1989
DOI: 10.1016/s0022-5347(17)41103-7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Detection of Renal Masses: Sensitivities and Specificities of Excretory Urography/Linear Tomography, US, and CT

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0

Year Published

1999
1999
2014
2014

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(7 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
7
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The clinical suspicion was confirmed by ultrasound, that has an 85% sensitivity in detecting renal masses greater than 3 cm, which is equal to that of IVP with tomography; for lesions of at least 2 cm but smaller than 3 cm, ultrasound is more sensitive than IVP (82% vs 52%) (16).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…The clinical suspicion was confirmed by ultrasound, that has an 85% sensitivity in detecting renal masses greater than 3 cm, which is equal to that of IVP with tomography; for lesions of at least 2 cm but smaller than 3 cm, ultrasound is more sensitive than IVP (82% vs 52%) (16).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 92%
“…Diagnostic imaging of renal masses has evolved beyond intravenous urography and angiography. Although these techniques remain useful in initial screening for hematuria, ultrasonography and dynamic intravenous contrast-enhanced CT are more accurate in detecting and characterizing renal masses in adults [6,7]. In children, the differential diagnosis is relatively restricted, and many clinics proceed to nephrectomy on the basis of ultrasonographic findings alone (G.J.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The sensitivity of excretory urography is only 21%, 52%, and 85% for detecting mass es confirmed and characterized by CT as measuring less than 2 cm, 2-3 cm, and great er than 3 cm, respectively [6]. For the detec tion of TCC, CT urography also compares fa vorably with retrograde pyelography, which enables better urothelial opacification than excretory urography [11].…”
Section: Imaging Strategiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The prevalence of carcinoma among pa tients with macroscopic hematuria attending a hematuria clinic has been reported to be as high as 19% but more typically ranges be tween 3% and 6% [5,6]. Therefore, patients with macroscopic hematuria require com plete evaluation of the upper and lower uri nary tracts with upper urinary tract imaging and cystoscopy to exclude neoplasia.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%