DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF RENAL CYSTIC LESIONS
Authors:
prof. MUDr. Vlastimil Válek, CSc.; MUDr. Marek Mechl, Ph.D.
Authors‘ workplace:
Radiologická klinika LF MU a FN Brno, pracoviště Bohunice
Published in:
Urol List 2006; 4(2): 27-31
Overview
Renal cysts rank among the most frequent findings in renal or abdominal ultrasonography (USG) or computer tomography (CT). Diagnosing “renal cysts” is easy and the characteristics of renal cysts found by imaging methods are well known. There are however cysts whose picture is a complex one including densities (hyperechogenities), calcifications and saturation after application of a contrast agent. Efforts aimed at categorizing renal cystic lesions into groups by their risk of malignity led to the Bosniak proposal for renal cystic lesions classification in 1986.
Advancements in CT from conventional to multislice devices, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasonography using modern contrast agents (Sonovue, Bracco) have not led to a major shift in this classification. This is why a number of authors have currently been comparing the accuracy of these methods with respect to the Bosniak classification. The objective of the paper is to sum up the current significance of the Bosniak classification of renal cysts and the potential of the different imaging methods.
KEY WORDS:
cyst, Bosniak, Bosniak classification, cystic renal carcinoma
Sources
1. Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 1986; 158: 1-10.
2. Bosniak MA. The small (less than or equal to 3.0 cm) renal parenchymal tumor: detection, diagnosis, and controver. Radiology 1991; 179: 307-317.
3. Bosniak M, Birnbaum B, Krámsky G, Waisman J. Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 1995; 197: 589-597.
4. Bosniak M, Rofsky M. Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 1996; 198: 638-641.
5. Izrael GM, Hindman N, Bosniak MA. Evaluation of cystic renal masses: Comparison of CT and MR imaging by using the Bosniak classification systém. Radiology 2004; 231: 365-371.
6. Izrael GM, Bosniak MA. How i do it: evaluating renal masses. Radiology 2005; 236: 441-450.
7. Hartman D, Choule P, Hartman M. A practical approach to the cystica renal mass. Radiographics 2004; 24: 101-115.
8. Prando A, Prando D, Prando P. Renal cell carcinoma: Unusual imaging manifestations. Radiographics 2006; 26: 233-244.
9. Izrael GM, Bosniak MA. Calcification in cystic renal masses: is it important in diagnosis? Radiology 2003; 226: 47-52.
10. Macari M, Bosniak MA. Delayed CT of evaluace renal masses incindentally discovered at kontrast-enhanced CT: demonstration of vascularity with deenhancement. Radiology 1999; 213: 674-680.
11. Eliáš P, Neuwirth J, Máca P, Válek V. Moderní diagnostické metody. Výpočetní tomografie. Brno: IDVPZ 1998: 2. vol, 84.
Labels
Paediatric urologist UrologyArticle was published in
Urological Journal
2006 Issue 2
Most read in this issue
- DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSTICS OF RENAL CYSTIC LESIONS
- NATIVE CT EXAMINATION IN UROLITHIASIS
- THE POTENTIAL OF ULTRASONIC METHODS IN UROLOGICAL DIAGNOSTICS
- MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING IN UROLOGICAL INDICATIONS