CT differentiation of large exophytic @entity8 and XXXX .

@entity1 @entity8 @entity359 @entity548 @entity2916 @entity27418 @entity1821
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of our study was to describe the imaging findings and CT characteristics that lead to accurate distinction of large exophytic @entity8 from @entity27418 , which at times can be confused on imaging studies and even at pathologic examination. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed CT images of 15 large exophytic @entity8 and 12 well-differentiated @entity1821 . Pathologic correlation was available for six of 15 @entity359 and all of the @entity1821 . All examinations were evaluated for lesion size, renal @entity8 , lesion encapsulation or margination, associated @entity548 , and additional @entity359 . The records of @entity1 with @entity2916 or the forme fruste of that condition were excluded from the study. RESULTS: The average size of the @entity359 was 14 x 10 cm. They showed a renal parenchymal defect (n = 15), enlarged vessels (n = 12), renal displacement (n = 14), good margination without a distinct capsule (n = 14), @entity548 (n = 1), and additional (one or two) @entity359 (n = 4). The average size of the @entity1821 was 18 x 11.6 cm. They showed enlarged vessels (n = 3), renal displacement (n = 11), and encapsulation (n = 4); none showed a renal parenchymal defect, @entity548 , or associated @entity359 . CONCLUSION: Although large @entity359 and well-differentiated @entity27418 may have similar appearances on imaging, careful evaluation for a @entity8 combined with the presence of enlarged vessels in @entity359 should enable accurate differentiation in almost all cases. Achieving an accurate diagnosis can have a significant impact on @entity1 treatment.
