Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and prospective validation of a novel weighted quantitative scoring system aimed at predicting the pathological features of cystic renal masses

  • Urogenital
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

To develop and prospectively validate a novel weighted quantitative scoring system based on CT findings, namely, the renal cyst index (RCI), aimed at preoperatively predicting the pathological features of cystic renal masses (CRMs).

Methods

The RCI was based on four critical features of CRMs: the cyst wall, septal, nodule, and cyst contents. These parameters were scored with 1, 2, or 3 points. Weight coefficients for these parameters were determined by the multivariable logistic regression. The odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) were used to summarise the results. The RCI was defined as the sum of these four weight coefficients. Malignancy risk prediction models were built based on the retrospective evaluation of 441 patients. We also compared the prediction ability of the RCI with the Bosniak classification in the 441 patients and applied these novel models to 152 masses resected in our institution to prospectively validate the efficiency of the RCI.

Results

The wall point (OR = 5.71 [95% CI = 1.734–18.808, p = 0.004, point = 2], OR = 12.665 [95% CI = 3.750–42.770, p < 0.001, point = 3]), septal point (OR = 3.325 [95% CI = 1.272–8.692, p = 0.014, point = 3]), nodule point (OR = 4.588 [95% CI = 1.429–14.729, p < 0.001, point = 2], OR = 17.032 [95% CI = 5.017–57.820, p = 0.010, point = 3]), content point (OR = 22.822 [95% CI = 1.041–495.995, p = 0.047, point = 2], OR = 2.723 [95% CI = 1.296–10.696, p = 0.015, point = 3]), and RCI (OR = 1.247 [95% CI = 1.197–1.299, p < 0.001]) were significantly associated with malignancy. Masses with an RCI < 6 were regarded as benign masses; masses with an RCI ≥ 10 were regarded as malignant masses. The malignancy risk of masses with an RCI > 6 but < 10 were determined by a nomogram. The prediction ability of the RCI was significantly superior to the Bosniak classification for Bosniak IIF and III masses (AUC: 0.912 vs. 0.753, p = 0.001). The RCI also accurately predicted the pathological features of 152 masses.

Conclusion

The RCI is a reliable quantitative scoring system in predicting the malignancy risk of CRMs, and it outperformed the Bosniak classification system in some ways.

Key Points

• The renal cyst index (RCI) is a useful weighted quantitative classification system based on CT findings for diagnosing cystic renal masses.

• The RCI outperforms the Bosniak classification system in some ways, especially for Bosniak IIF and III masses.

• Masses with an RCI < 6 can be regarded as a simple cyst, while those with an RCI > 10 can be regarded as malignant masses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

AUC:

Areas under the curve

ccRCC:

Clear cell renal cell carcinoma

CIs:

Confidence intervals

CMP:

Corticomedullary phase

CRM:

Cystic renal masses

CT:

Computerised tomography

ORs:

Odds ratios

PCP:

Pre-contrast phases

RCI:

Renal cyst index

ROC:

Receiver-operating characteristic

ROI:

Region of interest

References

  1. McGuire BB, Fitzpatrick JM (2010) The diagnosis and management of complex renal cysts. Curr Opin Urol 20:349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Quaia E, Bertolotto M, Cioffi V et al (2008) Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with unenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191:1239–1249

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Song C, Min GE, Song K et al (2009) Differential diagnosis of complex cystic renal mass using multiphase computerized tomography. J Urol 181:2446–2450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Silverman SG, Israel GM, Herts BR, Richie JP (2008) Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology 249:16–31

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bosniak MA (1986) The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology 158:1–10

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Bosniak MA, Rofsky NM (1996) Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. Radiology 200:286–287

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Koga S, Nishikido M, Inuzuka S et al (2000) An evaluation of Bosniak's radiological classification of cystic renal masses. BJU Int 86:607–609

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. O’Malley RL, Godoy G, Hecht EM, Stifelman MD, Taneja SS (2009) Bosniak category IIF designation and surgery for complex renal cysts. J Urology 182:1091–1095

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Weibl P, Klatte T, Waldert M, Remzi M (2012) Complex renal cystic masses: current standards and controversies. Int Urol Nephrol 44:13–18

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Siegel CL, McFarland EG, Brink JA, Fisher AJ, Humphrey P, Heiken JP (1997) CT of cystic renal masses: analysis of diagnostic performance and interobserver variation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 169:81381–81388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Sevcenco S, Spick C, Helbich TH et al (2017) Malignancy rates and diagnostic performance of the Bosniak classification for the diagnosis of cystic renal lesions in computed tomography—a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 27:2239–2247

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Weibl P, Hora M, Kollarik B, Shariat SF, Klatte T (2015) Management, pathology and outcomes of Bosniak category IIF and III cystic renal lesions. World J Urol 33:295–300

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Warren KS, McFarlane J (2005) The Bosniak classification of renal cystic masses. BJU Int 95:939–942

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Li G, Bilal I, Gentil-Perret A et al (2012) CA9 as a molecular marker for differential diagnosis of cystic renal tumors. Urol Oncol 30:463–468

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Jonisch AI, Rubinowitz AN, Mutalik PG, Israel GM (2007) Can high-attenuation renal cysts be differentiated from renal cell carcinoma at unenhanced CT? Radiology 243:445–450

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Park BK, Kim CK, Kim EY (2010) Differentiation of Bosniak categories IIF and III cystic masses: what radiologists should know. J Comput Assist Tomogr 34:847–854

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Han HH, Choi KH, Oh YT, Yang SC, Han WK (2012) Differential diagnosis of complex renal cysts based on lesion size along with the bosniak renal cyst classification. Yonsei Med J 53:729–733

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2005) An update of the Bosniak renal cyst classification system. Urology 66:484–488

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2003) Calcification in cystic renal masses: is it important in diagnosis? Radiology 226:47–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Smith AD, Remer EM, Cox KL et al (2012) Bosniak category IIF and III cystic renal lesions: outcomes and associations. Radiology 262:152–160

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Goenka AH, Remer EM, Smith AD, Obuchowski NA, Klink J, Campbell SC (2013) Development of a clinical prediction model for assessment of malignancy risk in Bosniak III renal lesions. Urology 82:630–635

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A (2007) G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 39:175–191

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. O'Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Oliva MR, Silverman SG (2011) Incidental finding of renal masses at unenhanced CT: prevalence and analysis of features for guiding management. AJR Am J Roentgenol 197:139–145

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Benjaminov O, Atri M, O’Malley M, Lobo K, Tomlinson G (2006) Enhancing component on CT to predict malignancy in cystic renal masses and interobserver agreement of different CT features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 186:665–672

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Vickers AJ, Elkin EB (2006) Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models. Med Decis Making 26:565–574

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing., 2016: https://www.R-project.org/

  27. Klink JC, Goenka AH, Remer EM, Smith AD, Obuchowski NA, Campbell SC (2012) Can we predict malignancy in Bosniak III renal lesions identified on multiphasic CT scan? J Clin Oncol 30:381

  28. Oh TH, Seo IY (2016) The role of Bosniak classification in malignant tumor diagnosis: A single institution experience. Investig Clin Urol 57:100–105

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Han KR, Janzen NK, McWhorter VC et al (2004) Cystic renal cell carcinoma: biology and clinical behavior. Urol Oncol 22:410–414

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Israel GM, Bosniak MA (2003) Follow-up CT of moderately complex cystic lesions of the kidney (Bosniak category IIF). AJR Am J Roentgenol 181:627–633

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Bisceglia M, Galliani CA, Senger C, Stallone C, Sessa A (2006) Renal cystic diseases. Adv Anat Pathol 13:26–56

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Mileto A, Sofue K, Marin D (2016) Imaging the renal lesion with dual-energy multidetector CT and multi-energy applications in clinical practice: what can it truly do for you? Eur Radiol 26:3677–3690

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The authors state that this work has not received any funding.

Author information

Author notes

  1. Yaohui Li and Chenchen Dai contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180th Fengling Rd, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Yaohui Li, Tingchang Bian, Zhuoyi Xiang, Minke He, Jiaqi Huang, Yanjun Zhu, Xiaoyi Hu, Shuai Jiang, Jianming Guo & Hang Wang

  2. Department of Radiology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180th Fengling Rd, Xuhui District, Shanghai, China

    Chenchen Dai & Jianjun Zhou

Authors
  1. Yaohui Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Chenchen Dai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tingchang Bian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jianjun Zhou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Zhuoyi Xiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Minke He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jiaqi Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yanjun Zhu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xiaoyi Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Shuai Jiang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jianming Guo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Hang Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Jianming Guo or Hang Wang.

Ethics declarations

Guarantor

The scientific guarantor of this publication is Hang Wang.

Conflict of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies, whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article.

Statistics and biometry

No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper.

Informed consent

Written informed consent was not required for this study because this study is a retrospective study and patients have full autonomy in decision-making.

Ethical approval

Institutional Review Board approval was not required because this study is a retrospective study and patients have full autonomy in decision-making.

Methodology

• retrospective

• diagnostic or prognostic study

• performed at one institution

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 2076 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Li, Y., Dai, C., Bian, T. et al. Development and prospective validation of a novel weighted quantitative scoring system aimed at predicting the pathological features of cystic renal masses. Eur Radiol 29, 1809–1819 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5722-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-018-5722-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation