Objective

To evaluate a recently published volume-based renal function prediction calculator intended to be used in small renal mass surgical counseling.

Methods

Retrospective data collection included three-dimensional calculation of renal mass and parenchyma of patients who have undergone extirpative therapy. The predicted glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated using the online calculator. The predicted GFR was compared with the actual 6-month GFR. The Pearson correlation coefficient, paired t test and root-mean-square error (RMSE) are utilized for statistical analysis.

Results

After institutional review board approval, three institutions provided data for analysis. After patients with renal mass size >300 cc, renal size >400 cc or preoperative CKD ≥stage 3 had been excluded, we retrospectively analyzed data from 136 patients. The median mass volume was 22.2 cc (IQR 7-49). In multiple linear regression analysis, the most significant variables predicting postoperative GFR were partial versus radical nephrectomy and preoperative GFR with an overall R² of .68 (F = 26.13, P < .001). The predicted GFR was 75.4 mL/min/1.73 m² compared to an actual GFR of 70.7 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001, paired t test). The predicted GFR was highly correlated with the actual postoperative GFR at 6 months (Pearson correlation, r = .65, P < .001). RMSE of the validation cohort was 16.87.

Conclusions

The predictive tool to determine renal function benefit of nephron sparing surgery compared to radical nephrectomy online calculator effectively predicts GFR and could potentially be used to help urologists and patients discuss renal function prior to extirpative renal surgery.

Objective

To evaluate a recently published volume-based renal function prediction calculator intended to be used in small renal mass surgical counseling.

Methods

Retrospective data collection included three-dimensional calculation of renal mass and parenchyma of patients who have undergone extirpative therapy. The predicted glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was calculated using the online calculator. The predicted GFR was compared with the actual 6-month GFR. The Pearson correlation coefficient, paired t test and root-mean-square error (RMSE) are utilized for statistical analysis.

Results

After institutional review board approval, three institutions provided data for analysis. After patients with renal mass size >300 cc, renal size >400 cc or preoperative CKD ≥stage 3 had been excluded, we retrospectively analyzed data from 136 patients. The median mass volume was 22.2 cc (IQR 7-49). In multiple linear regression analysis, the most significant variables predicting postoperative GFR were partial versus radical nephrectomy and preoperative GFR with an overall R² of .68 (F = 26.13, P < .001). The predicted GFR was 75.4 mL/min/1.73 m² compared to an actual GFR of 70.7 mL/min/1.73 m² (P < .001, paired t test). The predicted GFR was highly correlated with the actual postoperative GFR at 6 months (Pearson correlation, r = .65, P < .001). RMSE of the validation cohort was 16.87.

Conclusions

The predictive tool to determine renal function benefit of nephron sparing surgery compared to radical nephrectomy online calculator effectively predicts GFR and could potentially be used to help urologists and patients discuss renal function prior to extirpative renal surgery.

Standardized terminology is critical to providing consistent reports to referring clinicians. This lexicon aims to provide a reference for terminology frequently used in rectal cancer and reflects the consensus of the Society of Abdominal Radiology Disease Focused Panel in Rectal cancer. This lexicon divided the terms into the following categories: primary tumor staging, nodal staging, treatment response, anal canal anatomy, general anatomy, and treatments.

OBJECTIVES: Imaging evaluation is an essential part of treatment planning for patients with ovarian cancer. Variation in the terminology used for describing ovarian cancer on computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance (MR) imaging can lead to ambiguity and inconsistency in clinical radiology reports. The aim of this collaborative project between Society of Abdominal Radiology (SAR) Uterine and Ovarian Cancer (UOC) Disease-focused Panel (DFP) and the European Society of Uroradiology (ESUR) Female Pelvic Imaging (FPI) Working Group was to develop an ovarian cancer reporting lexicon for CT and MR imaging. METHODS: Twenty-one members of the SAR UOC DFP and ESUR FPI working group, one radiology clinical fellow, and two gynecologic oncology surgeons formed the Ovarian Cancer Reporting Lexicon Committee. Two attending radiologist members of the committee prepared a preliminary list of imaging terms that was sent as an online survey to 173 radiologists and gynecologic oncologic physicians, of whom 67 responded to the survey. The committee reviewed these responses to create a final consensus list of lexicon terms. RESULTS: An ovarian cancer reporting lexicon was created for CT and MR Imaging. This consensus-based lexicon has 6 major categories of terms: general, adnexal lesion-specific, peritoneal carcinomatosis-specific, lymph node-specific, metastatic disease -specific, and fluid-specific. CONCLUSIONS: This lexicon for CT and MR imaging evaluation of ovarian cancer patients has the capacity to improve the clarity and consistency of reporting disease sites seen on imaging. KEY POINTS: • This reporting lexicon for CT and MR imaging provides a list of consensus-based, standardized terms and definitions for reporting sites of ovarian cancer on imaging at initial diagnosis or follow-up. • Use of standardized terms and morphologic imaging descriptors can help improve interdisciplinary communication of disease extent and facilitate optimal patient management. • The radiologists should identify and communicate areas of disease, including difficult to resect or potentially unresectable disease that may limit the ability to achieve optimal resection.