imaging in RCC

RCC radiology

1. Imaging in Renal cell Carcinoma Rojan Adhikari FCPS II Urology Resident SDNTC

2. Campbell-Walsh- Wein Urology, 12 th edition

3. Ultrasound sensitivity of 46% and specificity of 12% 1 Colour Doppler USG: Sensitivity of 47% and specificity of 55% 1 Color Doppler : venous tumor thrombus C. Vogel et al. Imaging in Suspected Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Systematic Review

4. Geertsma et al

5. C arlo Trombetta et al; 2007; Evaluation of tumor thrombi in the inferior vena cava with intraoperative ultrasound

6. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) FOR COMPLEX CYST sensitivity of 94.5% and specificity of 69% IN DIFFERENTIATION OF RCC FROM AML sensitivity and specificity values of 89% and 96% renal vein invasion , sensitivity 83% and specificity 96%

7. Yingyu Cai et al; Quantification of Enhancement of Renal Parenchymal Masses with Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound

8. Computerized Tomograpy sensitivity of 88% and specificity of 75% Tumor location and complexity describe the relationship of the mass with the renal hilum, collecting system, polarity, and endophytic versus exophytic location Composite complexity profiles include the Renal nephrometry score, the PADUA score, and the C-index Davenport et al., 2017 Campbell-Walsh- Wein Urology, 12th edition

9. score of 4-6: low complexity score of 7-9: moderate complexity score of 10-12: high complexity

10. score of 6-7: low complexity score of 8-9: moderate complexity score of >10: high complexity

11. Yu-De Wang et al ; 2019

12. SAMPLE SIZE : 50 C-index fared better than other two SS in predicting trifecta outcomes; however, it is difficult to calculate and has highest interobserver variability.

13. MRI alternate standard imaging modality Enhancement of greater than 20% with intravenous gadolinium-based contrast on MRI is suggestive of RCC 1 Useful in masses smaller than 2 cm 1 Complication nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) in patients with CKD on dialysis 2 Donat et al., 2013 Bach and Zhang, 2008

14. Positron Emission Tomography Limited role Bagheri et al., 2017

15. TNM

16. THANK YOU