The utility of screening renal ultrasonography

Identifying renal cell carcinoma in an elderly asymptomatic population

Bahaa S. Malaeb, David J. Martin, Fred N. Littooy, Yair Lotan, W Waters, Robert C. Flanigan, Kenneth S. Koeneman

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and utility of screening renal ultrasonography (RUS) in older patients with a high prevalence of risk factors for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as with the widespread use of advanced imaging techniques the identification of incidental RCC has increased, and although previous studies in low-risk groups reported little use for screening RUS, its utility in high-risk groups is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 1997, screening RUS was completed for 6678 consecutive patients in conjunction with the Aneurysm Detection and Management study. Patient demographics, medical and social history were recorded for each patient. Screening RUS was completed by one ultrasonographer using a 3.5-MHz sector scanner. A urologist verified any abnormalities identified by RUS during consultation. Additional imaging tests were obtained selectively and intervention was recommended based on the results of the genitourinary evaluation. RESULTS: From the screened population of 6678 patients, 817 (12.3%) renal anomalies were found, including a solid renal mass in 22 (0.32%), simple renal cysts in 627 (9.4%), hydronephrosis in 21 (0.31%), renal calculi in 121 (1.8%), or other abnormalities in 24 (0.36%). Treatment was completed for 15 renal cancers; 13 were organ-confined on pathological review. At a mean follow-up of >55 months, 12 of the 15 patients with RCC survived. CONCLUSIONS: In this older cohort, retroperitoneal RUS was an effective tool for case-finding by detecting significant findings in an asymptomatic population. The prevalence of solid renal masses (0.32%) was higher than reported with other screening protocols. Although probably not the best method for generalized primary screening, the use of RUS may still be beneficial for 'secondary' screening in a more selected patient population.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)977-981
Number of pages5
JournalBJU International
Volume95
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2005

Fingerprint

Renal Cell Carcinoma
Ultrasonography
Kidney
Population
Kidney Calculi
Hydronephrosis
Kidney Neoplasms
Aneurysm
Cysts
Referral and Consultation
History
Demography

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Urology

Cite this

The utility of screening renal ultrasonography : Identifying renal cell carcinoma in an elderly asymptomatic population. / Malaeb, Bahaa S.; Martin, David J.; Littooy, Fred N.; Lotan, Yair; Waters, W; Flanigan, Robert C.; Koeneman, Kenneth S.

In: BJU International, Vol. 95, No. 7, 01.05.2005, p. 977-981.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Malaeb, Bahaa S. ; Martin, David J. ; Littooy, Fred N. ; Lotan, Yair ; Waters, W ; Flanigan, Robert C. ; Koeneman, Kenneth S. / The utility of screening renal ultrasonography : Identifying renal cell carcinoma in an elderly asymptomatic population. In: BJU International. 2005 ; Vol. 95, No. 7. pp. 977-981.
@article{eaf5562a516543f6b373bd24fabc1714,
title = "The utility of screening renal ultrasonography: Identifying renal cell carcinoma in an elderly asymptomatic population",
abstract = "OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and utility of screening renal ultrasonography (RUS) in older patients with a high prevalence of risk factors for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as with the widespread use of advanced imaging techniques the identification of incidental RCC has increased, and although previous studies in low-risk groups reported little use for screening RUS, its utility in high-risk groups is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 1997, screening RUS was completed for 6678 consecutive patients in conjunction with the Aneurysm Detection and Management study. Patient demographics, medical and social history were recorded for each patient. Screening RUS was completed by one ultrasonographer using a 3.5-MHz sector scanner. A urologist verified any abnormalities identified by RUS during consultation. Additional imaging tests were obtained selectively and intervention was recommended based on the results of the genitourinary evaluation. RESULTS: From the screened population of 6678 patients, 817 (12.3{\%}) renal anomalies were found, including a solid renal mass in 22 (0.32{\%}), simple renal cysts in 627 (9.4{\%}), hydronephrosis in 21 (0.31{\%}), renal calculi in 121 (1.8{\%}), or other abnormalities in 24 (0.36{\%}). Treatment was completed for 15 renal cancers; 13 were organ-confined on pathological review. At a mean follow-up of >55 months, 12 of the 15 patients with RCC survived. CONCLUSIONS: In this older cohort, retroperitoneal RUS was an effective tool for case-finding by detecting significant findings in an asymptomatic population. The prevalence of solid renal masses (0.32{\%}) was higher than reported with other screening protocols. Although probably not the best method for generalized primary screening, the use of RUS may still be beneficial for 'secondary' screening in a more selected patient population.",
author = "Malaeb, {Bahaa S.} and Martin, {David J.} and Littooy, {Fred N.} and Yair Lotan and W Waters and Flanigan, {Robert C.} and Koeneman, {Kenneth S.}",
year = "2005",
month = "5",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05451.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "95",
pages = "977--981",
journal = "BJU International",
issn = "1464-4096",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The utility of screening renal ultrasonography

T2 - Identifying renal cell carcinoma in an elderly asymptomatic population

AU - Malaeb, Bahaa S.

AU - Martin, David J.

AU - Littooy, Fred N.

AU - Lotan, Yair

AU - Waters, W

AU - Flanigan, Robert C.

AU - Koeneman, Kenneth S.

PY - 2005/5/1

Y1 - 2005/5/1

N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and utility of screening renal ultrasonography (RUS) in older patients with a high prevalence of risk factors for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as with the widespread use of advanced imaging techniques the identification of incidental RCC has increased, and although previous studies in low-risk groups reported little use for screening RUS, its utility in high-risk groups is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 1997, screening RUS was completed for 6678 consecutive patients in conjunction with the Aneurysm Detection and Management study. Patient demographics, medical and social history were recorded for each patient. Screening RUS was completed by one ultrasonographer using a 3.5-MHz sector scanner. A urologist verified any abnormalities identified by RUS during consultation. Additional imaging tests were obtained selectively and intervention was recommended based on the results of the genitourinary evaluation. RESULTS: From the screened population of 6678 patients, 817 (12.3%) renal anomalies were found, including a solid renal mass in 22 (0.32%), simple renal cysts in 627 (9.4%), hydronephrosis in 21 (0.31%), renal calculi in 121 (1.8%), or other abnormalities in 24 (0.36%). Treatment was completed for 15 renal cancers; 13 were organ-confined on pathological review. At a mean follow-up of >55 months, 12 of the 15 patients with RCC survived. CONCLUSIONS: In this older cohort, retroperitoneal RUS was an effective tool for case-finding by detecting significant findings in an asymptomatic population. The prevalence of solid renal masses (0.32%) was higher than reported with other screening protocols. Although probably not the best method for generalized primary screening, the use of RUS may still be beneficial for 'secondary' screening in a more selected patient population.

AB - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and utility of screening renal ultrasonography (RUS) in older patients with a high prevalence of risk factors for renal cell carcinoma (RCC), as with the widespread use of advanced imaging techniques the identification of incidental RCC has increased, and although previous studies in low-risk groups reported little use for screening RUS, its utility in high-risk groups is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: From 1993 to 1997, screening RUS was completed for 6678 consecutive patients in conjunction with the Aneurysm Detection and Management study. Patient demographics, medical and social history were recorded for each patient. Screening RUS was completed by one ultrasonographer using a 3.5-MHz sector scanner. A urologist verified any abnormalities identified by RUS during consultation. Additional imaging tests were obtained selectively and intervention was recommended based on the results of the genitourinary evaluation. RESULTS: From the screened population of 6678 patients, 817 (12.3%) renal anomalies were found, including a solid renal mass in 22 (0.32%), simple renal cysts in 627 (9.4%), hydronephrosis in 21 (0.31%), renal calculi in 121 (1.8%), or other abnormalities in 24 (0.36%). Treatment was completed for 15 renal cancers; 13 were organ-confined on pathological review. At a mean follow-up of >55 months, 12 of the 15 patients with RCC survived. CONCLUSIONS: In this older cohort, retroperitoneal RUS was an effective tool for case-finding by detecting significant findings in an asymptomatic population. The prevalence of solid renal masses (0.32%) was higher than reported with other screening protocols. Although probably not the best method for generalized primary screening, the use of RUS may still be beneficial for 'secondary' screening in a more selected patient population.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=18544365947&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=18544365947&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05451.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2005.05451.x

M3 - Article

VL - 95

SP - 977

EP - 981

JO - BJU International

JF - BJU International

SN - 1464-4096

IS - 7

ER -