Staging of Renal Cell Carcinoma

Variant: 1 Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
MRI head without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT chest without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
Bone scan whole body with SPECT or SPECT/CT area of interest	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
US abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	O
US abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRU without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Bone scan whole body	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT head without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Fluoride PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
A. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
B. Bone Scan Whole Body with SPECT or SPECT/CT Area of Interest

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
C. CT Abdomen

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
D. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
E. CT Chest

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
F. CT Head

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
G. CTU

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
H. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
I. Fluoride PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
J. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
K. MRI Abdomen

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
L. MRI Head

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
M. MRU

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
N. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Renal cell carcinoma. No contraindication to either iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
O. US Abdomen

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
A. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
B. Bone Scan Whole Body with SPECT or SPECT/CT Area of Interest

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
C. CT Abdomen

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
D. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
E. CT Chest

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
F. CT Head

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
G. CTU

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
H. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
I. Fluoride PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
J. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
K. MRI Abdomen

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
L. MRI Head

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
M. MRU

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
N. Radiography Chest

Variant 2: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication to both iodinated CT and gadolinium-based MR intravenous contrast. Staging.
O. US Abdomen

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
A. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
B. Bone Scan Whole Body with SPECT or SPECT/CT Area of Interest

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
C. CT Abdomen

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
D. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
E. CT Chest

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
F. CT Head

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
G. CTU

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
H. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
I. Fluoride PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
J. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
K. MRI Abdomen

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
L. MRI Head

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
M. MRU

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
N. Radiography Chest

Variant 3: Renal cell carcinoma. Contraindication only to iodinated CT intravenous contrast. Staging.
O. US Abdomen

Summary of Recommendations

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	American Cancer Society. Kidney Cancer. Available at: https://www.cancer.org/cancer/kidney-cancer.html.
2.	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Fuchs HE, Jemal A. Cancer Statistics, 2021. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:7-33.
3.	Li ZC, Zhai G, Zhang J, et al. Differentiation of clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinomas by all-relevant radiomics features from multiphase CT: a VHL mutation perspective. Eur Radiol. 29(8):3996-4007, 2019 Aug.
4.	Amin MB, Edge S, Greene F, et al. AJCC Cancer Staging Manual. 8th ed. New York, NY: Springer; 2017.
5.	Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: The 2019 Update. Eur Urol. 75(5):799-810, 2019 05.
6.	National Cancer Data Base (NCDB). Available at: http://www.facs.org/cancer/ncdb/index.html.
7.	Leslie JA, Prihoda T, Thompson IM. Serendipitous renal cell carcinoma in the post-CT era: continued evidence in improved outcomes. Urol Oncol. 2003;21(1):39-44.
8.	Flanigan RC, Campbell SC, Clark JI, Picken MM. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma. Curr Treat Options Oncol 2003;4:385-90.
9.	Griffin N, Gore ME, Sohaib SA. Imaging in metastatic renal cell carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;189(2):360-370.
10.	Elkassem AA, Allen BC, Sharbidre KG, Rais-Bahrami S, Smith AD. Update on the Role of Imaging in Clinical Staging and Restaging of Renal Cell Carcinoma Based on the AJCC 8th Edition, From the AJR Special Series on Cancer Staging. [Review]. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 217(3):541-555, 2021 Sep.
11.	Blacher E, Johnson DE, Haynie TP. Value of routine radionuclide bone scans in renal cell carcinoma. Urology, 1985; 26(5):432-434.
12.	Koga S, Tsuda S, Nishikido M, et al. The diagnostic value of bone scan in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 166(6):2126-8, 2001 Dec.
13.	NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Kidney Cancer. Version 2.2022. Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/kidney.pdf.
14.	Utsunomiya D, Shiraishi S, Imuta M, et al. Added value of SPECT/CT fusion in assessing suspected bone metastasis: comparison with scintigraphy alone and nonfused scintigraphy and CT. Radiology. 238(1):264-71, 2006 Jan.
15.	Hallscheidt PJ, Bock M, Riedasch G, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of staging renal cell carcinomas using multidetector-row computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging: a prospective study with histopathologic correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:333-9.
16.	Walter C, Kruessell M, Gindele A, Brochhagen HG, Gossmann A, Landwehr P. Imaging of renal lesions: evaluation of fast MRI and helical CT. Br J Radiol. 2003;76(910):696-703.
17.	Dalla-Palma L, Pozzi-Mucelli R. Problematic renal masses in ultrasonography and computed tomography. Clin Imaging. 1990;14(2):83-98.
18.	Fuccio C, Ceci F, Castellucci P, et al. Restaging clear cell renal carcinoma with 18F-FDG PET/CT. Clin Nucl Med. 39(6):e320-4, 2014 Jun.
19.	Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, Duan F, Quinn B, Shields AF. 18F-fluoride PET used for treatment monitoring of systemic cancer therapy: results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 56(2):222-8, 2015 Feb.
20.	Hillner BE, Siegel BA, Hanna L, et al. Impact of 18F-Fluoride PET on Intended Management of Patients with Cancers Other Than Prostate Cancer: Results from the National Oncologic PET Registry. J Nucl Med. 2014;55(7):1054-1061.
21.	Kuhn MJ, Hammer GM, Swenson LC, Youssef HT, Gleason TJ. MRI evaluation of "solitary" brain metastases with triple-dose gadoteridol: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT and conventional-dose gadopentetate dimeglumine MRI studies in the same patients. Comput Med Imaging Graph. 1994;18(5):391-399.
22.	Martinez de Llano SR, Delgado-Bolton RC, Jimenez-Vicioso A, et al. [Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET in renal cell carcinoma]. Rev Esp Med Nucl. 2007;26(1):19-29.
23.	Park JW, Jo MK, Lee HM. Significance of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-emission tomography/computed tomography for the postoperative surveillance of advanced renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2009; 103(5):615-619.
24.	Seute T, Leffers P, ten Velde GP, Twijnstra A. Detection of brain metastases from small cell lung cancer: consequences of changing imaging techniques (CT versus MRI). Cancer. 2008;112(8):1827-1834.
25.	Steffens S, Junker K, Roos FC, et al. Small renal cell carcinomas--how dangerous are they really? Results of a large multicenter study. Eur J Cancer. 2014;50(4):739-745.
26.	Tsui KH, Shvarts O, Smith RB, Figlin RA, deKernion JB, Belldegrun A. Prognostic indicators for renal cell carcinoma: a multivariate analysis of 643 patients using the revised 1997 TNM staging criteria. J Urol. 2000;163(4):1090-1095; quiz 1295.
27.	Wang HY, Ding HJ, Chen JH, et al. Meta-analysis of the diagnostic performance of [18F]FDG-PET and PET/CT in renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Imaging. 2012;12:464-474.
28.	Ates F, Akyol I, Sildiroglu O, et al. Preoperative imaging in renal masses: does size on computed tomography correlate with actual tumor size? Int Urol Nephrol 2010;42:861-6.
29.	Kurta JM, Thompson RH, Kundu S, et al. Contemporary imaging of patients with a renal mass: does size on computed tomography equal pathological size? BJU Int 2009;103:24-7.
30.	Irani J, Humbert M, Lecocq B, Pires C, Lefebvre O, Dore B. Renal tumor size: comparison between computed tomography and surgical measurements. Eur Urol 2001;39:300-3.
31.	Goel MC, Mohammadi Y, Sethi AS, Brown JA, Sundaram CP. Pathologic upstaging after laparoscopic radical nephrectomy. J Endourol 2008;22:2257-61.
32.	Jeffery NN, Douek N, Guo DY, Patel MI. Discrepancy between radiological and pathological size of renal masses. BMC Urol. 2011;11:2.
33.	Catalano C, Fraioli F, Laghi A, et al. High-resolution multidetector CT in the preoperative evaluation of patients with renal cell carcinoma. AJR 2003;180:1271-7.
34.	Hallscheidt P, Wagener N, Gholipour F, et al. Multislice computed tomography in planning nephron-sparing surgery in a prospective study with 76 patients: comparison of radiological and histopathological findings in the infiltration of renal structures. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2006;30:869-74.
35.	Nazim SM, Ather MH, Hafeez K, Salam B. Accuracy of multidetector CT scans in staging of renal carcinoma. Int J Surg. 9(1):86-90, 2011.
36.	Sokhi HK, Mok WY, Patel U. Stage T3a renal cell carcinoma: staging accuracy of CT for sinus fat, perinephric fat or renal vein invasion. Br J Radiol. 88(1045):20140504, 2015 Jan.
37.	Renard AS, Nedelcu C, Paisant A, et al. Is multidetector CT-scan able to detect T3a renal tumor before surgery?. Scand J Urol. 53(5):350-355, 2019 Oct.
38.	Landman J, Park JY, Zhao C, et al. Preoperative Computed Tomography Assessment for Perinephric Fat Invasion: Comparison With Pathological Staging. Journal of Computer Assisted Tomography. 41(5):702-707, 2017 Sep/Oct.
39.	Sawai Y, Kinouchi T, Mano M, et al. Ipsilateral adrenal involvement from renal cell carcinoma: retrospective study of the predictive value of computed tomography. Urology 2002;59:28-31.
40.	Blakely S, Bratslavsky G, Zaytoun O, Daugherty M, Landas SK, Shapiro O. Preoperative cross-sectional imaging allows for avoidance of unnecessary adrenalectomy during RCC surgery. Urol Oncol 2015;33:22 e23-22 e27.
41.	Nason GJ, Aslam A, Giri SK. Predictive Ability of Preoperative CT Scan in Determining Whether the Adrenal Gland is Spared at Radical Nephrectomy. Curr Urol 2016;9:143-47.
42.	Tadayoni A, Paschall AK, Malayeri AA. Assessing lymph node status in patients with kidney cancer. Transl Androl Urol 2018;7:766-73.
43.	Corwin MT, Lamba R, Wilson M, McGahan JP. Renal cell carcinoma metastases to the pancreas: value of arterial phase imaging at MDCT. Acta Radiol. 54(3):349-54, 2013 Apr 01.
44.	Jain Y, Liew S, Taylor MB, Bonington SC. Is dual-phase abdominal CT necessary for the optimal detection of metastases from renal cell carcinoma? Clin Radiol. 2011; 66(11):1055-1059.
45.	Ng CS, Loyer EM, Iyer RB, David CL, DuBrow RA, Charnsangavej C. Metastases to the pancreas from renal cell carcinoma: findings on three-phase contrast-enhanced helical CT. AJR 1999;172:1555-9.
46.	Raptopoulos VD, Blake SP, Weisinger K, Atkins MB, Keogan MT, Kruskal JB. Multiphase contrast-enhanced helical CT of liver metastases from renal cell carcinoma. Eur Radiol 2001;11:2504-9.
47.	Fielding JR, Aliabadi N, Renshaw AA, Silverman SG. Staging of 119 patients with renal cell carcinoma: the yield and cost-effectiveness of pelvic CT. AJR. 1999; 172(1):23-25.
48.	Khaitan A, Gupta NP, Hemal AK, Dogra PN, Seth A, Aron M. Is there a need for pelvic CT scan in cases of renal cell carcinoma? Int Urol Nephrol. 2002; 33(1):13-15.
49.	Canvasser NE, Stouder K, Lay AH, et al. The Usefulness of Chest X-Rays for T1a Renal Cell Carcinoma Surveillance. J Urol. 196(2):321-6, 2016 08.
50.	Winter H, Meimarakis G, Angele MK, et al. Tumor infiltrated hilar and mediastinal lymph nodes are an independent prognostic factor for decreased survival after pulmonary metastasectomy in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 2010; 184(5):1888-1894.
51.	Mano R, Vertosick E, Sankin AI, et al. Subcentimeter pulmonary nodules are not associated with disease progression in patients with renal cell carcinoma. J Urol 2015;193:776-82.
52.	Thompson RH, Hill JR, Babayev Y, et al. Metastatic renal cell carcinoma risk according to tumor size. J Urol 2009;182:41-5.
53.	Umbreit EC, Shimko MS, Childs MA, et al. Metastatic potential of a renal mass according to original tumour size at presentation. BJU Int 2012;109:190-4; discussion 94.
54.	Larcher A, Dell'Oglio P, Fossati N, et al. When to perform preoperative chest computed tomography for renal cancer staging. BJU Int. 120(4):490-496, 2017 10.
55.	Voss J, Drake T, Matthews H, et al. Chest computed tomography for staging renal tumours: validation and simplification of a risk prediction model from a large contemporary retrospective cohort. BJU International. 125(4):561-567, 2020 04.
56.	Kotecha RR, Flippot R, Nortman T, et al. Prognosis of Incidental Brain Metastases in Patients With Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2021;19:432-38.
57.	Naito S, Narisawa T, Kato T, et al. Clinical utility of head computed tomography scan during systemic therapy for metastatic renal cell carcinoma. International Journal of Urology. 28(4):450-456, 2021 04.
58.	Escudier B, Porta C, Schmidinger M, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol 2014;25 Suppl 3:iii49-56.
59.	Nakanishi Y, Kitajima K, Yamada Y, et al. Diagnostic performance of 11C-choline PET/CT and FDG PET/CT for staging and restaging of renal cell cancer. Ann Nucl Med. 32(10):658-668, 2018 Dec.
60.	Gundogan C, Cermik TF, Erkan E, et al. Role of contrast-enhanced 18F-FDG PET/CT imaging in the diagnosis and staging of renal tumors. Nucl Med Commun 2018;39:1174-82.
61.	Gerety EL, Lawrence EM, Wason J, et al. Prospective study evaluating the relative sensitivity of 18F-NaF PET/CT for detecting skeletal metastases from renal cell carcinoma in comparison to multidetector CT and 99mTc-MDP bone scintigraphy, using an adaptive trial design. Ann Oncol. 26(10):2113-8, 2015 Oct.
62.	Ergen FB, Hussain HK, Caoili EM, et al. MRI for preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma using the 1997 TNM classification: comparison with surgical and pathologic staging. AJR 2004;182:217-25.
63.	Kamel IR, Hochman MG, Keogan MT, et al. Accuracy of breath-hold magnetic resonance imaging in preoperative staging of organ-confined renal cell carcinoma. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2004;28:327-32.
64.	Roy C, Sr., El Ghali S, Buy X, et al. Significance of the pseudocapsule on MRI of renal neoplasms and its potential application for local staging: a retrospective study. AJR 2005;184:113-20.
65.	Lal H, Singh P, Jain M, et al. Role of MRI in staging and surgical planning and its clinicopathological correlation in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Indian J Radiol Imaging 2019;29:277-83.
66.	Hallscheidt PJ, Fink C, Haferkamp A, et al. Preoperative staging of renal cell carcinoma with inferior vena cava thrombus using multidetector CT and MRI: prospective study with histopathological correlation. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2005;29:64-8.
67.	Aslam Sohaib SA, Teh J, Nargund VH, Lumley JS, Hendry WF, Reznek RH. Assessment of tumor invasion of the vena caval wall in renal cell carcinoma cases by magnetic resonance imaging. J Urol 2002;167:1271-5.
68.	Zini L, Destrieux-Garnier L, Leroy X, et al. Renal vein ostium wall invasion of renal cell carcinoma with an inferior vena cava tumor thrombus: prediction by renal and vena caval vein diameters and prognostic significance. J Urol 2008;179:450-4; discussion 54.
69.	Adams LC, Ralla B, Bender YY, et al. Renal cell carcinoma with venous extension: prediction of inferior vena cava wall invasion by MRI. Cancer Imaging 2018;18:17.
70.	Levine E, Maklad NF, Rosenthal SJ, Lee KR, Weigel J. Comparison of computed tomography and ultrasound in abdominal staging of renal cancer. Urology 1980;16:317-22.
71.	Karp W, Ekelund L, Olafsson G, Olsson A. Computed tomography, angiography and ultrasound in staging of renal carcinoma. Acta Radiol Diagn (Stockh) 1981;22:625-33.
72.	Sun Y, Wang W, Zhang Q, Zhao X, Xu L, Guo H. Intraoperative ultrasound: technique and clinical experience in robotic-assisted renal partial nephrectomy for endophytic renal tumors. Int Urol Nephrol 2021;53:455-63.
73.	Gunelli R, Fiori M, Salaris C, et al. The role of intraoperative ultrasound in small renal mass robotic enucleation. Arch Ital Urol Androl 2016;88:311-13.
74.	Bonsib SM. The renal sinus is the principal invasive pathway: a prospective study of 100 renal cell carcinomas. Am J Surg Pathol. 2004;28(12):1594-1600
75.	Margulis V, Tamboli P, Matin SF, Meisner M, Swanson DA, Wood CG. Redefining pT3 renal cell carcinoma in the modern era: a proposal for a revision of the current TNM primary tumor classification system. Cancer. 2007;109(12):2439-2444.
76.	American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.