Ribeiro, S. M.Ajzen, S. A.Trindade, J. C.2014-05-272014-05-272001-07-01Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992), v. 47, n. 3, p. 198-207, 2001.0104-4230http://hdl.handle.net/11449/66541BACKGROUND: Ultrasonography (US), Computed Tomography (CT), and Magnetic Resonance imaging (MR) were compared for the staging of renal tumors. The differences between these imaging techniques were also studied for their ability to detect adenopathies, vascular invasion, distant intra-abdominal metastases, and particularly adjacent organ invasion. METHODS: Thirty-one patients with solid or complex renal masses were prospectively studied using US, CT, and MR. Differences between the results obtained were studied using the COCHRAN G test and the McNEMAR test. The sensitivity and specificity of each diagnostic technique were compared against a gold standard of the surgical and histopathological findings. RESULTS: The following sensitivities were obtained: For the detection of adenopathy, US 63.6%, CT and MR 90.9%. For vascular invasion, US 42.8%, CT and MR 85.7%. For the adjacent organ invasion, US 28.5%, CT 85.7%, and MR 71.4%. Some of the criteria that suggest invasion of adjacent structures include: the envelopment of the adjacent structures by the tumor, tumor extension into the adjacent structures with an irregular appearance, and alterations in shape, size, and density of adjacent structures. Loss of fat planes between the tumor and adjacent structures is not a sign of tumor invasion. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were found in the detection capacity of US in relation to CT and MR, which were similar. All three techniques were highly sensitive and specific only in the detection of distant abdominal metastases. In addition to the accuracy of these diagnostic modalities for the detection and staging of tumors, invasiveness, risks and cost should be considered in relation to relative costs and benefits.198-207poradultagedcancer invasioncancer stagingcomparative studydiagnostic imagingechographyfemalehumankidney tumormalemethodologynuclear magnetic resonance imagingpathologyprospective studysensitivity and specificitytomographyAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComparative StudyDiagnostic ImagingEnglish AbstractFemaleHumanKidney NeoplasmsMagnetic Resonance ImagingMaleMiddle AgeNeoplasm InvasivenessNeoplasm StagingProspective StudiesSensitivity and SpecificityTomography, X-Ray ComputedArtigo10.1590/S0104-42302001000300031S0104-42302001000300031Acesso aberto2-s2.0-00354053772-s2.0-0035405377.pdf