Computed tomography imaging characteristics of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma

ABSTRACT Purpose: Clear cell papillary (CCP) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a new subtype of RCC that was formally recognized by the International Society of Urological Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia in 2013. Subsequently, CCP RCC was added to the 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. In this study, we retrospectively investigated the computed tomography (CT) findings of pathologically diagnosed CCP RCC. Materials and Methods: This study included 12 patients pathologically diagnosed with CCP RCC at our institution between 2015 and 2017. We reviewed the patient's CT data and analyzed the characteristics. Results: Nine solid masses and 3 cystic masses with a mean tumor size of 22.7±9.2mm were included. Solid masses exhibited slight hyper-density on unenhanced CT with a mean value of 34±6 Hounsfield units (HU), good enhancement in the corticomedullary phase with a mean of 195±34HU, and washout in the nephrogenic phase with a mean of 133±29HU. The walls of cystic masses enhanced gradually during the corticomedullary and nephrogenic phases. Solid and cystic masses were preoperatively diagnosed as clear cell RCC and cystic RCC, respectively. Conclusions: The CT imaging characteristics of CCP RCCs could be categorized into either the solid or cystic type. These masses were diagnosed radiologically as clear cell RCC and cystic RCC, respectively.

Computed tomography imaging characteristics of clear cell papillary renal cell carcinoma.

PURPOSE: Clear cell papillary (CCP) renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is a new subtype of RCC that was formally recognized by the International Society of Urological Pathology Vancouver Classification of Renal Neoplasia in 2013. Subsequently, CCP RCC was added to the 2016 World Health Organization Classification of Tumors of the Urinary System and Male Genital Organs. In this study, we retrospectively investigated the computed tomography (CT) findings of pathologically diagnosed CCP RCC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study included 12 patients pathologically diagnosed with CCP RCC at our institution between 2015 and 2017. We reviewed the patient's CT data and analyzed the characteristics. RESULTS: Nine solid masses and 3 cystic masses with a mean tumor size of 22.7 ± 9.2mm were included. Solid masses exhibited slight hyper-density on unenhanced CT with a mean value of 34 ± 6 Hounsfi eld units (HU), good enhancement in the corticomedullary phase with a mean of 195 ± 34HU, and washout in the nephrogenic phase with a mean of 133 ± 29HU. The walls of cystic masses enhanced gradually during the corticomedullary and nephrogenic phases. Solid and cystic masses were preoperatively diagnosed as clear cell RCC and cystic RCC, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The CT imaging characteristics of CCP RCCs could be categorized into either the solid or cystic type. These masses were diagnosed radiologically as clear cell RCC and cystic RCC, respectively.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes with or without renorrhaphy during open partial nephrectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis

ABSTRACT Purpose: Renorrhaphy in partial nephrectomy may damage intraparenchymal vessels and compress the renal parenchyma, which may lead to the formation of renal artery pseudoaneurysms or vascularized parenchymal volume reduction. Using propensity score matching, we compared surgical outcomes following non-renorrhaphy and renorrhaphy techniques for open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for T1a renal tumors. Materials and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed data from 159 patients with normal contralateral kidneys who underwent OPN for T1a renal tumors and pre- and postoperative enhanced computed tomography between 2012 and 2015. Patient variables were adjusted using 1:1 propensity score matching between the two Groups: renorrhaphy (inner and outer layer sutures) and non-renorrhaphy (inner layer sutures only). Postoperative complications and renal function were compared between the two groups. Results: We matched 43 patients per Group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, cold ischemic time, and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between the two Groups. Urine leakage (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) occurred in 0 renorrhaphy cases and 2 non-renorrhaphy cases (0% versus 4.6%, P=0.49). Renal artery pseudoaneurysm (RAP) occurred in 6 renorrhaphy cases and in 0 non-renorrhaphy cases (13% versus 0%, P=0.02). Conclusions: The non-renorrhaphy technique may result in a lower risk of RAP but a greater risk of urine leakage. This technique needs further refinement to become a standard procedure for OPN.

Comparison of perioperative outcomes with or without renorrhaphy during open partial nephrectomy: A propensity score-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: Renorrhaphy in partial nephrectomy may damage intraparenchymal vessels and compress the renal parenchyma, which may lead to the formation of renal artery pseudoaneurysms or vascularized parenchymal volume reduction. Using propensity score matching, we compared surgical outcomes following non-renorrhaphy and renorrhaphy techniques for open partial nephrectomy (OPN) for T1a renal tumors. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed data from 159 patients with normal contralateral kidneys who underwent OPN for T1a renal tumors and pre- and postoperative enhanced computed tomography between 2012 and 2015. Patient variables were adjusted using 1:1 propensity score matching between the two Groups: renorrhaphy (inner and outer layer sutures) and non-renorrhaphy (inner layer sutures only). Postoperative complications and renal function were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: We matched 43 patients per Group. Operative time, estimated blood loss, cold ischemic time, and postoperative hospital stay were not significantly different between the two Groups. Urine leakage (Clavien-Dindo grade ≥3) occurred in 0 renorrhaphy cases and 2 non-renorrhaphy cases (0% versus 4.6%, P=0.49). Renal artery pseudoaneurysm (RAP) occurred in 6 renorrhaphy cases and in 0 non-renorrhaphy cases (13% versus 0%, P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: The non-renorrhaphy technique may result in a lower risk of RAP but a greater risk of urine leakage. This technique needs further refinement to become a standard procedure for OPN.