OBJECTIVE: To investigate the reproducibility and interobserver agreement for R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry scoring system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two independent radiologists retrospectively analyzed 46 consecutive patients with renal masses, between 2008 and 2012, using the R.E.N.A.L. nephrometry score (RENAL-NS), which is based on the evaluation of five anatomical features of the tumor, as evaluated with computed tomography or magnetic resonance imaging: Radius, Exophytic/endophytic properties, Nearness to the collecting system, Anterior or posterior descriptor, and Location relative to the polar line. Tumor complexity was graded as low, intermediate, or high. The interobserver agreement was calculated for the total score and for the score for each parameter. Surgical excision of the tumors was used as the standard of reference. RESULTS: The interobserver agreement for each of the RENAL-NS parameters, respectively, a hilar location, and the total score was 98%, 80%, 100%, 89%, 85%, 89%, and 93% of patients, corresponding to kappa values of 0.96, 0.65, 1.00, 0.75, 0.72, 0.78, and 0.88, respectively. The Nearness, Radius, and total score showed the best agreement. For the cases that were discordant in terms of the final score, no major implications in surgical planning were observed. CONCLUSION: The RENAL-NS is a structured, useful system to assess the anatomical features of renal tumors. It is easily applicable and reproducible, even for less experienced radiologists.

Keywords: Carcinoma, renal cell; Kidney neoplasms; Neoplasm staging; Computed tomography; Magnetic resonance imaging.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether evaluating the mean apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) together with capsular contact (CC) adds value in the prediction of microscopic extracapsular extension (ECE) of prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Between January 2012 and December 2016, 383 patients underwent multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (mpMRI) of the prostate. A total of 67 patients were selected for inclusion. Two radiologists (observers 1 and 2), working independently, performed qualitative and quantitative analyses of ECE, macroscopic ECE, and microscopic ECE. A third radiologist assessed the correlation with the clinical data, and two experienced pathologists reviewed all histopathological findings. RESULTS: Among the 67 patients, mpMRI showed lesions that were confined to the capsule in 44 (66.7%), had microscopic ECE in 12 (17.9%), and had macroscopic ECE in 11 (16.4%). There were no significant differences, in terms of the diagnostic accuracy, as measured by determining the area under the curve (AUC), of CC on T2-weighted images (CCT2), CC on diffusion-weighted imaging (CCDWI), and the mean ADC for the prediction of microscopic ECE, between observer 1 (AUC of 0.728, 0.691, and 0.675, respectively) and observer 2 (AUC of 0.782, 0.821, and 0.799, respectively). Combining the mean ADC with the CCT2 or CCDWI did not improve the diagnostic accuracy for either observer. There was substantial interobserver agreement for the qualitative evaluation of ECE, as demonstrated by the kappa statistic, which was 0.77 (0.66–0.87). The diagnostic accuracy (AUC) of the qualitative assessment for predicting microscopic ECE was 0.745 for observer 1 and 0.804 for observer 2, and the difference was less than significant. In a multivariate analysis, none of clinical or imaging parameters were found to be associated with ECE. CONCLUSION: For the detection of microscopic ECE on mpMRI, CC appears to have good diagnostic accuracy, especially if the observer has considerable experience. Adding the mean ADC to the CCT2 or CCDWI does not seem to provide any significant improvement in that diagnostic accuracy.

Keywords: Prostatic neoplasms; Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Neoplasm staging.