side effects. Imaging findings are important in deciding the best treatment options and to monitor response to therapy. However, evaluating response has increased in complexity. The unique imaging findings associated with antiangiogenic targeted therapy and immunotherapy are discussed. An invited commentary by Remer is available online. Online supplemental material is available for this article. ^©RSNA, 2021.

The Incidental Renal Mass- Update on Characterization and Management

Renal masses are commonly encountered on cross-sectional imaging examinations performed for nonrenal indications. Although most can be dismissed as benign cysts, a subset will be either indeterminate or suspicious; in many cases, imaging cannot be used to reliably differentiate between benign and malignant masses. On-going research in defining characteristics of common renal masses on advanced imaging shows promise in offering solutions to this issue. A recent update of the Bosniak classification (used to categorize cystic renal masses) was proposed with the goals of decreasing imaging follow-up in likely benign cystic masses, and therefore avoiding unnecessary surgical resection of such masses.

Update on the Role of Imaging in Clinical Staging and Restaging of Renal Cell Carcinoma Based on the AJCC 8th Edition, From the AJR Special Series on Cancer Staging

This article reviews the essential role of imaging in clinical staging and restaging of renal cell carcinoma (RCC). To completely characterize and stage an indeterminate renal mass, renal CT or MRI without and with IV contrast administration is recommended. The critical items for initial clinical staging of an indeterminate renal mass or of a known RCC according to the TNM staging system are tumor size, renal sinus fat invasion, urinary collecting system invasion, perinephric fat invasion, venous invasion, adrenal gland invasion, invasion of the perirenal (Gerota) fascia, invasion into other adjacent organs, the presence of enlarged or pathologic regional (retroperitoneal) lymph nodes, and the presence of distant metastatic disease. Larger tumor size is associated with higher stage disease and invasiveness, lymph node spread, and distant metastatic disease. Imaging practice guidelines for clinical staging of RCC, as well as the role of renal mass biopsy, are highlighted. Specific findings associated with response of advanced cancer to antiangiogenic therapy and immunotherapy are discussed, as well as limitations of changes in tumor size after targeted therapy. The accurate clinical staging and restaging of RCC using renal CT or MRI provides important prognostic information and helps guide the optimal management of patients with RCC.

Adequacy of Unenhanced MRI for Surveillance of Small (Clinical T1a) Solid Renal Masses

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this study was to determine if contrast enhancement is necessary for MRI surveillance of clinical T1a (cT1a) solid renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS. With institutional review board approval, 36 patients who underwent two or more contrast-enhanced (CE) MRI examinations (median, four examinations; range, two to 10 examinations) for surveillance of 39 cT1a solid renal masses between 2009 and 2019 (median time between scans, 2 years; range, 1-7 years) were evaluated. Two radiologists independently measured renal mass size and assessed tumor stage in two sessions for baseline and follow-up examinations using T1-weighted nephrographic phase CE-MRI and unenhanced single-shot T2-weighted MRI in mixed order with a 4-week washout period. Comparisons were performed using the Wilcoxon sign-rank test and Pearson correlation. Bland-Altman and intraclass correlation determined interobserver agreement. RESULTS. Mean size ± SD of renal masses on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI were 18 ± 5 mm (range, 9-37 mm) and 18 ± 5 mm (range, 9-37 mm) for radiologist 1 and 19 ± 7 mm (range, 10-39 mm) and 19 ± 6 mm (range, 10-39 mm) for radiologist 2 with near perfect correlation (for radiologist 1, β = 0.9897; for radiologist 2, β = 0.9317; p < .001). Interob-server agreement for measurements comparing radiologist 1 and radiologist 2 on CEMRI and T2-weighted MRI and intraobserver agreement for measurements on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI were excellent. Mean growth rate of renal masses measured on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI were 2 ± 2 mm (range, -5 to 8 mm) and 2 ± 3 mm (range, -3 to 8 mm) for radiologist 1 and 3 ± 5 mm (range, -1 to 18 mm) and 3 ± 6 mm (range, -1 to 24 mm) for radiologist 2 with high correlation (for radiologist 1, β = 0.8313 [p < .001]; for radiologist 2, β = 0.848 [p = .002]). At baseline, all tumors were subjectively cT1a on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI (p > .99, intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 1). During follow-up, one mass progressed to T3 on CE-MRI and T2-weighted MRI for radiologist 1 and radiologist 2 (p > .99, ICC = 1). CONCLUSION. In this study, size measurements on unenhanced T2-weighted MRI had near perfect correlation to measurements using CE-MRI in cT1a solid renal masses undergoing surveillance, with high agreement between and within observers. Clinical staging did not differ comparing T2-weighted MRI and CE-MRI, with near perfect agreement. Contrast enhancement is not necessary for follow-up size measurements in cT1a solid renal masses with MRI.

Imaging Characterization of Renal Masses

The detection of a renal mass is a relatively frequent occurrence in the daily practice of any Radiology Department. The diagnostic approaches depend on whether the lesion is cystic or solid. Cystic lesions can be managed using the Bosniak classification, while management of solid lesions depends on whether the lesion is well-defined or infiltrative. The approach to well-defined lesions focuses mainly on the differentiation between renal cancer and benign tumors such as angiomyolipoma (AML) and oncocytoma. Differential diagnosis of infiltrative lesions is wider, including primary and secondary malignancies and inflammatory disease, and knowledge of the patient history is essential. Radiologists may establish a possible differential diagnosis based on the imaging features of the renal masses and the clinical history. The aim of this review is to present the contribution of the different imaging techniques and image guided biopsies in the diagnostic management of cystic and solid renal lesions.

Update on MRI of Cystic Renal Masses Including Bosniak Version 2019

Incidental cystic renal masses are common, usually benign, and almost always indolent. Since 1986, the Bosniak classification has been used to express the risk of malignancy in a cystic renal mass detected at imaging. Historically, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was not included in that classification. The proposed Bosniak v.2019 update has formally incorporated MRI, included definitions of imaging terms designed to improve interobserver agreement and specificity for malignancy, and incorporated a variety of masses that were incompletely defined or not included in the original classification. For example, at unenhanced MRI, homogeneous masses markedly hyperintense at T₂ -weighted imaging (similar to cerebrospinal fluid) and homogeneous masses markedly hyperintense at fat suppressed T₁ -weighted imaging (approximately ≥2.5 times more intense than adjacent renal parenchyma) are classified as Bosniak II and may be safely ignored, even when they have not been imaged with a complete renal mass MRI protocol. MRI has specific advantages and is recommended to evaluate masses that at computed tomography (CT) 1) have abundant thick or nodular calcifications; 2) are homogeneous, hyperattenuating, ≥3 cm, and nonenhancing; or 3) are heterogeneous and nonenhancing. Although MRI is generally excellent for characterizing cystic renal masses, there are unique weaknesses of MRI that bear consideration. These details and others related to MRI of cystic renal masses are described in this review, with an emphasis on Bosniak v.2019. A website (https://bosniak-calculator.herokuapp.com/) and mobile phone apps named "Bosniak Calculator" have been developed for ease of assignment of Bosniak classes. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 5 TECHNICAL EFFICACY STAGE: 3.

Contemporary trends in percutaneous renal mass biopsy utilization in the United States

INTRODUCTION

Patients with a renal mass traditionally proceed directly to surgery without a preoperative tissue diagnosis confirming malignancy. Many surgically treated renal masses represent benign tumors or indolent malignancies on final pathology. This has led to a growing body of literature supporting an expanded role for percutaneous renal mass biopsy (RMB). This study aims to characterize national trends in RMB utilization.

METHODS

Patients undergoing renal biopsy during a 12-year period (2006-2017) in the Premier Hospital Database were captured using International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision and Tenth Revision codes. We restricted our analysis to patients with a concurrent diagnosis of a renal mass. We determined utilization rate, subsequent interventions within 90 days of biopsy, predictors of RMB, and 30-day RMB complication rates. We applied sampling weights and adjusted for hospital clustering to achieve a nationally representative analysis.

RESULTS

Among 115,511 patients who met the inclusion criteria, the annual number of RMB rose from 7,196 in 2006 to 11,528 in 2017; during this period, more than 3 times as many patients proceeded directly to surgery without a prior RMB. After RMB, 85,848 (74.32%) patients were not treated within 90 days. Of those treated, thermal ablation was more common than surgery (17,269 vs. 12,394). Trend analysis showed that patients with metastatic disease represented a decreasing proportion of patients receiving RMB (27.0%-21.8%; P < 0.001). Compared to patients who proceeded directly to surgery, RMB was more commonly performed in patients in the highest age group (80 years and older, 15.9% vs. 9.2%), unmarried (50% vs. 45.9%), with more medical comorbidities (Charlson comorbidity index ≥4, 30.9% vs. 17.4%), or with metastatic disease (24.5% vs. 10.4%). Multivariable regression analysis determined the primary predictor of RMB was the presence of metastatic disease. Hematuria was the most common complication present in 5.18% of patients followed by pneumothorax in 1.75%. All other complications were rare (<0.4%).

CONCLUSION

Although there has been progressive adoption of RMB for the management of renal masses in the United States, utilization remains relatively limited and differentially employed across the population based on both clinical and nonclinical patient factors. More research is needed to understand which factors are considered when determining whether to utilize RMB in the evaluation of a renal mass.

Usefulness of multidetector computed tomography to differentiate between renal cell carcinoma and oncocytoma. A model validation

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to validate a multivariable predictive model previously developed to differentiate between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and oncocytoma using CT parameters.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

We included 100 renal lesions with final diagnosis of RCC or oncocytoma studied before surgery with 4-phase multidetector CT (MDCT). We evaluated the characteristics of the tumors and the enhancement patterns at baseline, arterial, nephrographic and excretory MDCT phases.

RESULTS

Histopathologically 15 tumors were oncocytomas and 85 RCCs. RCCs were significantly larger (median 4.4 cm vs 2.8 cm, p = 0.006). There were significant differences in nodule attenuation in the excretory phase compared to baseline (median: 31 vs 42, p = 0.015), with RCCs having lower values. Heterogeneous enhancement patterns were also more frequent in RCCs (85.9% vs 60%, p = 0.027).Multivariable analysis showed that the independent predictors of malignancy were the enhancement pattern, with oncocytomas being more homogeneous in the nephrographic phase [Odds Ratio (OR) 0.16 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.75, p = 0.02)], nodule enhancement in the excretory phase compared to baseline, with RCCs showing lower enhancement [OR 0.96 (95% CI 0.93 to 0.99, p = 0.005)], and a size > 4 cm, with RCCs being larger [OR 5.89 (95% CI 1.10 to 31.58), p = 0.038].

CONCLUSION

The multivariable predictive model previously developed which combines different MDCT parameters, including lesion size > 4 cm, lesion enhancement in the excretory phase compared to baseline and enhancement heterogeneity, can be successfully applied to distinguish RCC from oncocytoma.

ADVANCES IN KNOWLEDGE

This study confirms that multiparametric assessment using MDCT (including parameters such as size, homogeneity and enhancement differences between the excretory and the baseline phases) can help distinguish between RCCs and oncocytomas. While it is true that this multiparametric predictive model may not always correctly classify renal tumors such as RCC or oncocytoma, it can be used to determine which patients would benefit from pre-surgical biopsy to confirm that the tumor is in fact an oncocytoma, and thereby avoid unnecessary surgical treatments.

Automated classification of solid renal masses on contrast-enhanced computed tomography images using convolutional neural network with decision fusion

OBJECTIVES

To develop a deep learning-based method for automated classification of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from benign solid renal masses using contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) images.

METHODS

This institutional review board-approved retrospective study evaluated CECT in 315 patients with 77 benign (57 oncocytomas, and 20 fat-poor angiomyolipoma) and 238 malignant (RCC: 123 clear cell, 69 papillary, and 46 chromophobe subtypes) tumors identified consecutively between 2015 and 2017. We employed a decision fusion-based model to aggregate slice level predictions determined by convolutional neural network (CNN) via a majority voting system to evaluate renal masses on CECT. The CNN-based model was trained using 7023 slices with renal masses manually extracted from CECT images of 155 patients, cropped automatically around kidneys, and augmented artificially. We also examined the fully automated approach for renal mass evaluation on CECT. Moreover, a 3D CNN was trained and tested using the same datasets and the obtained results were compared with those acquired from slice-wise algorithms.

RESULTS

For differentiation of RCC versus benign solid masses, the semi-automated majority voting-based CNN algorithm achieved accuracy, precision, and recall of 83.75%, 89.05%, and 91.73% using 160 test cases, respectively. Fully automated pipeline yielded accuracy, precision, and recall of 77.36%, 85.92%, and 87.22% on the same test cases, respectively. 3D CNN reported accuracy, precision, and recall of 79.24%, 90.32%, and 84.21% using 160 test cases, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

A semi-automated majority voting CNN-based methodology enabled accurate classification of RCC from benign neoplasms among solid renal masses on CECT.

KEY POINTS

• Our proposed semi-automated majority voting CNN-based algorithm achieved accuracy of 83.75% for the diagnosis of RCC from benign solid renal masses on CECT images. • A fully automated CNN-based methodology classified solid renal masses with moderate accuracy of 77.36% using the same test images. • Employing 3D CNN-based methodology yielded slightly lower accuracy for renal mass classification compared with the semi- automated 2D CNN-based algorithm (79.24%).

Characterization of clear cell renal cell carcinoma and other renal tumors: evaluation of dual-energy CT using material-specific iodine and fat imaging

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess material-specific iodine and fat images for diagnosis of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (cc-RCC) compared to papillary RCC (p-RCC) and other renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

With IRB approval, we identified histologically confirmed solid renal masses that underwent rapid-kVp-switch DECT between 2016 and 2018: 25 cc-RCC (7 low grade versus 18 high grade), 11 p-RCC, and 6 other tumors (2 clear cell papillary RCC, 2 chromophobe RCC, 1 oncocytoma, 1 renal angiomyomatous tumor). A blinded radiologist measured iodine and fat concentration on material-specific iodine-water and fat-water basis pair images. Comparisons were performed between groups using univariate analysis and diagnostic accuracy calculated by ROC.

RESULTS

Iodine concentration was higher in cc-RCC (6.14 ± 1.79 mg/mL) compared to p-RCC (1.40 ± 0.54 mg/mL, p < 0.001), but not compared to other tumors (5.0 ± 2.2 mg/mL, p = 0.370). Intratumoral fat was seen in 36.0% (9/25) cc-RCC (309.6 ± 234.3 mg/mL [71.1-762.3 ng/mL]), 9.1% (1/11) papillary RCC (97.11 mg/mL), and no other tumors (p = 0.036). Iodine concentration ≥ 3.99 mg/mL achieved AUC and sensitivity/specificity of 0.88 (CI 0.76-1.00) and 92.31%/82.40% to diagnose cc-RCC. To diagnose p-RCC, iodine concentration ≤ 2.5 mg/mL achieved AUC and sensitivity/specificity of 0.99 (0.98-1.00) and 100%/100%. The presence of intratumoral fat had AUC 0.64 (CI 0.53-0.75) and sensitivity/specificity of 34.6%/93.8% to diagnose cc-RCC. A logistic regression model combining iodine concentration and presence of fat increased AUC to 0.91 (CI 0.81-1.0) with sensitivity/specificity of 80.8%/93.8% to diagnose cc-RCC.

CONCLUSION

Iodine concentration values are highly accurate to differentiate clear cell RCC from papillary RCC; however, they overlap with other tumors. Fat-specific images may improve differentiation of clear cell RCC from other avidly enhancing tumors.

KEY POINTS

• Clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has significantly higher iodine concentration than papillary RCC, but there is an overlap in values comparing clear cell RCC to other renal tumors. • Iodine concentration ≤ 2.5 mg/mL is highly accurate to differentiate papillary RCC from clear cell RCC and other renal tumors. • The presence of microscopic fat on material-specific fat images was specific for clear cell RCC, helping to differentiate clear cell RCC from other avidly enhancing renal tumors.