Pitfalls in renal mass evaluation and how to avoid them
- PMID: 18794310
- DOI: 10.1148/rg.285075744
Pitfalls in renal mass evaluation and how to avoid them
Abstract
Characterization of renal masses with computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging is usually clear-cut and accurate. However, potential pitfalls exist in diagnosis of renal masses, and it is necessary to understand these pitfalls to avoid misdiagnosis and possibly unnecessary surgery. Although some of the pitfalls are related to technical factors of the CT and MR imaging equipment, others are related to errors in image interpretation. To maximize detection and characterization of renal masses, the study should include images obtained before and after administration of intravenous contrast material, including images obtained during the nephrographic phase of enhancement. One should be aware of the potential unreliability of absolute Hounsfield unit measurements and of the existence of possible CT pseudoenhancement. When CT results are indeterminate, MR imaging may be helpful in demonstrating enhancement in renal masses. Before diagnosing a renal mass as a malignant neoplasm or suggesting surgery for a renal mass, one should consider alternative benign diagnoses; when appropriate, previous images or a supporting history should be obtained.
(c) RSNA, 2008.
Similar articles
-
Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation.Radiographics. 2007 Jul-Aug;27(4):1131-43. doi: 10.1148/rg.274065147. Radiographics. 2007. PMID: 17620471 Review.
-
Renal masses: quantitative analysis of enhancement with signal intensity measurements versus qualitative analysis of enhancement with image subtraction for diagnosing malignancy at MR imaging.Radiology. 2004 Aug;232(2):373-8. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2322031209. Epub 2004 Jun 23. Radiology. 2004. PMID: 15215544
-
MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis.Radiographics. 2008 Jul-Aug;28(4):985-1003. doi: 10.1148/rg.284065018. Radiographics. 2008. PMID: 18635625 Review.
-
MR imaging of renal masses interpreted on CT to be suspicious.AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000 Apr;174(4):1017-22. doi: 10.2214/ajr.174.4.1741017. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2000. PMID: 10749242
-
Mimics and Pitfalls in Renal Imaging.Radiol Clin North Am. 2020 Sep;58(5):885-896. doi: 10.1016/j.rcl.2020.05.001. Epub 2020 Jun 14. Radiol Clin North Am. 2020. PMID: 32792121 Review.
Cited by
-
History and importance of the Bosniak classification for complex renal cysts.Radiol Bras. 2014 Nov-Dec;47(6):IX. doi: 10.1590/0100-3984.2014.47.6e3. Radiol Bras. 2014. PMID: 25741125 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Scientific Status Quo of Small Renal Lesions: Diagnostic Assessment and Radiomics.J Clin Med. 2024 Jan 18;13(2):547. doi: 10.3390/jcm13020547. J Clin Med. 2024. PMID: 38256682 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparison of MDCT, MRI and MRI with diffusion-weighted imaging in evaluation of focal renal lesions: The defender, challenger, and winner!Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2018 Jan-Mar;28(1):27-36. doi: 10.4103/ijri.IJRI_40_17. Indian J Radiol Imaging. 2018. PMID: 29692523 Free PMC article.
-
Computed Tomography Number Measurement Consistency Under Different Beam Hardening Conditions: Comparison Between Dual-Energy Spectral Computed Tomography and Conventional Computed Tomography Imaging in Phantom Experiment.J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015 Nov-Dec;39(6):981-5. doi: 10.1097/RCT.0000000000000287. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 2015. PMID: 26196347 Free PMC article.
-
[Tumours of the Kidney: CT vs. MRI. Nearly equal alternatives with minor differences].Urologe A. 2010 Mar;49(3):345-50. doi: 10.1007/s00120-010-2269-9. Urologe A. 2010. PMID: 20177656 German.
Publication types
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical