Search

PurposeThere is substantial variation in the radiologic terms used to characterize renal masses, leading to ambiguity and inconsistency in clinical radiology reports and research studies. The purpose of this study was to develop a standardized lexicon to describe renal masses at CT and MRI.Materials and methodsThis multi-institutional, prospective, quality improvement project was exempt from IRB oversight. Thirteen radiologists belonging to the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) disease-focused panel on renal cell carcinoma representing nine academic institutions participated in a modified Delphi process to create a lexicon of terms used to describe imaging features of renal masses at CT and MRI. In the first round, members voted on terms to be included and proposed definitions; subsequent voting rounds and a teleconference established consensus. One non-voting member developed the questionnaire and consolidated responses. Consensus was defined as ≥ 80% agreement.ResultsOf 37 proposed terms, 6 had consensus to be excluded. Consensus for inclusion was reached for 30 of 31 terms (13/14 basic imaging terms, 8/8 CT terms, 6/6 MRI terms and 3/3 miscellaneous terms). Despite substantial initial disagreement about definitions of 'renal mass,' 'necrosis,' 'fat,' and 'restricted diffusion' in the first round, consensus for all was eventually reached. Disagreement remained for the definition of 'solid mass.'ConclusionsA modified Delphi method produced a lexicon of preferred terms and definitions to be used in the description of renal masses at CT and MRI. This lexicon should improve clarity and consistency of radiology reports and research related to renal masses.

The disease-focused panel (DFP) program was created by the Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) as a mechanism to "improve patient care, education, and research" in a "particular disease or a particular aspect of a disease". The DFP on renal cell carcinoma (RCC) was proposed in 2014 and has been functional for 4 years. Although nominally focused on RCC, the scope of the DFP has included indeterminate renal masses because many cannot be assigned a specific diagnosis when detected. Since its founding, the DFP has been active in a variety of clinical, research, and educational projects to optimize the care of patients with known or suspected RCC. The DFP is utilizing multi-institutional and cross-disciplinary collaboration to differentiate benign from malignant disease, optimize the management of early stage RCC, and ultimately to differentiate indolent from aggressive cancers. Several additional projects have worked to develop a quantitative biomarker that predicts metastatic RCC response to anti-angiogenic therapy. While disease focus is the premise by which all DFPs are created, it is likely that in the future the RCC DFP will need to expand or create new panels that will focus on other specific aspects of RCC-a result that the program's founders envisioned. New knowledge creates a need for more focus.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The original version of this article contained an error in author name. The co-author’s name was published as Ivan M. Pedrosa, instead it should be Ivan Pedrosa. The original article has been corrected. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]