OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was performed to compare nephrographic phase (NP) with excretory phase (EP) renal helical computed tomographic (CT) images with respect to detection of renal masses 10 mm or more in diameter, and reviewer confidence in mass characterization. METHODS: Two reviewers evaluated 39 renal helical CT examinations. All masses measuring 10 mm or more in maximal diameter were classified as simple cysts, complex cysts, solid lesions, or indeterminate lesions. Reviewers graded their confidence in the characterization of the masses and decided whether the NP or EP contrast-enhanced images were superior. RESULTS: The 2 reviewers confidently characterized 71 (reviewer 1) and 65 (reviewer 2) of 72 detected masses 10 mm or more in diameter on NP images and 70 (reviewer 1) and 67 (reviewer 2) of 71 detected masses on EP images. There was strong agreement between the 2 sets of images in respect to the characterization of renal masses (kappa = 1.00 and 0.86). Only one mass (a focus of acute pyelonephritis) was not detected by either reviewer on EP images. Collecting system artifact degraded the quality of the EP image in images from only 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Although EP images are often aesthetically inferior to NP images, use of EP images results in a similar rate of detection and confidence in characterization of renal masses measuring 10 mm or more in diameter.
OBJECTIVE: A retrospective study was performed to compare nephrographic phase (NP) with excretory phase (EP) renal helical computed tomographic (CT) images with respect to detection of renal masses 10 mm or more in diameter, and reviewer confidence in mass characterization. METHODS: Two reviewers evaluated 39 renal helical CT examinations. All masses measuring 10 mm or more in maximal diameter were classified as simple cysts, complex cysts, solid lesions, or indeterminate lesions. Reviewers graded their confidence in the characterization of the masses and decided whether the NP or EP contrast-enhanced images were superior. RESULTS: The 2 reviewers confidently characterized 71 (reviewer 1) and 65 (reviewer 2) of 72 detected masses 10 mm or more in diameter on NP images and 70 (reviewer 1) and 67 (reviewer 2) of 71 detected masses on EP images. There was strong agreement between the 2 sets of images in respect to the characterization of renal masses (kappa = 1.00 and 0.86). Only one mass (a focus of acute pyelonephritis) was not detected by either reviewer on EP images. Collecting system artifact degraded the quality of the EP image in images from only 1 patient. CONCLUSION: Although EP images are often aesthetically inferior to NP images, use of EP images results in a similar rate of detection and confidence in characterization of renal masses measuring 10 mm or more in diameter.