You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology: Uroradiology III1 Apr 2016MP19-06 PREOPERATIVE RADIOLOGIC ASSESSMENT FOR PERINEPHRIC FAT INVASION (T3A): COMPARISON WITH PATHOLOGICAL STAGING Zhamshid Okhunov, Jae Young Park, Chenhui Zhao, Molly Baker, Mohammad Helmy, Chandana Lall, Mari Bozoghlanian, and Jaime Landman Zhamshid OkhunovZhamshid Okhunov More articles by this author , Jae Young ParkJae Young Park More articles by this author , Chenhui ZhaoChenhui Zhao More articles by this author , Molly BakerMolly Baker More articles by this author , Mohammad HelmyMohammad Helmy More articles by this author , Chandana LallChandana Lall More articles by this author , Mari BozoghlanianMari Bozoghlanian More articles by this author , and Jaime LandmanJaime Landman More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2016.02.2754AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES We assessed the accuracy of computed tomography (CT) in diagnosing perinephric fat invasion (PNFI) in patients with renal cell carcinoma (RCC). METHODS We retrospectively reviewed preoperative CTs of patients who underwent extirpative surgery for pT1 - pT3a RCC. CT criteria used to assess PNFI were PN soft-tissue stranding (PNSTS), peritumoral vascularity (PTV), increased density of the PNF, tumor margins (TM), and presence of contrast-enhancing soft-tissue nodules in the PN space. PNSTS was defined as linear areas of soft tissue attenuation, corresponding to the bridging septa of the PN space. PTV was defined as asymmetrically enlarged, irregular vessels adjacent to the neoplasm, within the PN space. The CT density of the PNF was measured by placing a circular region of interest, as large as possible within the perirenal space, juxtaposed to the RCC. The CT density of the PNF of the normal contralateral kidney, measured at the area of the lower pole, was used as the standard of reference. A sharply demarcated tumor was characterized as confined within the kidney while ill-defined TM was suggestive of neoplastic invasion of the PNF. The final histopathology was used as the standard of reference. We analyzed the sensitivity and specificity stratified by tumor size (≤4cm, >4 - ≤7cm, >7 - ≤10cm, and >10cm). RESULTS A total of 161 patients were included. Table 1 demonstrates sensitivity and specificity of all assessed variables in predicting PNFI on CT. In logistic regression analysis, PNSTS, increased PTV, ill-defined TM and an enhancing nodule in the perinephric fat were significant predictors of PNFI. In multivariate analysis, PNSTS was the only significant factor for PNFI (table 2). CONCLUSIONS CT imaging does not reliably predict PNFI. However, for tumors >7cm, the absence of PNSTS excludes PNFI. Furthermore, absence of PTV reliably excludes PNFI among tumors from 4 to 10 cm. For tumors < 4cm, a well-defined tumor margin also excludes PNFI. © 2016FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 195Issue 4SApril 2016Page: e205-e206 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2016MetricsAuthor Information Zhamshid Okhunov More articles by this author Jae Young Park More articles by this author Chenhui Zhao More articles by this author Molly Baker More articles by this author Mohammad Helmy More articles by this author Chandana Lall More articles by this author Mari Bozoghlanian More articles by this author Jaime Landman More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
Read full abstract