Radiology
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Amendola, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Tomaszewski, J. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Amendola, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Tomaszewski, J. E.

Radiology, Vol 166, 637-641, Copyright © 1988 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Small renal cell carcinomas: resolving a diagnostic dilemma

MA Amendola, RL Bree, HM Pollack, IR Francis, GM Glazer, SZ Jafri and JE Tomaszewski
Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104.

Thirty-nine patients with pathologically proved renal cell carcinomas 3 cm or les in diameter were examined. Results of intravenous urography (n = 30) were true positive in 20 patients and false negative in ten (sensitivity, 67%). Renal ultrasound (US) (n = 29) had true-positive results in 23 patients and false-negative results in six (sensitivity, 79%); computed tomography (CT) (n = 36) had true-positive results in 34 and false-negative results in two (sensitivity, 94%). For selective renal angiography (n = 35%), the results were true positive in 26 and false negative in nine (sensitivity, 74%), with typical hypervascular renal cell carcinomas demonstrated in 17. Finally, the findings of percutaneous fine-needle aspiration biopsy were true positive in one of five patients when US guidance was used (sensitivity, 20%) and in five of eight when CT guidance was used (sensitivity, 62%). Small renal cell carcinomas are more frequently encountered in clinical practice than heretofore realized, and they are best imaged by CT.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 RadioGraphicsHome page
S. G. Silverman, K. J. Mortele, K. Tuncali, M. Jinzaki, and E. S. Cibas
Hyperattenuating Renal Masses: Etiologies, Pathogenesis, and Imaging Evaluation
RadioGraphics, July 1, 2007; 27(4): 1131 - 1143.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
S. G. Silverman, Y. U. Gan, K. J. Mortele, K. Tuncali, and E. S. Cibas
Renal Masses in the Adult Patient: The Role of Percutaneous Biopsy
Radiology, July 1, 2006; 240(1): 6 - 22.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
R. D. Nawfel, P. F. Judy, A. R. Schleipman, and S. G. Silverman
Patient Radiation Dose at CT Urography and Conventional Urography
Radiology, July 1, 2004; 232(1): 126 - 132.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 RadiologyHome page
J. D. McTavish, M. Jinzaki, K. H. Zou, R. D. Nawfel, and S. G. Silverman
Multi-Detector Row CT Urography: Comparison of Strategies for Depicting the Normal Urinary Collecting System
Radiology, December 1, 2002; 225(3): 783 - 790.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ImagingHome page
C Fowler and R H Reznek
The indeterminate renal mass
Imaging, April 1, 2001; 13(1): 27 - 43.
[Full Text]

Home page
 NEJMHome page
R. J. Motzer, N. H. Bander, and D. M. Nanus
Renal-Cell Carcinoma
N. Engl. J. Med., September 19, 1996; 335(12): 865 - 875.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
RADIOLOGY RADIOGRAPHICS RSNA JOURNALS ONLINE
Copyright © 1988 by the Radiological Society of North America.