Matthew S Davenport1,2,3, Eric M Hu4, Andrew D Smith5, Hersh Chandarana6, Khaled Hafez7, Ganesh S Palapattu7, J Stuart Wolf7, Stuart G Silverman8. 1. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. matdaven@med.umich.edu. 2. Michigan Radiology Quality Collaborative, Ann Arbor, USA. matdaven@med.umich.edu. 3. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, USA. matdaven@med.umich.edu. 4. Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Health System, 1500 E. Medical Center Dr. B2-A209P, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA. 5. Department of Radiology, University of Mississippi Medical Center, Jackson, USA. 6. Department of Radiology, New York University Langone Medical Center, New York, USA. 7. Department of Urology, University of Michigan Health System, Ann Arbor, USA. 8. Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To define important elements of a structured radiology report of a CT or MRI performed to evaluate an indeterminate renal mass. METHODS: IRB approval was waived for this multi-site prospective quality improvement study. A 35-question survey investigating elements of a CT or MRI report describing a renal mass was created through an iterative process by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on renal cell carcinoma. Surveys were distributed to consenting abdominal radiologists and urologists at nine academic institutions. Consensus within and between specialties was defined as ≥70% agreement. Respondent rates were compared with Chi Square test. RESULTS: The response rate was 68% (117/171; 55% [39/71] urologists, 78% [78/100] radiologists). Inter-specialty consensus was that the following were essential: mass size with comparison to prior imaging, mass type (cystic vs. solid), presence of fat, presence of enhancement, and radiologic stage. Urologists were more likely to prefer the Nephrometry score (75% [27/36] vs. 22% [17/76], p < 0.0001), quantitative reporting of enhancement on CT (85% [32/38] vs. 46% [36/77], p < 0.0001), and mass position with respect to the renal polar lines (67% [24/36] vs. 36% [27/76], p = 0.002). There was inter-specialty consensus that the Bosniak classification for cystic masses was preferred. Most urologists (60% [21/35]) preferred management recommendations be omitted for solid masses or Bosniak III-IV cystic masses. CONCLUSIONS: Important elements to include in a CT or MRI report of an indeterminate renal mass are critical diagnostic features, the Bosniak classification if relevant, and the most likely specific diagnosis when feasible; including management recommendations is controversial.
PURPOSE: To define important elements of a structured radiology report of a CT or MRI performed to evaluate an indeterminate renal mass. METHODS: IRB approval was waived for this multi-site prospective quality improvement study. A 35-question survey investigating elements of a CT or MRI report describing a renal mass was created through an iterative process by the Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease-Focused Panel on renal cell carcinoma. Surveys were distributed to consenting abdominal radiologists and urologists at nine academic institutions. Consensus within and between specialties was defined as ≥70% agreement. Respondent rates were compared with Chi Square test. RESULTS: The response rate was 68% (117/171; 55% [39/71] urologists, 78% [78/100] radiologists). Inter-specialty consensus was that the following were essential: mass size with comparison to prior imaging, mass type (cystic vs. solid), presence of fat, presence of enhancement, and radiologic stage. Urologists were more likely to prefer the Nephrometry score (75% [27/36] vs. 22% [17/76], p < 0.0001), quantitative reporting of enhancement on CT (85% [32/38] vs. 46% [36/77], p < 0.0001), and mass position with respect to the renal polar lines (67% [24/36] vs. 36% [27/76], p = 0.002). There was inter-specialty consensus that the Bosniak classification for cystic masses was preferred. Most urologists (60% [21/35]) preferred management recommendations be omitted for solid masses or Bosniak III-IV cystic masses. CONCLUSIONS: Important elements to include in a CT or MRI report of an indeterminate renal mass are critical diagnostic features, the Bosniak classification if relevant, and the most likely specific diagnosis when feasible; including management recommendations is controversial.
Entities:
Keywords:
Renal cell carcinoma; Renal mass; Reporting standards; Society of Abdominal Radiology; Structured reporting
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Eric M Hu; Andrew Zhang; Atul B Shinagare; Andrew D Smith; Ivan Pedrosa; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2019-04
Authors: Matthew S Davenport; Hersh Chandarana; Nicole E Curci; Ankur Doshi; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Ivan Pedrosa; Erick M Remer; Nicola Schieda; Atul B Shinagare; Andrew D Smith; Zhen J Wang; Shane A Wells; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2018-09
Authors: Stuart G Silverman; Ivan Pedrosa; James H Ellis; Nicole M Hindman; Nicola Schieda; Andrew D Smith; Erick M Remer; Atul B Shinagare; Nicole E Curci; Steven S Raman; Shane A Wells; Samuel D Kaffenberger; Zhen J Wang; Hersh Chandarana; Matthew S Davenport Journal: Radiology Date: 2019-06-18 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Atul B Shinagare; Matthew S Davenport; Hyesun Park; Ivan Pedrosa; Erick M Remer; Hersh Chandarana; Ankur M Doshi; Nicola Schieda; Andrew D Smith; Raghunandan Vikram; Zhen J Wang; Stuart G Silverman Journal: Abdom Radiol (NY) Date: 2020-08-18
Authors: Satheesh Krishna; Nicola Schieda; Ivan Pedrosa; Nicole Hindman; Ronaldo H Baroni; Stuart G Silverman; Matthew S Davenport Journal: J Magn Reson Imaging Date: 2020-10-02 Impact factor: 4.813