Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

ACC 2024 Congress

Catch up on all the top stories and latest evidence in cardiology research with our ACC 2024 Congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Abdominal Radiology
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 1/2019

01-01-2019 | Pictorial essay

Renal tumor structured reporting including nephrometry score and beyond: what the urologist and interventional radiologist need to know

Authors: Naif Alsaikhan, Wael Alshehri, Fiona Cassidy, Lejla Aganovic, Noushin Vahdat

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to describe cross-sectional imaging anatomic and morphologic parameters of solid renal tumors that urologists and interventional radiologists need for precise management, review the commonly used terms and descriptors of those parameters, and suggest a comprehensive reporting system for detected masses.
Literature
1.
Parsons JK, Schoenberg MS, Carter HB (2001) Incidental renal tumors: casting doubt on the efficacy of early intervention. Urology 57(6):1013–1015PubMedCrossRef
2.
3.
Muramaki M, Miyake H, Sakai I, Fujisawa M (2013) Prognostic factors influencing postoperative development of chronic kidney disease in patients with small renal tumors who underwent partial nephrectomy. Curr Urol 6(3):129–135PubMedCrossRef
4.
Eisenberg MS, Brandina R, Gill IS (2010) Current status of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Curr Opin Urol 20(5):365–370PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) The R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score: a comprehensive standardized system for quantitating renal tumor size, location and depth. J Urol 182(3):844–853PubMedCrossRef
6.
Weight CJ, Atwell TD, Fazzio RT, et al. (2011) A multidisciplinary evaluation of inter-reviewer agreement of the nephrometry score and the prediction of long-term outcomes. J Urol 186(4):1223–1228PubMedCrossRef
7.
Liu ZW, Olweny EO, Yin G, et al. (2013) Prediction of perioperative outcomes following minimally invasive partial nephrectomy: role of the R.E.N.A.L nephrometry score. World J Urol 31(5):1183–1189PubMedCrossRef
8.
Dahl HHM, Schwaab T, Underwood W, Kim HL (2011) RENAL nephrometry score predicts surgical outcomes of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. BJU Int 108(6):876–881
9.
Rosevear HM, Gellhaus PT, Lightfoot AJ, et al. (2012) Utility of the RENAL nephrometry scoring system in the real world: predicting surgeon operative preference and complication risk. BJU Int 109(5):700–705PubMedCrossRef
10.
Broughton GJ, Clark PE, Barocas DA, et al. (2012) Tumour size, tumour complexity, and surgical approach are associated with nephrectomy type in small renal cortical tumours treated electively. BJU Int 109(11):1607–1613PubMedCrossRef
11.
Gill IS, Kavoussi L, Lane BR, et al. (2007) Comparison of 1,800 laparoscopic and open partial nephrectomies for single renal tumors. J Urol 178(1):41–46PubMedCrossRef
12.
Naya Y, Kawauchi A, Oishi M, et al. (2015) Comparison of diameter-axial-polar nephrometry and RENAL nephrometry score for treatment decision-making in patients with small renal mass. Int J Clin Oncol 20(2):358–361PubMedCrossRef
13.
Esen T, Acar O, Musaoğlu A, Vural M (2013) Morphometric profile of the localised renal tumors managed either by open or robot-assisted nephron-sparing surgery: the impact of scoring systems on the decision making process. BMC Urol 13:63PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
14.
Meeks JJ, Zhao LC, Navai N, et al. (2008) Risk factors and management of urine leaks after partial nephrectomy. J Urol 180(6):2375–2378PubMedCrossRef
15.
Cha E, Jeun B, Ng C, et al. (2010) 519 identification of nephrometric variables predictive of renal impairment following partial nephrectomy. J Urol 183(4):e205
16.
Kutikov A, Smaldone MC, Egleston BL, et al. (2011) Anatomic features of enhancing renal masses predict malignant and high-grade pathology: a preoperative nomogram using the RENAL Nephrometry score. Eur Urol 60(2):241–248PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Salem M, Shah SN, Wood LS, et al. (2011) Contrast-enhanced CT (CE-CT) changes and nephrometry down-scoring of unresectable primary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) tumors in patients (Pts) treated with neoadjuvant sunitinib. J Clin Oncol 29(7):299CrossRef
18.
Kolla SB, Spiess PE, Sexton WJ (2011) Interobserver reliability of the RENAL nephrometry scoring system. Urology 78(3):592–594PubMedCrossRef
19.
Kurta JM, Thompson RH, Kundu S, et al. (2009) Contemporary imaging of patients with a renal mass: does size on computed tomography equal pathological size? BJU Int 103(1):24–27PubMedCrossRef
20.
Choi SM, Choi DK, Kim TH, et al. (2015) A comparison of radiologic tumor volume and pathologic tumor volume in renal cell carcinoma (RCC). PLoS ONE 10(3):e0122019PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Guinan P, Sobin LH, Algaba F et al. TNM staging of renal cell carcinoma: Workgroup No. 3. Union Internationale Contre Ie Cancer (UICC) and the American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC). Cancer
22.
Venkatesh R, Weld K, Ames CD, et al. (2006) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal masses: effect of tumor location. Urology 67(6):1169–1174 (discussion 1174)PubMedCrossRef
23.
Finley DS, Lee DI, Eichel L, et al. (2005) Fibrin glue-oxidized cellulose sandwich for laparoscopic wedge resection of small renal lesions. J Urol 173(5):1477–1481PubMedCrossRef
24.
Weizer AZ, Gilbert SM, Roberts WW, Hollenbeck B, JS Wolf (2008) Tailoring technique of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy to tumor characteristics. J Urol 180(4):1273–1278PubMedCrossRef
25.
Porpiglia F, Volpe A, Billia M, Renard J, Scarpa RM (2008) Assessment of risk factors for complications of laparoscopic partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 53(3):590–596PubMedCrossRef
26.
Finley DS, Beck S, Box G, et al. (2008) Percutaneous and laparoscopic cryoablation of small renal masses. J Urol 180(2):492–498 (discussion 498)PubMedCrossRef
27.
Guazzoni G, Cestari A, Buffi N, et al. (2010) Oncologic results of laparoscopic renal cryoablation for clinical T1a tumors: 8 years of experience in a single institution. Urology 76(3):624–629PubMedCrossRef
28.
Malcolm JB, Berry TT, Williams MB, et al. (2009) Single center experience with percutaneous and laparoscopic cryoablation of small renal masses. J Endourol 23(6):907–911PubMedCrossRef
29.
Atwell TD, Carter RE, Schmit GD, et al. (2012) Complications following 573 percutaneous renal radiofrequency and cryoablation procedures. J Vasc Interv Radiol 23(1):48–54PubMedCrossRef
30.
Vricella GJ, Haaga JR, Adler BL, et al. (2011) Percutaneous cryoablation of renal masses: impact of patient selection and treatment parameters on outcomes. Urology 77(3):649–654PubMedCrossRef
31.
Black P, Filipas D, Fichtner JAN, Hohenfellner R, Thüroff JW (2000) Nephron sparing surgery for central renal tumors: experience with 33 cases. J Urol 163(3):737–743PubMedCrossRef
32.
Frank I, Colombo JR, Rubinstein M, et al. (2006) Laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for centrally located renal tumors. J Urol 175(3):849–852PubMedCrossRef
33.
Farrell MA, Charboneau WJ, DiMarco DS, et al. (2003) Imaging-guided radiofrequency ablation of solid renal tumors. Am J Roentgenol 180(6):1509–1513CrossRef
34.
Schmit GD, Thompson RH, Kurup AN, et al. (2013) Usefulness of R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system for predicting outcomes and complications of percutaneous ablation of 751 renal tumors. J Urol 189(1):30–35PubMedCrossRef
35.
Seideman CA, Gahan J, Weaver M, et al. (2013) Renal tumour nephrometry score does not correlate with the risk of radiofrequency ablation complications. BJU Int 112(8):1121–1124PubMedCrossRef
36.
Mansilla AV, Bivins EEJr, Contreras F, et al. (2017) CT–guided microwave ablation of 45 renal tumors: analysis of procedure complexity utilizing a percutaneous renal ablation complexity scoring system. J Vascu Intervent Radiol 28(2):222–229CrossRef
37.
Coll DM, Herts BR, Davros WJ, Uzzo RG, Novick AC (2000) Preoperative use of 3D volume rendering to demonstrate renal tumors and renal anatomy. RadioGraphics 20(2):431–438PubMedCrossRef
38.
Yin Z, Espiritu P, Hakky T, Jutras K, Spiess PE (2014) Predicting ease of perinephric fat dissection at time of open partial nephrectomy using preoperative fat density characteristics. BJU Int 114(6):872–880CrossRef
39.
Narita S, Kumazawa T, Tsuchiya N, et al. (2017) Host-related risk factors for adherent perinephric fat in healthy individuals undergoing laparoscopic living-donor nephrectomy. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutaneous Tech 27(4):e69–e73CrossRef
40.
Kumazawa T, Tsuchiya N, Inoue T, et al. (2012) Association between various indices of obesity and intraoperative factors in laparoscopic donor nephrectomy. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 22(6):567–571PubMedCrossRef
41.
Davidiuk AJ, Parker AS, Thomas CS, et al. (2014) Mayo adhesive probability score: an accurate image-based scoring system to predict adherent perinephric fat in partial nephrectomy. Eur Urol 66(6):1165–1171PubMedCrossRef
42.
Uflacker R (2007) Atlas of vascular anatomy: an angiographic approach, 2nd edn. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
43.
Dalrymple NC, Prasad SR, Freckleton MW, Chintapalli KN (2005) Informatics in radiology (infoRAD): introduction to the language of three-dimensional imaging with multidetector CT. Radiographics 25(5):1409–1428PubMedCrossRef
44.
Fishman EK, DR Ney, Heath DG, et al. (2006) Volume rendering versus maximum intensity projection in CT angiography: what works best, when, and why. Radiographics 26(3):905–922PubMedCrossRef
45.
Chapman D, Moore R, Klarenbach S, Braam B (2010) Residual renal function after partial or radical nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. Can Urol Assoc J 4(5):337–343PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Vanel D (2007) The American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging and Reporting Data System (BI-RADS): a step towards a universal radiological language? Eur J Radiol 61(2):183PubMedCrossRef
47.
Mitchell DG, Bruix J, Sherman M, Sirlin CB (2015) LI-RADS (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System): summary, discussion, and consensus of the LI-RADS Management Working Group and future directions. Hepatology 61(3):1056–1065PubMedCrossRef
48.
Benadiba S, Verin AL, Pignot G, et al. (2015) Are urologists and radiologists equally effective in determining the RENAL Nephrometry score? Ann Surg Oncol 22(5):1618–1624PubMedCrossRef
49.
Funahashi Y, Murotani K, Yoshino Y, et al. (2015) The renal tumor morphological characteristics that affect surgical planning for laparoscopic or open partial nephrectomy. Nagoya J Med Sci 77(1–2):229–235PubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Renal tumor structured reporting including nephrometry score and beyond: what the urologist and interventional radiologist need to know
Authors
Naif Alsaikhan
Wael Alshehri
Fiona Cassidy
Lejla Aganovic
Noushin Vahdat
Publication date
01-01-2019
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 1/2019
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1691-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Abdominal Radiology 1/2019 Go to the issue

Pictorial essay

Bilateral adrenal abnormalities: imaging review of different entities

OriginalPaper

Usefulness of real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound guided coaxial needle biopsy for focal liver lesions

OriginalPaper

Reader agreement and accuracy of ultrasound features for hepatic steatosis

OriginalPaper

Computed tomographic perfusion with 160-mm coverage: comparative analysis of hepatocellular carcinoma treated by two transarterial chemoembolization courses relative to magnetic resonance imaging findings

Classics in Abdominal Radiology

The interface sign

OriginalPaper

CT colonography screening in extracolonic cancer survivors: impact on rates of colorectal and extracolonic findings by cancer type

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Cardiology Video

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Watch now

Watch official videos from the ACC congress summarizing key highlights from the last year in heart failure, cardiomyopathies, valvular disease, pulmonary vascular disease, and pediatric cardiology.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits