No abstract

Objectives-There has been controversy on how frequently small echogenic masses are angiomyolipomas (AMLs) versus renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and how best to manage these echogenic masses. We performed this study to determine the etiologies of echogenic renal masses and compare them with prior publications to reach possible management decisions.Methods-This is a retrospective chart review of all consecutive renal ultrasound examinations performed at our institution between January 2015 and December 2016, with an ultrasound report finding containing the wording "echogenic" and "mass." This yielded 6462 total examinations. A total of 107 echogenic lesions met inclusion and exclusion criteria with correlative computed tomography, pathology, or long-term (>5 years) follow-up ultrasound. These lesions were stratified into those that were ≤2 cm and those that were >2 cm.Results-Almost all masses were benign, with the majority (79/107) being AMLs (73.8%); 64 of the 79 (81%) of the AMLs were in female patients. Two of the 107 masses were RCCs, and 1 mass was an oncocytic neoplasm. There were 77 of the masses that were ≤2 cm and these masses were benign except for one lesion of an oncocytic neoplasm. There were 30 of the 107 masses >2 cm, with 2 of the 30 (6.7%) being RCCs.Conclusions-Incidental echogenic renal masses are most commonly AMLs. However, some masses may be RCCs. In comparing our results with the prior literature, we feel that small echogenic renal masses ≤1 cm usually require no further evaluation, while masses greater than that size require other imaging.

No abstract

No abstract

The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of malignancy on contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CT) of the abdomen and pelvis in patients with unexplained, unintentional weight loss (UUWL).Methods: This is a retrospective review of 999 adult outpatient contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis for UUWL. Patients were stratified into 2 groups: (1) weight loss only (WLO, n = 222) and ( 2) UUWL with additional symptoms (UUWL+, n = 777). χ 2 test was performed to compare malignancy detection rate in the WLO and UUWL+ groups.Results: Prevalence of malignancy was 5.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.2%-7.1%; 55 of 999). Prevalence of malignancy in the WLO group was 2.3% (95% CI, 0.7%-5.2%; 5 of 222), lower than the prevalence of 6.2% (95% CI, 4.6%-8.1%; 48 of 777) in the UUWL+ group (P = 0.02). Prevalence of malignancy was lower in patients younger than 60 years in all patients and in the UUWL+ subgroup (P < 0.01 in both cases). Conclusions:There is low prevalence of malignancy on contrast-enhanced CT of the abdomen and pelvis in patients with UUWL, particularly in younger patients and those without additional symptoms.