Multi-institutional analysis of CT and MRI reports evaluating indeterminate renal masses: comparison to a national survey investigating desired report elements

  • Eric M. Hu
  • Andrew Zhang
  • Stuart G. Silverman
  • Ivan M. Pedrosa
  • Zhen J. Wang
  • Andrew D. Smith
  • Hersh Chandarana
  • Ankur Doshi
  • Atul B. Shinagare
  • Erick M. Remer
  • Samuel D. Kaffenberger
  • David C. Miller
  • Matthew S. Davenport
Article

Abstract

Purpose

To determine the need for a standardized renal mass reporting template by analyzing reports of indeterminate renal masses and comparing their contents to stated preferences of radiologists and urologists.

Methods

The host IRB waived regulatory oversight for this multi-institutional HIPAA-compliant quality improvement effort. CT and MRI reports created to characterize an indeterminate renal mass were analyzed from 6 community (median: 17 reports/site) and 6 academic (median: 23 reports/site) United States practices. Report contents were compared to a published national survey of stated preferences by academic radiologists and urologists from 9 institutions. Descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests were calculated.

Results

Of 319 reports, 85% (271; 192 CT, 79 MRI) reported a possibly malignant mass (236 solid, 35 cystic). Some essential elements were commonly described: size (99% [269/271]), mass type (solid vs. cystic; 99% [268/271]), enhancement (presence vs. absence; 92% [248/271]). Other essential elements had incomplete penetrance: the presence or absence of fat in solid masses (14% [34/236]), size comparisons when available (79% [111/140]), Bosniak classification for cystic masses (54% [19/35]). Preferred but non-essential elements generally were described in less than half of reports. Nephrometry scores usually were not included for local therapy candidates (12% [30/257]). Academic practices were significantly more likely than community practices to include mass characterization details, probability of malignancy, and staging. Community practices were significantly more likely to include management recommendations.

Conclusions

Renal mass reporting elements considered essential or preferred often are omitted in radiology reports. Variation exists across radiologists and practice settings. A standardized template may mitigate these inconsistencies.

Keywords

Renal mass Structured reporting Multi-institutional Renal cancer Renal cell carcinoma 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Funding

No funding was solicited or used for this work.

Conflict of interest

Matthew Davenport: Royalties from Wolters Kluwer. Zhen Wang: Unrelated stockholder in Nextrast Inc. Andrew Smith: Unrelated: president of Radiostics LLC, president of and patents received and pending for Liver Nodularity LLC, president of and patents received and pending for eRadioMetrics LLC, presidents of and patents received and pending for Color Enhanced Detection LLC. Hersh Chandarana: Unrelated hardware and software support from Siemens Healthcare. Atul Shinagare: Unrelated consultant to Arog Pharmaceuticals and research funding with GTx Inc. David Miller: Salary support from Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan for serving as the director of the Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement Collaborative (MUSIC). Eric Hu, Andrew Zhang, Stuart Silverman, Ivan Pedrosa, Ankur Doshi, Erick Remer, Sam Kaffenberger declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All study procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

Institutional review board approval was obtained and subjects consented to participate in the survey.

References

  1. 1.
    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 98:1331–1334CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lipworth L, Tarone RE, McLaughlin JK (2006) The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 176:2353–2358CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ljungberg B, Campbell SC, Choi HY, et al. (2011) The epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma. Eur Urol 60:615–621CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bjorge T, Tretli S, Engeland A (2004) Relation of height and body mass index to renal cell carcinoma in two million Norwegian men and women. Am J Epidemiol 160:1168–1176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, et al. (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249:16–31CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Herts BR, Silverman SG, Hindman NM, et al. (2017) Management of the incidental renal mass on CT: a white paper of the ACR incidental findings committee. J Am Coll Radiol .  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.04.028 PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) How I do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology 236:441–450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bosniak MA (2011) The Bosniak renal cyst classification: 25 years later. Radiology 262:781–785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Silverman SG, Israel GM (2015) Trinh, Qouc-Dien. Incompletely characterized incidental renal masses: emerging data support conservative management. Radiology 275:28–42CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma. CT renal mass protocols v.1.0. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abdominalradiology.org/resource/resmgr/education_dfp/RCC/RCC.CTprotocolsfinal-7-15-17.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  11. 11.
    Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on Renal Cell Carcinoma. MR renal mass protocols v.1.0. https://c.ymcdn.com/sites/www.abdominalradiology.org//resource/resmgr/education_dfp/RCC/RCC.MRIprotocolfinal-7-15-17.pdf. Accessed 18 Jan 2018
  12. 12.
    Davenport MS, Hu EM, Smith AD, et al. (2017) Reporting standards for the imaging-based diagnosis of renal masses on CT and MRI: a national survey of academic abdominal radiologists and urologists. Abdom Radiol 42:1229–1240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. (2012) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiology 265:468–477CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Silverman SG, Mortele KJ, Tuncali K, et al. (2007) Hyperattenuating renal masses: etiologies, pathogenesis, and imaging evaluation. RadioGraphics 27:1131–1143CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pedrosa I, Sun MR, Spencer M, et al. (2008) MR imaging of renal masses: correlation with findings at surgery and pathologic analysis. RadioGraphics 28:985–1003CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sun MR, Ngo I, Genega EM, et al. (2009) Renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes—correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 250:793–802CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pedrosa I, Alsop DC, Rofsky NM (2009) Magnetic resonance imaging as a biomarker in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer .  https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.24237 Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Canvasser NE, Kay FU, Xi Y, et al. (2007) Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging to identify clear cell renal cell carcinoma in cT1a renal masses. J Urol 198:780–786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Young JR, Margolis D, Sauk S, et al. (2013) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT. Radiology 267:444–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Oliva MR, Glickman JN, Zou KH, et al. (2009) Renal cell carcinoma: t1 and t2 signal intensity characteristics of papillary and clear cell types correlated with pathology. AJR Am J Roentgenol 192:1524–1530CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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 182:844–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dodelzon K, Mussi TC, Babb JS, et al. (2012) Prediction of growth rate of solid renal masses: utility of MR imaging features—preliminary experience. Radiology 262:884–893CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Dickerson E, Davenport MS, Syed F, et al. (2017) Effect of template reporting of brain MRIs for multiple sclerosis on report thoroughness and neurologist-rated quality: results of a prospective quality improvement project. J Am Coll Radiol 14:371–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brook OR, Brook A, Vollmer CM, et al. (2015) Structured reporting of multiphasic CT for pancreatic cancer: potential effect on staging and surgical planning. Radiology 274:464–472CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sahni VA, Silveira PC, Sainani NI, Khorasani R (2015) Impact of a structured report template on the quality of MRI reports for rectal cancer staging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 205:584–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al-Hawary MM, Francis IR, Chari ST, et al. (2014) Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma radiology reporting template: consensus statement of the Society of Abdominal Radiology and the American Pancreatic Association. Radiology 270:248–260CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eric M. Hu
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrew Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Stuart G. Silverman
    • 3
    • 9
  • Ivan M. Pedrosa
    • 4
    • 9
  • Zhen J. Wang
    • 5
    • 9
  • Andrew D. Smith
    • 6
    • 9
  • Hersh Chandarana
    • 7
    • 9
  • Ankur Doshi
    • 7
    • 9
  • Atul B. Shinagare
    • 3
    • 9
  • Erick M. Remer
    • 8
    • 9
  • Samuel D. Kaffenberger
    • 1
    • 10
  • David C. Miller
    • 1
    • 10
  • Matthew S. Davenport
    • 1
    • 2
    • 9
    • 10
    • 11
  1. 1.Michigan MedicineAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Michigan Radiology Quality CollaborativeAnn ArborUSA
  3. 3.Brigham and Women’sBostonUSA
  4. 4.UT SouthwesternDallasUSA
  5. 5.UCSFSan FranciscoUSA
  6. 6.UABBirminghamUSA
  7. 7.NYUNew YorkUSA
  8. 8.Cleveland ClinicClevelandUSA
  9. 9.Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on Renal Cell CarcinomaAnn ArborUSA
  10. 10.Michigan Urological Surgery Improvement CollaborativeAnn ArborUSA
  11. 11.Department of RadiologyAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations