+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28,...

Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28,...

Date post: 14-Jan-2016
Category:
Upload: estella-welch
View: 216 times
Download: 0 times
Share this document with a friend
Popular Tags:
22
Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at University of Alabama at Birmingham Birmingham July 28, 2012 July 28, 2012
Transcript
Page 1: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Imaging of Small Renal Masses

Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPHMark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH

University of Alabama at BirminghamUniversity of Alabama at Birmingham

July 28, 2012July 28, 2012

Page 2: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Objectives

Discuss basic imaging findings Discuss basic imaging findings associated with small renal massesassociated with small renal masses

Highlight recent radiology Highlight recent radiology recommendations of incidental renal recommendations of incidental renal lesionslesions

Page 3: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Konnak JW, J of Uro 1985; Ozen H, Br J Uro 1993

Renal “Masses”

Most are now incidental on US, CT and Most are now incidental on US, CT and MRIMRI

Most are simple cysts and require no actionMost are simple cysts and require no action Incidental RCC have lower stage of Incidental RCC have lower stage of

malignancy (82% stage 1) than malignancy (82% stage 1) than symptomatic (37%)symptomatic (37%)

Page 4: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Column of Bertin

Actually a septum Actually a septum rather than a columnrather than a column

Junction of interpolar Junction of interpolar region and poleregion and pole

May be slightly May be slightly echogenic relative to echogenic relative to adjacent cortexadjacent cortex

Page 5: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

How to evaluate a renal mass

Is it fatty?Is it fatty?Gross fat is less than -20 HUGross fat is less than -20 HUConsider angiomyolipoma or liposarcomaConsider angiomyolipoma or liposarcoma

Is it cystic?Is it cystic?Is it fluid density (-10 to 20 HU)Is it fluid density (-10 to 20 HU)Use Bosniak criteriaUse Bosniak criteria

Does it enhance?Does it enhance?Borderline is 15-20 HU changeBorderline is 15-20 HU changeMetastases, IVC clot, lymphadenopathy?Metastases, IVC clot, lymphadenopathy?

Page 6: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Angiomyolipoma

10% of patients 10% of patients with tuberous with tuberous sclerosissclerosis

80% of TS have 80% of TS have AMLAML

If exophytic then If exophytic then look for wedge of look for wedge of fat in cortexfat in cortex

Page 7: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Bosniak MA, Rad 1986 Curry NS, AJR 2000

Bosniak Classification

Bosniak MA.Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986;158:1 -10cysts. Radiology 1986;158:1 -10

Type 1 – simple cystType 1 – simple cyst Type 2 – mildly complex; likely benignType 2 – mildly complex; likely benign Type 3 – complex; worrisomeType 3 – complex; worrisome Type 4 – cystic neoplasmType 4 – cystic neoplasm

Page 8: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Cannot show Cannot show enhancementenhancement

Evaluation for Evaluation for de-enhancement de-enhancement can be useful if can be useful if same scanner on same scanner on same daysame day

Bosniak II: Small hyperdense

Page 9: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Bosniak IIF

Slightly more complex cysts that cannot be Slightly more complex cysts that cannot be neatly classified as category II or III neatly classified as category II or III lesions.lesions.

Perceived but Perceived but nonmeasureable nonmeasureable septal enhancement septal enhancement

stable on f/u

Page 10: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Curry NS, AJR 2000; Berland 2012

Bosniak III

Indeterminate cystic massesIndeterminate cystic masses Thickened irregular walls or septa with Thickened irregular walls or septa with

measureable enhancementmeasureable enhancement 25-59% chance malignancy 25-59% chance malignancy Recent work at UAB suggests lower rateRecent work at UAB suggests lower rate Percutaneous biopsy is controversialPercutaneous biopsy is controversial

Page 11: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Bosniak MA, Rad 1986 Curry NS, AJR 2000

Bosniak IV

Malignant cystic masses. Malignant cystic masses. 80-100% likelihood of malignancy80-100% likelihood of malignancy Findings similar to Bosniak III but also Findings similar to Bosniak III but also

have enhancing soft-tissue components have enhancing soft-tissue components adjacent to, but independent of, the wall or adjacent to, but independent of, the wall or septum. septum.

Page 12: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Bosniak IV: Thick enhance septa

Multilocular cystic Multilocular cystic nephromanephroma

Look for extension Look for extension into collecting into collecting systemsystem

No venous extensionNo venous extension

Page 13: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Renal Cell Carcinoma

Most common renal malignancyMost common renal malignancy More common in malesMore common in males Arises in renal cortex – often disrupts renal Arises in renal cortex – often disrupts renal

contour even when smallcontour even when small Bilateral in only 2%Bilateral in only 2% Calcifications in 25-30%Calcifications in 25-30%

Page 14: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Oncocytoma mimics RCC

Both are solid and Both are solid and disrupt cortical margindisrupt cortical margin

Both can enhanceBoth can enhance

Both can have central Both can have central scarscar

Page 15: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Urothelial Carcinoma Central renal mass Central renal mass

with mild ehancementwith mild ehancement

Rarely calcifiedRarely calcified

Extension into Extension into collecting systemcollecting system

Nodal metastasesNodal metastases

Page 16: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Lipid-Poor AML

Mildly hyperdense on Mildly hyperdense on CTCT

Low T2 signal. Does Low T2 signal. Does not drop signal on not drop signal on opposed phase MRIopposed phase MRI

Enhances similar to Enhances similar to RCCRCC

Page 17: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Renal Lymphoma

Focal mass(es)Focal mass(es) Infiltrative massInfiltrative mass Renal hilar massRenal hilar mass Perinephric rindPerinephric rind

Rarely only site Rarely only site of involvementof involvement

Page 18: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Management

ACR white paper on incidental renal massesACR white paper on incidental renal masses Cystic based on Bosniak criteriaCystic based on Bosniak criteria Solid based on sizeSolid based on size

>3cm, surgery>3cm, surgery1-3cm, surgery (may biopsy if 1-3cm, surgery (may biopsy if

hyperdense, homogenously enhancing)hyperdense, homogenously enhancing)<1cm, observe until 1cm<1cm, observe until 1cm

Berland JACR 2010

Page 19: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Management

Slight different criteria if high risk patient or Slight different criteria if high risk patient or limited life expectancylimited life expectancy

Small mass more likely benignSmall mass more likely benign Still rare risk of metastases in small massStill rare risk of metastases in small mass

Lack of morphologic change over 5 years Lack of morphologic change over 5 years suggests benignsuggests benign

Berland JACR 2010

Page 20: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Management different for VHL

Lower malignant potential

Resect when largest 3 cm

Page 21: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Acquired Cystic Renal Disease

Much higher risk of Much higher risk of RCC developmentRCC development

Consider any solid Consider any solid mass as suspiciousmass as suspicious

Page 22: Imaging of Small Renal Masses Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH University of Alabama at Birmingham July 28, 2012.

Summary

Small renal masses are a common Small renal masses are a common diagnostic challengediagnostic challenge

A few have characteristic features that can A few have characteristic features that can help the diagnosishelp the diagnosis

Know the imaging criteriaKnow the imaging criteria


Recommended