Accuracy of preoperative CT T staging of renal cell carcinoma: which features predict advanced stage?

AIMS

To characterise CT findings in renal cell carcinoma (RCC), and establish which features are associated with higher clinical T stage disease, and to evaluate patterns of discrepancy between radiological and pathological staging of RCC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Preoperative CT studies of 92 patients with 94 pathologically proven RCCs were retrospectively reviewed. CT stage was compared with pathological stage using the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC), 7(th) edition (2010). The presence or absence of tumour necrosis, perinephric fat standing, thickening of Gerota's fascia, collateral vessels were noted, and correlated with pT stage. The sensitivity, specificity, and positive (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV) for predicting pT stage ≥pT3a were derived separately for different predictors using cross-tabulations.

RESULTS

Twenty-four lesions were pathological stage T1a, 21 were T1b, seven were T2a, 25 were T3a, 11 were T3b, four were T3c, and two were T4. There were no stage T2b. Sixty-three (67%) patients had necrosis, 27 (29%) thickening of Gerota's fascia (1 T1a), 25 had collateral vessels (0 T1a), 28 (30%) had fat stranding of <2 mm, 20 (21%) of 2-5mm and one (1%) of >5 mm. For pT stage ≥pT3a, the presence of perinephric fat stranding had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV of 74%, 65%, 63%, and 76%, respectively. Presence of tumour necrosis had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 81%, 44%, 54%, and 72%, respectively. Thickening of Gerota's fascia had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of 52%, 90%, 81% and 70%, respectively; and enlarged collateral vessels had a sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV value of 52%, 94%, 88%, and 71% respectively.

CONCLUSION

The presence of perinephric stranding and tumour necrosis were not reliable signs for pT stage >T3a. Thickening of Gerota's fascia and the presence of collateral vessels in the peri- or paranephric fat had 90% and 94% specificity, with 82% and 88% PPV, respectively, for the presence of tumour stage for pT stage >T3a. These are considered reliable signs of locally advanced renal cancer.

Adjuvant and salvage treatment after radical prostatectomy: current practice in the UK

OBJECTIVE

To survey UK urologists and radiation oncologists in the evaluation and treatment of localised prostate cancer in the adjuvant and salvage setting.

METHODS

Postal questionnaires were mailed to 292 urologists and 98 radiation oncologists in the UK.

RESULTS

In all, 188 (48%) questionnaires were returned. In total, 72/128 (56%) of the urologist respondents and 58/60 (97%) of the oncologist respondents perform routine radical prostate treatment. Among 43 (60%) of the urologist, 40 (69%) recommended adjuvant treatment, which could be radiotherapy, hormonal treatment or combined hormonal and radiation treatment. There is no significant difference between the modality of treatment recommended. The poor prognostic factors that would influence the decision to offer adjuvant treatment include a detectable postoperative PSA, seminal vesicle involvement, positive margins, Gleason score>8 and pathological T3. With regard to the choice of hormonal treatment, most urologists preferred antiandrogens, whereas most oncologists prefer lutienising hormone releasing hormone (LHRH) analogue (P=0.03). Regarding salvage treatment, there is a wide variation in the PSA threshold and number of PSA rises before initiation of investigations and treatment. Significantly more urologists recommended salvage radiotherapy (P=0.02), whereas oncologists recommended combined hormonal radiation therapy (P=0.03). There is a wide variation of practice regarding the duration of hormonal treatment, the type of investigations initiated, range of radiotherapy doses and treatment volumes.

CONCLUSION

There is a wide variation in practice among UK clinicians.