4.7 Review

How We Do It: Managing the Indeterminate Renal Mass with the MRI Clear Cell Likelihood Score

期刊

RADIOLOGY
卷 302, 期 2, 页码 256-269

出版社

RADIOLOGICAL SOC NORTH AMERICA (RSNA)
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.210034

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The widespread use of cross-sectional imaging has led to an increase in incidentally detected indeterminate renal masses. Aggressive treatment for small renal masses may not effectively reduce kidney cancer-specific mortality, indicating the need for alternative management options. The clear cell likelihood score derived from multiparametric MRI could aid in identifying the clear cell subtype and guide clinical practice.
The widespread use of cross-sectional imaging has led to a continuous increase in the number of incidentally detected indeterminate renal masses. Frequently, these clinical scenarios involve an older patient with comorbidities and a small renal mass (<= 4 cm). Despite aggressive treatment in early stages of the disease, a clear positive effect in reducing kidney cancer-specific mortality is lacking, indicating that many renal cancers exhibit an indolent oncologic behavior. Furthermore, in general, one in five small renal masses is histologically benign and may not benefit from aggressive treatment. Although active surveillance is increasingly recognized as a management option for some patients, the absence of reliable clinical and imaging predictive biologic markers of aggressiveness can contribute to patient anxiety and limit its use in clinical practice. A standardized approach to the image interpretation of solid renal masses has not been broadly implemented. The clear cell likelihood score (ccLS) derived from multiparametric MRI is useful in non-invasively identifying the clear cell subtype, the most common and aggressive form of kidney cancer. Herein, a review of the ccLS is presented, including a step-by-step guide for image interpretation and additional guidance for its implementation in clinical practice. (c) RSNA, 2021

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据