2007, Number 2
<< Back Next >>
Anales de Radiología México 2007; 6 (2)
Características ultrasonográficas del carcinoma de células renales: experiencia de 5 años del Instituto
Moguel MNI, Kimura HET, Sosa LLA, Bezaury RP, Cabrera AT, Vázquez LJ
Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 127-133
PDF size: 380.74 Kb.
ABSTRACT
Objective: To review the spectrum of ultrasound features of the renal cells cancer (RCC), and make a comparison with that reported in the literature.
Material and methods: The radiological file of patients with malign kidney tumor diagnosis in the last five years was reviewed, from which only whose diagnosis out of RCC corroborated by pathology were included. Besides, those whose ultrasounds didn’t comply with valid approaches were excluded, resulting a sample of 35 patients. Blind reading of the ultrasounds by two radiologists of the Institute was carried out.
Results: The results are similar to those reported in the literature as for the size of the lesion, to the diagnosis, echogenicity, presence of cystic/hemorrhagic degeneration, homogeneity/heterogeneity of the lesion, vascular pattern and calcifications.
Conclusions: The ultrasound is an economic and available method in the evaluation of RCC, and it continues being the study of first election, although it requires of experience and is operator-dependant.
REFERENCES
Motzer RJ, Bander NH, Nanus DM. Renal Cell Carcinoma. NEJM 1996; 335: 865-72.
Young RC. Metastatic Renal-cell Carcinoma. NEJM 1998; 338: 1305-6
Sheth S, Scatarige JC, Horton KM, et al. Current concepts in the diagnosis and management of renal cell carcinoma: role of multidetector CT and Three-dimensional CT. Radiographics 2001; 21: S237-54.
Warshauer DM, McCarthy SM, Street L, et al. Detection of renal masses: sensitivities and specificities of excretory urography/linear tomography, US and CT. Radiology 1998; 169: 363-5.
Latham D. Renal Ultrasonography. Radiology 1972; 105: 633-40.
Wolf JS. Evaluation and management of solid and cystic renal masses. J Urol 1998; 159: 1120-33.
Davidson AJ, Hartman DS, Choyke PL, Wagner BJ. Radiologic assessment of renal masses: implications for patient care. Radiology 1997; 202: 297-305.
Zagoria RJ, RB Dyer. The small renal mass: detection, characterization, and magement. Abdom Imaging 1998; 23: 256-65
Rose BD, Bennett W. Simple renal cysts and evaluation of a renal mass. Upto-Date 2001.
Dunnick NR. Renal lesions: great strides in imaging. Radiology 1992; 182: 305-6.
Kuijpers D, Jaspers R. Renal Masses: Differential Diagnosis with Pulsed Doppler US. Radiology 1999; 170: 59-60.
Kier R, Kenneth JW, Feyock AL. Renal Masses: Characterization with Doppler US. Radiology 1990; 176: 703-70.
Masahiro J, Ohkuma K, Tanimoto A, et al. Small Solid Renal Lesions: Usefulness of Power Doppler US. Radiology 1998; 209: 543.
Habboub HK, Abu-Yousef MM, Williams RD, et al. Accuracy of color Doppler sonography in assessing venous thrombus extension in renal cell carcinoma. AJR 1997;168: 267-71.
Oto M, Herts BR, Remer EM, Novick AC. Inferior vena cava tumor thrombus in renal cell carcinoma. AJR 1998; 171: 1619-24.
Bailey JE, Roubidoux MA, Dunnick NR. Secondary Renal Neoplasm. Abdominal Imaging 1998; 23: 266-74.
Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, et al. Highresolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evalutaion of patients with renal cell carcinoma. AJR 2003; 180: 1271-7.
Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986; 158: 1-10.
Rumack CM, Wilson SR, Charboneau JW. Diagnostic ultrasound, Mosby-Year Book, Inc; 2004, p. 358-60.
Yamashita Y, Ueno S, Makita O, et al. Hyperechoic Renal Tumors: Anecoic Rim and Intratumoral Cyst in US differentiation of Renal Cell Carcinoma from Angiomyolipoma. Radiology 1993; 188: 179-82.
Siegel CL, Middleton WD, Teefey SA, et al. Angiomyolipoma and Renal Cell Carcinoma: US differentiation. Radiology 1996; 198: 789-93.
Newhouse JH, Wagner BJ. Renal Oncocytomas. Abdominal Imaging 1998; 23: 249-55.
Einstein DM, Herts BR, Weaver R, et al. Evaluation of renal masses detected by excretory urography. Cost-effectiveness of sonography versus CT. AJR 1994; 164: 371-75.