PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the distribution of growth rates across different sizes and subtypes of renal cortical tumors by assessing tumor volume and maximum tumor diameter at serial volumetric computed tomographic (CT) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. Fifty-three of 2304 patients (34 men, 19 women; mean age, 67 years +/- 10 [standard deviation; range, 39-88 years) who underwent nephrectomy from 1989 to 2006 did not receive preoperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy and underwent at least two preoperative contrast material-enhanced CT examinations (at least 3 months apart) with identical section thickness that was no more than one-fifth of longitudinal tumor diameter. Tumor volume and maximum diameter were measured on CT scans. Reciprocal of doubling time (DT) (RDT) was calculated. Analysis of variance and Student t tests were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two clear cell carcinomas, 10 papillary carcinomas, six chromophobe carcinomas, four oncocytomas, and one angiomyolipoma were analyzed. Median tumor size was 2.9 cm (range, 1-12 cm). Seven tumors did not increase in volume. DT ranged from -78476.54 to 18057.43 days (mean, -1230.73 days; median, 590.51 days). [corrected] Growth rate determined by using maximum diameter ranged from -10.8 to 33.2 mm/y (mean, 5.1 mm/y; median, 3.5 mm/y). Faster-growing tumors were more likely to be clear cell carcinomas, those of higher grade had higher growth rates. No significant correlation was found between RDT and tumor initial volume, subtype, or grade. Small renal tumors (<or=3.5 cm) were similar to larger tumors in subtype and growth rate. Age at diagnosis correlated negatively with renal tumor growth rate (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Growth rates in renal tumors of different sizes, subtypes, and grades represent a wide range and overlap substantially. Small renal tumors appear to be similar to larger ones in nature. (c) RSNA, 2009.
PURPOSE: To retrospectively determine the distribution of growth rates across different sizes and subtypes of renal cortical tumors by assessing tumor volume and maximum tumor diameter at serial volumetric computed tomographic (CT) examinations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this retrospective, HIPAA-compliant study. Fifty-three of 2304 patients (34 men, 19 women; mean age, 67 years +/- 10 [standard deviation; range, 39-88 years) who underwent nephrectomy from 1989 to 2006 did not receive preoperative chemotherapy or radiation therapy and underwent at least two preoperative contrast material-enhanced CT examinations (at least 3 months apart) with identical section thickness that was no more than one-fifth of longitudinal tumor diameter. Tumor volume and maximum diameter were measured on CT scans. Reciprocal of doubling time (DT) (RDT) was calculated. Analysis of variance and Student t tests were performed. RESULTS: Thirty-two clear cell carcinomas, 10 papillary carcinomas, six chromophobe carcinomas, four oncocytomas, and one angiomyolipoma were analyzed. Median tumor size was 2.9 cm (range, 1-12 cm). Seven tumors did not increase in volume. DT ranged from -78476.54 to 18057.43 days (mean, -1230.73 days; median, 590.51 days). [corrected] Growth rate determined by using maximum diameter ranged from -10.8 to 33.2 mm/y (mean, 5.1 mm/y; median, 3.5 mm/y). Faster-growing tumors were more likely to be clear cell carcinomas, those of higher grade had higher growth rates. No significant correlation was found between RDT and tumor initial volume, subtype, or grade. Small renal tumors (<or=3.5 cm) were similar to larger tumors in subtype and growth rate. Age at diagnosis correlated negatively with renal tumor growth rate (P = .03). CONCLUSION: Growth rates in renal tumors of different sizes, subtypes, and grades represent a wide range and overlap substantially. Small renal tumors appear to be similar to larger ones in nature. (c) RSNA, 2009.
Authors: Zi-Ming Zhao; Bixiao Zhao; Yalai Bai; Atila Iamarino; Stephen G Gaffney; Joseph Schlessinger; Richard P Lifton; David L Rimm; Jeffrey P Townsend Journal: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A Date: 2016-02-08 Impact factor: 11.205
Authors: Andrew B Rosenkrantz; Mishal Mendiratta-Lala; Brian J Bartholmai; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan; Richard G Abramson; Kirsteen R Burton; John-Paul J Yu; Ernest M Scalzetti; Thomas E Yankeelov; Rathan M Subramaniam; Leon Lenchik Journal: Acad Radiol Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 3.173
Authors: Eran Sadot; Diane L Reidy-Lagunes; Laura H Tang; Richard Kinh Gian Do; Mithat Gonen; Michael I D'Angelica; Ronald P DeMatteo; T Peter Kingham; Bas Groot Koerkamp; Brian R Untch; Murray F Brennan; William R Jarnagin; Peter J Allen Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2015-11-23 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Sandeep K Kasoji; Emily H Chang; Lee B Mullin; Wui K Chong; W Kimryn Rathmell; Paul A Dayton Journal: Ultrason Imaging Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 1.578
Authors: Mark W Ball; Julie Y An; Patrick T Gomella; Rabindra Gautam; Christopher J Ricketts; Cathy D Vocke; Laura S Schmidt; Maria J Merino; Ramaprasad Srinivasan; Ashkan A Malayeri; Adam R Metwalli; W Marston Linehan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2020-02-21 Impact factor: 44.544