Jae Heon Kim1,2, Shufeng Li3, Yash Khandwala1,4, Francesco Del Giudice5, Kyung Jin Chung1, Hyung Keun Park1, Benjamin I Chung1. 1. Department of Urology, Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, CA, United States. 2. Department of Urology, Soonchunhyang University Hospital, Soonchuhyang University Medical College, Seoul, Korea. 3. Department of Urology and Dermatology, Stanford University Medical Center, CA, United States. 4. University of California, San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA, United States. 5. Department of Urology, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Although the performance of partial nephrectomies (PN) for renal masses has increased rapidly over the years, only a few studies have investigated the frequency and patterns of preoperative imaging modalities. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and patterns in preoperative imaging modalities before PN. METHODS: A total of 21 445 patients who underwent PN between 2007 and 2015 were selected from a national representative population in the MarketScan database and included in this study. The annual incidence and proportion of PN, as well as the use of each preoperative imaging modality were analyzed. RESULTS: Both annual crude number and frequency rate of PN decreased or became static since 2012. Computed tomography (CT) shows the greatest proportion of the crude number and percentage; despite a slight decrease in percentage, it is still >80%. Among the combinations, CT alone and CT combined with ultrasonography showed the highest performance rate during the complete observational period. The proportion of all other combinations, which include other complex combinations except CT alone, CT plus ultrasonography, CT plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and CT plus MRI plus ultrasonography, was 13.95% in 2007, but increased to 19.04% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: CT still plays a major role in preoperative imaging for renal masses, whereby CT alone and CT combined with ultrasonography account for a major proportion of the preoperative imaging patterns. The use of other imaging combinations, as well as renal biopsies, shows an increasing trend. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this trend in preoperative imaging is related to the frequency rate of PN.
INTRODUCTION: Although the performance of partial nephrectomies (PN) for renal masses has increased rapidly over the years, only a few studies have investigated the frequency and patterns of preoperative imaging modalities. The aim of this study was to investigate the frequency and patterns in preoperative imaging modalities before PN. METHODS: A total of 21 445 patients who underwent PN between 2007 and 2015 were selected from a national representative population in the MarketScan database and included in this study. The annual incidence and proportion of PN, as well as the use of each preoperative imaging modality were analyzed. RESULTS: Both annual crude number and frequency rate of PN decreased or became static since 2012. Computed tomography (CT) shows the greatest proportion of the crude number and percentage; despite a slight decrease in percentage, it is still >80%. Among the combinations, CT alone and CT combined with ultrasonography showed the highest performance rate during the complete observational period. The proportion of all other combinations, which include other complex combinations except CT alone, CT plus ultrasonography, CT plus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and CT plus MRI plus ultrasonography, was 13.95% in 2007, but increased to 19.04% in 2014. CONCLUSIONS: CT still plays a major role in preoperative imaging for renal masses, whereby CT alone and CT combined with ultrasonography account for a major proportion of the preoperative imaging patterns. The use of other imaging combinations, as well as renal biopsies, shows an increasing trend. Additional studies are needed to investigate whether this trend in preoperative imaging is related to the frequency rate of PN.
Authors: Simon P Kim; R Houston Thompson; Stephen A Boorjian; Christopher J Weight; Leona C Han; M Hassan Murad; Nathan D Shippee; Patricia J Erwin; Brian A Costello; George K Chow; Bradley C Leibovich Journal: J Urol Date: 2012-05-14 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: Tyler M Bauman; Aaron M Potretzke; Alec J Wright; Brent A Knight; Joel M Vetter; Robert Sherburne Figenshau Journal: J Endourol Date: 2017-02-03 Impact factor: 2.942
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Lindsay K Fossett; Parvati Ramchandani; John E Tomaszewski; Evan S Siegelman; Marc P Banner; Keith N Van Arsdalen; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz Journal: Urology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Marc A Bjurlin; Dawn Walter; Glen B Taksler; William C Huang; James S Wysock; Ganesh Sivarajan; Stacy Loeb; Samir S Taneja; Danil V Makarov Journal: Urology Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: M Raquel Oliva; Jonathan N Glickman; Kelly H Zou; Sze Y Teo; Koenraad J Mortelé; Manoel S Rocha; Stuart G Silverman Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2009-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Maryellen R M Sun; Long Ngo; Elizabeth M Genega; Michael B Atkins; Myra E Finn; Neil M Rofsky; Ivan Pedrosa Journal: Radiology Date: 2009-03 Impact factor: 11.105