Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Abdominal Radiology 3/2014

01-06-2014

Variability in computed tomography diameter measurements of solid renal masses

Authors: Lorenzo P. Orton, Richard H. Cohan, Matthew S. Davenport, Robert A. Parker, Aishwarya Parameswaran, Elaine M. Caoili, Ravi K. Kaza, Isaac R. Francis, James H. Ellis, J. Stuart Wolf, Khaled Hafez

Published in: Abdominal Radiology | Issue 3/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To determine whether the frequency of intra-observer measurement discrepancies ≥5 mm for solid renal masses varies by renal mass characteristics and CT contrast phase.

Materials and methods

This HIPAA-compliant retrospective study was approved by our IRB. We selected single CT images performed during the nephrographic phase (NP) of renal enhancement in 97 patients, each with a single solid renal mass. Mass location, margin, heterogeneity, and growth pattern were assessed. Six readers measured each mass on two occasions >3 weeks apart. Readers also measured the masses on images in 50 patients who had corticomedullary phase (CMP) images obtained during the same study. Results were assessed using Chi-square/Fisher’s exact and Wilcoxon Signed Rank tests, and logistic regression analyses.

Results

For NP to NP comparisons, intra-reader measurement differences ≥5 mm were seen for 3.7% (17/463) of masses <4 cm, but increased to 16.8% (20/119) for masses >4 cm (p < 0.0001). Masses with poorly defined margins (15.9% [22/138] vs. 3.4% [15/444] for well-defined margins, p < 0.0001) and heterogeneity (15.3% [22/144], vs. 5.0% [14/282] for minimally heterogeneous, vs. 0.6% [1/156] for homogeneous, p < 0.0001), were more frequently associated with measurement differences ≥5 mm. Differences ≥5 mm were more frequent when only CMP images were utilized (14% [42/299]), or when CMP images were compared with NP images (26% [77/299]).

Conclusions

A ≥5 mm intra-reader variation in measured size of solid renal masses <4 cm is uncommon for NP to NP comparisons. Variation increases when masses are ≥4 cm, poorly defined, or heterogeneous; or when CMP images are utilized.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF Jr (1999) Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 281:1628–1631PubMedCrossRef Chow WH, Devesa SS, Warren JL, Fraumeni JF Jr (1999) Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States. JAMA 281:1628–1631PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1331–1334PubMedCrossRef Hollingsworth JM, Miller DC, Daignault S, et al. (2006) Rising incidence of small renal masses: a need to reassess treatment effect. J Natl Cancer Inst 98:1331–1334PubMedCrossRef
3.
go back to reference Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220PubMedCrossRef Frank I, Blute ML, Cheville JC, et al. (2003) Solid renal tumors: an analysis of pathological features related to tumor size. J Urol 170:2217–2220PubMedCrossRef
4.
go back to reference Thomas AA, Campbell SC (2011) Small renal masses: toward more rational treatment. Clev Clin J Med 78:539–547CrossRef Thomas AA, Campbell SC (2011) Small renal masses: toward more rational treatment. Clev Clin J Med 78:539–547CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Kassouf W, Aprikian AG, LaPlante M, Tanguay S (2004) Natural history of renal masses followed expectantly. J Urol 171:111–113PubMedCrossRef Kassouf W, Aprikian AG, LaPlante M, Tanguay S (2004) Natural history of renal masses followed expectantly. J Urol 171:111–113PubMedCrossRef
6.
go back to reference Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. (2006) The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 175:425–432PubMedCrossRef Chawla SN, Crispen PL, Hanlon AL, et al. (2006) The natural history of observed enhancing renal masses: meta-analysis and review of the world literature. J Urol 175:425–432PubMedCrossRef
7.
go back to reference Kouba E, Smith A, McRackan D, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS (2007) Watchful waiting for solid renal masses: insight into the natural history and results of delayed intervention. J Urol 177:466–470PubMedCrossRef Kouba E, Smith A, McRackan D, Wallen EM, Pruthi RS (2007) Watchful waiting for solid renal masses: insight into the natural history and results of delayed intervention. J Urol 177:466–470PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Kunkle DA, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) Management of small renal masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 30:352–358PubMedCrossRef Kunkle DA, Kutikov A, Uzzo RG (2009) Management of small renal masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 30:352–358PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Rosales JC, Haramis G, Moreno J, et al. (2010) Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urol 183:1698–1702PubMedCrossRef Rosales JC, Haramis G, Moreno J, et al. (2010) Active surveillance for renal cortical neoplasms. J Urol 183:1698–1702PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Haramis G, Mues AC, Rosales JC, et al. (2011) Neoplasms during active surveillance with follow up longer than 5 years. Urology 77:787–791PubMedCrossRef Haramis G, Mues AC, Rosales JC, et al. (2011) Neoplasms during active surveillance with follow up longer than 5 years. Urology 77:787–791PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Mason RJ, Abdolell M, Trottier G, et al. (2011) Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance. Eur Urol 59:863–867PubMedCrossRef Mason RJ, Abdolell M, Trottier G, et al. (2011) Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance. Eur Urol 59:863–867PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference Halvorson SJ, Kunju LP, Bhalla R, et al. (2013) Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. J Urol 189:441–446CrossRef Halvorson SJ, Kunju LP, Bhalla R, et al. (2013) Accuracy of determining small renal mass management with risk stratified biopsies: confirmation by final pathology. J Urol 189:441–446CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Tann M, Sopov V, Croitoru S, et al. (2001) How accurate is helical CT volumetric assessment in renal tumors? Eur Radiol 11:1435–1438PubMedCrossRef Tann M, Sopov V, Croitoru S, et al. (2001) How accurate is helical CT volumetric assessment in renal tumors? Eur Radiol 11:1435–1438PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Punnen S, Haider MA, Lockwood G, et al. (2006) Variability in size measurement of renal masses smaller than 4 cm on computerized tomography. J Urol 176:2386–2390PubMedCrossRef Punnen S, Haider MA, Lockwood G, et al. (2006) Variability in size measurement of renal masses smaller than 4 cm on computerized tomography. J Urol 176:2386–2390PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Somberg MB, Taneja SS, Babb JS (2012) Comparison of CT-based methodologies for detection of growth of solid renal masses on active surveillance. AJR 199:373–378PubMedCrossRef Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Somberg MB, Taneja SS, Babb JS (2012) Comparison of CT-based methodologies for detection of growth of solid renal masses on active surveillance. AJR 199:373–378PubMedCrossRef
16.
17.
go back to reference Rendon RA, Stanietzky N, Panzarella T, et al. (2000) The natural history of small renal masses. J Urol 164:1143–1147PubMedCrossRef Rendon RA, Stanietzky N, Panzarella T, et al. (2000) The natural history of small renal masses. J Urol 164:1143–1147PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Kunkle DA, Chen DY, Greenberg RE, et al. (2009) Metastatic progression of enhancing renal masses under active surveillance is associated with rapid interval growth of the primary tumor. J Urol 179:1089 Kunkle DA, Chen DY, Greenberg RE, et al. (2009) Metastatic progression of enhancing renal masses under active surveillance is associated with rapid interval growth of the primary tumor. J Urol 179:1089
19.
go back to reference Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, et al. (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques—initial observations. Radiology 225:416–419PubMedCrossRef Prasad SR, Jhaveri KS, Saini S, et al. (2002) CT tumor measurement for therapeutic response assessment: comparison of unidimensional, bidimensional, and volumetric techniques—initial observations. Radiology 225:416–419PubMedCrossRef
20.
go back to reference Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. (1995) Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group. J Vasc Surg 21:945–952PubMedCrossRef Lederle FA, Wilson SE, Johnson GR, et al. (1995) Variability in measurement of abdominal aortic aneurysms. Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm Detection and Management Veterans Administration Cooperative Study Group. J Vasc Surg 21:945–952PubMedCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Singh K, Jacobsen BK, Solberg S, et al. (2003) Intra- and interobserver variability in the measurements of abdominal aortic and common iliac artery diameter with computed tomography. The Tromsø Study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 25:399–407PubMedCrossRef Singh K, Jacobsen BK, Solberg S, et al. (2003) Intra- and interobserver variability in the measurements of abdominal aortic and common iliac artery diameter with computed tomography. The Tromsø Study. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 25:399–407PubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Cayne NS, Veith FJ, Lipsitz EC, et al. (2004) Variability in maximal aortic aneurysm measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. J Vasc Surg 39:811–815PubMedCrossRef Cayne NS, Veith FJ, Lipsitz EC, et al. (2004) Variability in maximal aortic aneurysm measurements on CT scan: significance and methods to minimize. J Vasc Surg 39:811–815PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Diehm N, Kickuth R, Gahl B, et al. (2007) Intraobserver and interobserver variability of 64-row computed tomography abdominal aortic aneurysm neck measurements. J Vasc Surg 45:263–268PubMedCrossRef Diehm N, Kickuth R, Gahl B, et al. (2007) Intraobserver and interobserver variability of 64-row computed tomography abdominal aortic aneurysm neck measurements. J Vasc Surg 45:263–268PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Slyke MA, et al. (1996) Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR 167:851–854PubMedCrossRef Hopper KD, Kasales CJ, Slyke MA, et al. (1996) Analysis of interobserver and intraobserver variability in CT tumor measurements. AJR 167:851–854PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Cohan RH, Sherman LS, Korobkin M, Bass JC, Francis IR (1995) Renal masses: assessment of corticomedullary-phase and nephrographic-phase CT scans. Radiology 196:445–451PubMed Cohan RH, Sherman LS, Korobkin M, Bass JC, Francis IR (1995) Renal masses: assessment of corticomedullary-phase and nephrographic-phase CT scans. Radiology 196:445–451PubMed
26.
go back to reference Yuh BI, Cohan RH (1999) Different phases of renal enhancement: role in detecting and characterizing renal masses during helical CT. AJR 173:747–755PubMedCrossRef Yuh BI, Cohan RH (1999) Different phases of renal enhancement: role in detecting and characterizing renal masses during helical CT. AJR 173:747–755PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Variability in computed tomography diameter measurements of solid renal masses
Authors
Lorenzo P. Orton
Richard H. Cohan
Matthew S. Davenport
Robert A. Parker
Aishwarya Parameswaran
Elaine M. Caoili
Ravi K. Kaza
Isaac R. Francis
James H. Ellis
J. Stuart Wolf
Khaled Hafez
Publication date
01-06-2014
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Abdominal Radiology / Issue 3/2014
Print ISSN: 2366-004X
Electronic ISSN: 2366-0058
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0088-y

Other articles of this Issue 3/2014

Abdominal Radiology 3/2014 Go to the issue
Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.