Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2016 Oct 12;14(1):260.
doi: 10.1186/s12957-016-1017-z.

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of small renal masses in real practice: sensitivity and specificity according to subjective radiologic interpretation

Jae Heon Kim  1 , Hwa Yeon Sun  1 , Jiyoung Hwang  2 , Seong Sook Hong  2 , Yong Jin Cho  3 , Seung Whan Doo  1 , Won Jae Yang  1 , Yun Seob Song  4
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging of small renal masses in real practice: sensitivity and specificity according to subjective radiologic interpretation

Jae Heon Kim et al. World J Surg Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to investigate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of small renal masses in real practice.

Methods: Contrast-enhanced CT and MRI were performed between February 2008 and February 2013 on 68 patients who had suspected small (≤4 cm) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on ultrasonographic measurements. CT and MRI radiographs were reviewed, and the findings of small renal masses were re-categorized into five dichotomized scales by the same two radiologists who had interpreted the original images. Receiver operating characteristics curve analysis was performed, and sensitivity and specificity were determined.

Results: Among the 68 patients, 60 (88.2 %) had RCC and eight had benign disease. The diagnostic accuracy rates of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI were 79.41 and 88.23 %, respectively. Diagnostic accuracy was greater when using contrast-enhanced MRI because too many masses (67.6 %) were characterized as "4 (probably solid cancer) or 5 (definitely solid cancer)." The sensitivity of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for predicting RCC were 79.7 and 88.1 %, respectively. The specificities of contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for predicting RCC were 44.4 and 33.3 %, respectively. Fourteen diagnoses (20.5 %) were missed or inconsistent compared with the final pathological diagnoses. One appropriate nephroureterectomy and five unnecessary percutaneous biopsies were performed for RCC. Seven unnecessary partial nephrectomies were performed for benign disease.

Conclusions: Although contrast-enhanced CT and MRI showed high sensitivity for detecting small renal masses, specificity remained low.

Keywords: Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging; Renal cell carcinoma.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Sensitivities and specificities of dynamic computed tomography and dynamic magnetic resonance imaging for prediction of the final diagnosis
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Motzer RJ, Basch E. Targeted drugs for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Lancet. 2007;370:2071–2073. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61874-1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, Jewett MA. Clinical practice. Small renal mass. N Engl J Med. 2010;362:624–634. doi: 10.1056/NEJMcp0910041. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Coll DM, Smith RC. Update on radiological imaging of renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2007;99:1217–1222. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.06824.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Patard JJ. Incidental renal tumours. Curr Opin Urol. 2009;19:454–458. doi: 10.1097/MOU.0b013e32832f0ccd. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Nikken JJ, Krestin GP. MRI of the kidney—state of the art. Eur Radiol. 2007;17:2780–2793. doi: 10.1007/s00330-007-0701-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

MeSH terms