Estudo comparativo dos métodos de ultra-sonografia, tomografia computadorizada e ressonância magnética no estadiamento e invasão das estruturas adjacentes por tumores renais.

BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US), Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance imaging (MR) were compared for the staging of renal tumors. The differences between these imaging techniques were also studied for their ability to detect adenopathies, vascular invasion, distant intra-abdominal metastases, and particularly adjacent organ invasion. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with solid or complex renal masses were prospectively studied using US, CT, and MR. Differences between the results obtained were studied using the COCHRAN G test and the McNEMAR test. The sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic technique were compared against a gold standard of the surgical and histopathological findings. RESULTS: The following sensitivities were obtained: For the detection of adenopathy, US 63.6%, CT and MR 90.9%. For vascular invasion, US 42.8%, CT and MR 85.7%. For the adjacent organ invasion, US 28.5%, CT 85.7%, and MR 71.4%. Some of the criteria that suggest invasion of adjacent structures include: the envelopment of the adjacent structures by the tumor, tumor extension into the adjacent structures with an irregular appearance, and alterations in shape, size, and density of adjacent structures. Loss of fat planes between the tumor and adjacent structures is not a sign of tumor invasion. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found in the detection capacity of US in relation to CT and MR, which were similar. All three techniques were highly sensitive and specific only in the detection of distant abdominal metastases. In addition to the accuracy of these diagnostic modalities for the detection and staging of tumors, invasiveness, risks and cost should be considered in relation to relative costs and benefits.

Comparison of imaging methods for diagnosis of renal tumors and their calcifications

Background: To establish the best methodology for diagnosis and management of patients with solid and complex renal masses by comparing the costs and benefits of different imaging methods and to improve differential diagnosis of these benign and malignant lesions, particularly by investigating tumour calcifications. Methods: We performed a prospective study on 31 patients with solid or complex masses by submitting them to Abdominal Ultrasonography (US), Doppler Ultrasonography of the renal mass (US Dop), Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Results: We found 28 patients with malignant and three with benign masses. Of the 28 malignant, 17 showed calcifications at CT; 16 central and one was of the pure peripheral curvilinear type (egg shell). Excretory Urography (IVP) had a significantly lower detection rate for central calcifications than both US and CT. Benign and malignant masses appeared as described in literature, with US, CT and MRI showing high sensitivity and specificity in renal tumor diagnosis. The exception was US Dop where we obtained lower sensitivity for the characterization of malignant tumor flow. Conclusions: In this series we were surprised to find that CT revealed central calcifications in 51.6% of patients, all with malignant lesions, while, literature reports a frequency of calcification in renal cell carcinoma between 8 and 22%, in studies using abdominal films and EU (IVP). This finding is of great importance when we consider that these calcifications occur particularly in malignant neoplasms. As a result of comparing these different imaging methods we have developed a better methodology for renal tumor investigation.