Total views : 242

A Survey of Different Imaging Modalities for Renal Cancer


  • Department of Computer Science and Engineering, University Institute of Engineering and Technology, Punjab University, Chandigarh – 160014, India


Objectives: Renal cancer is among the ten most common forms of cancer and in this article we explored and compared the abilities of different renal imaging modalities in the diagnosis of renal carcinoma. Methods/Statistical Analysis: The visual appearance of various abnormalities have been observed and analyzed on different imaging modalities as different kinds of tumors appears differently in images. Findings: In this study, the capabilities of the various renal imaging modalities have been discussed which are presently used in clinical setups. It can be observed from analysis and discussion that no solitary technique is fully worthwhile in all areas of controlling renal cancer. Hence, research is constantly going on to upgrade the existing modalities and develop new imaging techniques based on the chemical, physical and biological characteristics of malignant tissue that distinguishes it from normal benign tissues. At present, innovations in modality development are headed to imaging at the molecular level which helps to understand the growth of cancer that in turn will suggest us to find the possible cure for this disease. Application/Improvements: This can help the beginners to understand which modality should be preferred for diagnosis of different kinds of diseases as different imaging technique is used to visualize distinct abnormalities


Computed Tomography, Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI), Nuclear Medicine, Renal Carcinoma, Ultrasonography.

Full Text:

 |  (PDF views: 190)


  • Cancer Facts and Figures. 2015. Available from:
  • Kidney cancer statistics. 2015. Available from:
  • Israel GM, Bosniak MA. How I Do It: Evaluating Renal Masses. Radiology, 2005 Aug; 236(2): 441–50.
  • Hélénon O, Correas JM. Ultrasound and Doppler in kidney cancer.Imaging of Kidney Cancer. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer; 2006.
  • Wilkinson C, Palit V, Bardapure M, Thomas J, BrowningA J, Gill K, Biyani C S. Adult multilocular cystic nephroma: Report of six cases with clinical, radio-pathologic correlation and review of literature.Urology Annals. 2013; 5(1):13–7.
  • Bechtold RE, Zagoria RJ. Imaging approach to staging of renal cell carcinoma.Urologic Clinics of North America.1997 Aug; 24(3):507–22.
  • Birnbaum BA, Jacobs JE, Ramchandani P. Multiphasic renal CT: Comparison of renal mass enhancement during the corticomedullary and nephrographic phases.Radiology. 1996 Sep; 200(3): 753–58.
  • Kopka L, Fischer U, Zoeller G, Schmidt C, Ringert RH, Grabbe E. Dual-phase helical CT of the kidney: Value of the corticomedullary and nephrographic phase for evaluation of renal lesions and preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma. The Journal of Urology. 1998 Oct; 160(4):1573–78.
  • Szolar DH, Kammerhuber F, Altziebler S, Tillich M, Breinl E, Fotter R, Schreyer HH. Multiphasic helical CT of the kidney: Increased conspicuity for detection and characterization of small (< 3-cm) renal masses.Radiology. 1997 Jan; 202(1):211–7.
  • Yuh BI, Cohan RH. Different phases of renal enhancement: role in detecting and characterizing renal masses during helical CT.American Journal of Roentgenology. 1999 Sep;173(3):747-55.
  • Campbell SC, Novick AC, Belldegrun A, Blute ML, Chow GK, Derweesh IH, Faraday MM, Kaouk JH, Leveillee RJ, Matin SF, Russo P. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. The Journal of Urology. 2009 Oct; 182(4):1271–9.
  • Ljungberg B, Cowan NC, Hanbury DC, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, Merseburger AS, Patard JJ, Mulders PF, Sinescu IC. EAU guidelines on renal cell carcinoma: The update.European Urology. 2010 Sept; 58(3):398–406.
  • Bluth EI, Bush WH, Amis ES, Bigongiari LR, Choyke PL, Fritzsche PJ, Holder LE, Newhouse JH, Sandler CM, Segal AJ, Resnick M I. Indeterminate renal masses. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology. 2000 Jun; 215:747–52.
  • Choyke PL, Amis Jr ES, Bigongiari LR, Bluth EI, Bush Jr WH, Fritzsche P, Holder L, Newhouse JH, Sandler CM, Segal AJ, Resnick M I. Renal cell carcinoma staging. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria. Radiology. 2000 Jun; 215:721–5.
  • Bae KT. Technical aspects of contrast delivery in advanced CT. Applied Radiology. 2003 Dec; 32(12):12–9.
  • Macari M, Bosniak MA. Delayed CT to Evaluate Renal Masses Incidentally Discovered at Contrast-enhanced CT: Demonstration of Vascularity with Deenhancement. Radiology.1999 Dec; 213(3): 674–80.
  • Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, Napoli A, Pediconi F, Danti M, Nardis P, Passariello R. High-resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2003 May; 180(5):1271–7.
  • Hallscheidt PJ, Bock M, Riedasch G, Zuna I, Schoenberg SO, Autschbach F, Soder M, Noeldge G. Diagnostic accuracy of staging renal cell carcinomas using multidetector-row computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: A prospective study with histopathologic correlation. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 2004 May; 28(3):333–9.
  • Johnson CD, Dunnick NR, Cohan RH, Illescas FF. Renal adenocarcinoma: CT staging of 100 tumors. American Journal of Roentgenology. 1987 Jan; 148(1):59–63.
  • Sheth S, Scatarige JC, Horton KM, Corl FM, Fishman EK. Current Concepts in the Diagnosis and Management of Renal Cell Carcinoma: Role of Multidetector CT and Three-dimensional CT.Radiographics. 2001 Oct; 21(suppl_1):237–54.
  • Dow CA J, Choyke PL, Jennings SB, Linehan WM, Thakore KN, Walther MM. Small (< or= 3-cm) renal masses: Detection with CT versus US and pathologic correlation. Radiology. 1996 Mar; 198(3):785–8.
  • Imaging in Kidney Cancer. 2006. Available from:
  • Rofsky NM, Bosniak MA. MR imaging in the evaluation of small (< or= 3.0 cm) renal masses. Magnetic Resonance Imaging Clinics of North America. 1997 Feb; 5(1):67–81.
  • Zhang J, Mazaheri Tehrani Y, Wang L, Ishill NM, Schwartz LH, Hricak H. Renal Masses: Characterization with Diffusion-weighted MR Imaging—A Preliminary Experience.Radiology. 2008 May; 247(2):458–64.
  • Sandrasegaran K, Sundaram CP, Ramaswamy R, Akisik FM, Rydberg MP, Lin C, Aisen AM. Usefulness of diffusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of renal masses. American Journal of Roentgenology. 2010 Feb; 194(2):438–45.
  • Reznek RH. Imaging in the staging of renal cell carcinoma. European Radiology. 1996 Apr; 6(2):120–8.
  • Zagoria RJ, Bechtold RE. The role of imaging in staging renal adenocarcinoma. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI.1997. p. 91–9.
  • Warburg O. On the origin of cancer cells.Science.1956 Feb; 123(3191):309–14.
  • Warburg O, Wind F, Negelein E. The metabolism of tumors in the body. The Journal of General Physiology. 1927 Mar; 8(6):519–30.
  • Miyakita H, Tokunaga M, Onda H, Usui Y, Kinoshita H, Kawamura N, Yasuda S. Significance of 18F‐fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography (FDG‐PET) for detection of renal cell carcinoma and immune histochemical glucose transporter 1 (GLUT‐1) expression in the cancer. International Journal of Urology. 2002 Jan;9(1):15–8.
  • Kang DE, White RL, Zuger JH, Sasser HC, Teigland CM. Clinical use of fluorodeoxyglucose F 18 positron emission tomography for detection of renal cell carcinoma. The Journal of Urology. 2004 May 31; 171(5):1806–9.
  • Schiepers C. PET and PET/CT in Kidney Cancer. Imaging of Kidney Cancer. Springer Berlin Heidelberg. 2006. p.89–101.


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.