Skip to main content
Download PDF

Rate of benign histology after resection of suspected renal cell carcinoma: multicenter comparison between Korea and the United States

BMC Cancer volume 24, Article number: 216 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

In the United States, the rate of benign histology among resected renal tumors suspected to be malignant is increasing. We evaluated the rates in the Republic of Korea and assessed the racial effect using recent multi-institutional Korean-United States data.

Methods

We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study of 11,529 patients (8,812 from The Republic of Korea and 2,717 from the United States) and compared the rates of benign histology between the two countries. To evaluate the racial effect, we divided the patients into Korean, Asian in the US, and Non-Asian in the US.

Results

The rates of benign histology and small renal masses in Korean patients were significantly lower than that in United States patients (6.3% vs. 14.3%, p < 0.001) and (≤ 4 cm, 7.6% vs. 19.5%, p < 0.001), respectively. Women, incidentaloma, partial nephrectomy, minimally invasive surgery, and recent surgery were associated with a higher rate of benign histology than others.

Conclusions

In Korea, the rate of benign histology among resected renal tumors was significantly lower than that in the United States. This disparity could be caused by environmental or cultural differences rather than racial differences. Our findings suggest that re-evaluating current context-specific standards of care is necessary to avoid overtreatment.

Peer Review reports

Background

A recent systematic review has demonstrated substantial rates of benign histology (13.3%) in the United States (US) among resected renal tumors suspected to be malignant on preoperative imaging [1]. Furthermore, the estimated number of resected benign renal masses in the US increased by 82% between 2000 and 2009, from 3,098 to 5,624 [1]. Overtreatment is a serious medical issue that should be addressed with caution. The socioeconomic burden should be reduced, as the incidence of misdiagnosed small renal masses (SRMs) is increasing worldwide. However, the current guidelines do not strongly support any clinical prudence [2,3,4]. Thus, the current standard of care should be critically re-evaluated.

Interestingly, the Korean experience is remarkably different, with lower rates of benign histology [5]. The rate of benign histology was 8.3%, and it was significantly higher among tumors ≤ 4 cm (13.2%) than those > 4 cm (4.5%, p < 0.001) of 1,702 tumors considered in a previous multi-center studies [5]. Several Japanese and Chinese studies found similar trends [6, 7].

The objective of this study was to confirm the disparity in the rate of benign histology among resected renal tumors suspected to be malignant based on imaging studies between Koreans and Americans, and to determine the potential racial effect of this phenomenon using current multi-institutional Korean-US data. The ultimate purpose of this study was to gain insights into reducing this type of hazardous overtreatment.

Materials and methods

Patient population and study design

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of Seoul National University Hospital (H-1608-034-783) in Korea and the US. We conducted a multi-institutional retrospective study. This study included nine tertiary, nationwide, academic hospitals in Korea and Johns Hopkins Hospital in the US. Although Johns Hopkins is a single institution, it is a large national referral hospital.

Patients who underwent resection of renal tumors due to suspected renal cell carcinoma (RCC) based on preoperative imaging were eligible for the study. Patients with clinical stage T1-4N0M0 were included, and patients with missing essential data were excluded from the study. We collected data on all possible cases of radical and partial nephrectomy, regardless of the final pathology, in consecutive series from each hospital between 1988 and 2015. In total, 11,529 patients (8,812 from Korea and 2,717 from the US) were included in the analysis.

Study outcomes

The primary outcome was the rate of benign histology in the final pathology. We did not perform a central pathologic review because experienced pathologists will unlikely disagree on the distinction between malignant and benign renal tumors [8].

Data collection and statistical analysis

We collected essential data on age at surgery, sex, race, pathology result (benign/malignancy), tumor size (largest pathologic diameter, if the unavailable size on computed tomography [9, 10] scan could be replaced), year of surgery, surgical method (open/laparoscopic/robotic), and type of surgery (partial/radical). Information on patients’ height, weight, body mass index (BMI), American Society of Anesthesiologists score, incidentaloma (yes/no), preoperative biopsy (yes/no), results of the previous biopsy (benign/malignancy/insufficient for diagnosis), preoperative clinical T stage, preoperative serum creatinine level, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), pathologic TNM stage, Fuhrman grade, and histologic subtype (RCC subtype and specific benign histology) were collected as the basic data set.

We compared the rates of benign histology in total and according to the tumor size (≤ 2.0, 2.1–4.0, 4.1–7.0, and > 7.0 cm) between Korean and American patients. Subgroup analyses were performed according to age (< 65 years and ≥ 65 years), sex, incidentaloma (yes/no), preoperative biopsy (yes/no), surgical method (open/laparoscopic/robotic), type of surgery (partial/radical), year of surgery (< 2000, 2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2015), and tumor size (≤ 2.0, 2.1–4.0, 4.1–7.0 and > 7.0 cm). Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed for benign histology on the final pathology using clinically significant variables. Histological subtypes were also evaluated in these two countries. To evaluate the racial effect, we divided the patients into Korean, Asian in the US, and Non-Asian in the US, and compared the rates among the groups.

Propensity-score matching was performed to adjust powerful confounding factors. One-to-one matching without replacement was performed using the nearest-neighbor match on the logit of the propensity for three variables: age, sex, and tumor.

Multilevel logistic regression was performed to quantify the observed variation attributable to the institutional effect of clustering in the multilevel mixed-effect models. The median odds ratios (ORs) for random institutional effects were used to quantify the magnitude of the effect of clustering [11]. The median OR was used to quantify the increase in risk if one were to move from one institution to another institution with a higher risk for the benign histology [12].

For ad hoc analysis, we examined the correlation between the number of dedicated uro-radiologists in the hospital and the rate of benign histology among Korean institutions. We compared the rates using the chi-squared test and the significance level was set at p < 0.05.

Results

The basic patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. Korean patients were younger, more male-dominant, and had smaller tumors than those of US patients. The rate of benign histology among Korean patients was significantly lower than that among US patients (6.3% vs. 14.3%, p < 0.001). Table 2 shows the rates of benign histology according to the tumor size. The rates of benign histology in Korean patients were significantly lower than those of US patients for all size categories (p < 0.001), except for the tumor size > 7 cm. On correlation plot also, the linear correlation was prominent in tumors measuring 7 cm or less (Supplementary Fig. 1).

Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the patients
Full size table
Table 2 Rate of benign histology of surgically-excised renal masses in the US and Korea
Full size table

Among benign tumors, angiomyolipomas were the most common (46.1%) in Korean patients, and oncocytomas were the most common (50.8%) in US patients. For further analysis, propensity score was matched (age, sex, and tumor size) and the result showed similar pattern as the entire cohort, showing significantly lower rates of benign histology in Korean patients (p < 0.001), except for the tumor size > 7 cm (Supplementary Tables 1 and Supplementary Table 2).

Smaller tumor size, incidentaloma, partial nephrectomy, minimally invasive surgery (laparoscopic or robotic surgery), recent surgeries, and women were associated with a higher rate of benign histology than the others (Tables 3 and 4, and Fig. 1). After adjusting for other factors, the patient’s country was still a significant risk factor (Table 4). In the hierarchical regression analysis, there was a 10% variation between institutions in the rates of benign histology, as depicted by the interclass correlation. (Supplementary Table 3). The median OR was 1.76, indicating that a randomly selected patient at any given institution had 1.76-fold higher odds of being diagnosed with benign histology after surgery than an identical patient at a different random hospital.

Table 3 Subgroup analysis on rate of benign histology
Full size table
Table 4 Univariate and multivariable logistic regression analyses for benign histology on final pathology
Full size table
Fig. 1
figure 1

Stacked horizontal bar charts depicting benign histology rates according to the clinical categories shown in Table 3

Full size image

The rate of benign histology in patients who underwent preoperative biopsy did not differ from that in patients who did not (4.0% vs. 6.6%, p = 0.165) (Table 3; Fig. 1). Among patients who underwent preoperative biopsy (n = 175), 10 (5.7%) had non-diagnostic results, 128 (73.1%) had malignancy, and 37 (21.1%) had benign or favored a benign diagnosis based on biopsy pathology. However, 32 (86.5%, 32/37) patients had malignancy in their final pathology despite the benign biopsy results. The rate of benign histology in the non-diagnostic cases was 20% (2/10).

The rate of benign histology among SRMs in Asian patients in the US showed a higher tendency with borderline significance than that in Korean patients (15.8% (6/38) vs. 7.6% (451/5897), p = 0.061). It was similar to that in non-Asians in the US (15.8% vs. 19.6% (278/1415), p = 0.554).

The rate of benign histology was inversely correlated with the number of dedicated uro-radiologists in Korean hospitals (n = 3; 2.4%, n = 2; 7.3%, n = 1; 8.6%, n = 0.5; 17.5%, and n = 0; 24.6%, p < 0.001) (Fig. 2). After adjusting for other factors (age, sex, and tumor size), the number of uro-radiologists was significant risk factor (Supplementary Table 4). The risk of benign histology decreased exponentially for each additional uro-radiologist.

Fig. 2
figure 2

The rate of benign histology according to Korean institutions and number of dedicated uro-radiologist in each hospital

Full size image

Discussion

The current US data in this study showed that similar rates of benign histology were reported in previous literatures [1]. , [10, 13] These rates were significantly higher than those in Koreans in all tumor size categories, except for tumors > 7 cm. Suppose the rate of benign histology among Asian patients in the US is similar to that of Koreans and significantly lower than that of non-Asian patients in the US, racial differences could be considered a major cause of this disparity. However, the rate of benign histology among Asians in the US was not different from that among non-Asians. Although the statistical power was limited because of the small number of Asian populations in the US, the benign histology rate was sufficiently higher than that in Koreans with borderline significance. Thus, we believe that differences in practice patterns and accessibility to medical services are major factors. Still, we should be very prudent for this conclusion for various environmental and modifiable risk factors. Urologists’ and patients’ attitudes regarding SRMs and the medicolegal situation may also contribute to the results. International data were demonstrated to be lower than those of the US in a previous meta-analyses [1]. Western countries, such as the Netherlands and Canada, have lower benign histology rates than the US and higher benign histology rates than Asian countries [13, 14]. However, there were wide variations among countries, and studies in each country.

The most likely explanation for this is the commitment of uro-radiologists to the diagnostic process. Most tertiary hospitals in Korea have assigned uro-radiologists, who mainly work in urologic clinics. They typically perform kidney ultrasonography (USG) by themselves and interpret kidney CT and magnetic resonance images (MRI). In contrast, professional sonographers may replace radiologists in many hospitals in the US. Furthermore, the interpretation of kidney images may not be performed solely by the assigned uro-radiologists in the US. There is no designated all-time uro-radiologist at Johns Hopkins Hospital also who participated in this study. Differentiation of SRMs as RCC or benign tumors in several types of medical images is a highly specialized area and requires specialized knowledge, which is challenging even for uro-radiologists [15]. Indeed, the number of dedicated uro-radiologists in a hospital was negatively correlated with the rate of benign histology after surgery in this study. It was observed that for each additional uro-radiologist, the benign histology rate decreases exponentially. This could be a reflection of case volume. Nevertheless, we believe manpower investment and uro-radiologist commitment might also be important in preventing this misdiagnosis. A higher BMI in the US may also contribute to a higher benign histology rate. This is because obesity leads to higher a signal-to-noise ratio, which may obscure subtle low-contrast lesions [16]. However, since the BMI of Asian patients in the US was similar to those of Koreans (25.3 ± 4.7 vs. 24.5 ± 5.7, p = 0.291), this may be partially attributable.

In our data, the most common benign histology was angiomyolipoma (46.1%) and oncocytoma (50.8%) in Korean and US patients, respectively. These findings are concordant with previous reports [5, 10, 17, 18]. Thus, additional sonography or MRI or machine learning based texture analysis should be considered in Korea to rule out angiomyolipoma when the characterization of a tumor is inconclusive. It can be diagnosed by a distinctive imaging pattern [15, 19]. In contrast, oncocytoma cannot be reliably distinguished from chromophobe RCC [18], and biopsy can be recommended when the tumor has oncocytic features in the US.

Some biopsy enthusiast groups advocate universal renal tumor biopsy (RTB) for all or most patients with SRMs to reduce unnecessary treatment based on diagnostic inaccuracy [20,21,22]. Even though there is high accuracy and a low risk of complications [20, 22, 23], we believe that unnecessary RTB is also another type of overtreatment. In our study, the utilization rate of RTB in Korea was only 2.0%. Nevertheless, the rate of benign histology in Korea was similar to that of centers that routinely perform RTB in Canada [24], and the rate of benign histology was similar in patients who underwent preoperative biopsy and in those who did not. A recent systematic review of RTB showed an overall non-diagnostic rate of 14.1% and a worrisome negative predictive value of 63.3%. Despite a negative biopsy result, the final pathology report of 36.7% of patients undergoing surgery revealed they had a malignant tumor [23]. In our study, this rate reached 86.5%. Thus, a more careful interpretation of imaging tests should be repeated if indicated, or alternative imaging tests should be given preference over RTB.

Some researchers prefer active surveillance of SRMs to reduce unnecessary surgery because their growth rates are slow and metastatic potential is very low [25,26,27]. However, most studies in the past dealt with watchful waiting, not real active surveillance for mostly old or surgically unfitted patients [27]. Prospective registries are now finding proper protocols and evidence; thus, active surveillance is not yet widely accepted [25, 28]. However, based on the experience of Seoul National University Hospital (SNUH), which showed the lowest rate of benign histology (2.4%) in this study, we carefully suggest that (1) actively monitoring tumor size growth rates [15, 25,26,27, 29], (2) alternating imaging tests (kidney protocol contrast CT [3 or 4 phasic], MRI, USG, and contrast USG for cystic mass [30], and 3) conducting and interpreting USG by uro-radiologist might be helpful.

In the meanwhile, recently, for the goal of distinguishing clear cell RCC from other renal tumors, including benign renal mass, Zirconium-89-girentuximab PET/CT, which targets CAIX membrane protein has been developed [31]. Phase III international clinical trial (NCT03849118) is now going on and expected to show promising result. When combined with the experience-based protocol of SNUH, there may be a synergistic effect in lowering the benign histology rate.

The limitations of this study should be addressed. A lack of a central pathological review may have caused some bias. However, this effect is minimal. We demonstrated difference of benign histology rate between Asian populations in the US and Koreans with borderline significance and attributed this as practice pattern and accessibility to medical services, however, we could not specifically consider the immigration generation, and their environmental and modifiable risk factors. The number of dedicated uro-radiologists may vary according to time. Nonetheless, the current number of assigned uro-radiologists may reflect the institutional experience and the amount of investment in it. The Korean sample did not represent the entire Asian population. Therefore, caution should be exercised when interpreting ethnic effects. Some patients in the US, particularly in earlier periods, may have undergone elective PN for well-distinguished angiomyolipoma. We could only evaluate some of the data regarding RTBs. We could analyze the performance results of the RTB for those who underwent surgery; thus, the results may be biased. We could not determine the rate of treatment avoidance due to RTB; however, we could calculate positive and negative predictive values among patients who underwent surgery, which were also clinically important data. The strength of this study is the relatively large number of patients (almost ten thousand, from representative institutions across Korea).

Conclusions

We confirmed that the rate of benign histology among resected renal tumors in Korea was significantly lower than in the US. This disparity is not because of racial differences. It cannot be taken for granted that a substantial number of patients can be diagnosed with benign tumors after surgical removal. Further studies are warranted to significantly reduce overtreatment problems. Re-evaluation of the current standards of care is imperative for kidney tumors, which cannot be completely discounted as benign using an initial imaging test. Consequently, new protocols for better diagnosis must be prepared while avoiding both the extreme ends of overtreatment—the “treat-all” and “biopsy-all” paradigms.

Data availability

The datasets used and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Abbreviations

RCC:

renal cell carcinoma

RTB:

renal tumor biopsy

SRMs:

small renal masses

PN:

partial nephrectomy

References

  1. Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, Meyer AM, Wheeler SB, Kuo TM, Tan HJ, Woods ME, Raynor MC, Wallen EM, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J Urol. 2015;193(1):30–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Michaelson MD, Nandagopal L, Gore JL, George S, Alva A, Haas N, Harrison MR, Plimack ER, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: kidney Cancer, Version 2.2020. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2019;17(11):1278–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Ljungberg B, Albiges L, Abu-Ghanem Y, Bensalah K, Dabestani S, Fernandez-Pello S, Giles RH, Hofmann F, Hora M, Kuczyk MA, et al. European Association of Urology Guidelines on Renal Cell Carcinoma: the 2019 Update. Eur Urol. 2019;75(5):799–810.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Campbell SC, Clark PE, Chang SS, Karam JA, Souter L, Uzzo RG. Renal Mass and localized renal Cancer: evaluation, management, and Follow-Up: AUA Guideline: part I. J Urol. 2021;206(2):199–208.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Kim SI, Choi YD, Kim SJ, Chung BH, Seong do H, Kim CI, Cheon SH, Cho JS, Song YS, Kim YS, et al. A multi-institutional study on histopathological characteristics of surgically treated renal tumors: the importance of tumor size. Yonsei Med J. 2008;49(4):639–46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Fujii Y, Komai Y, Saito K, Iimura Y, Yonese J, Kawakami S, Ishikawa Y, Kumagai J, Kihara K, Fukui I. Incidence of benign pathologic lesions at partial nephrectomy for presumed RCC renal masses: Japanese dual-center experience with 176 consecutive patients. Urology. 2008;72(3):598–602.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Xiong YH, Zhang ZL, Li YH, Liu ZW, Hou GL, Liu Q, Yun JP, Zhang XQ, Zhou FJ. Benign pathological findings in 303 Chinese patients undergoing surgery for presumed localized renal cell carcinoma. Int J Urology: Official J Japanese Urol Association. 2010;17(6):517–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Delahunt B, Egevad L, Montironi R, Srigley JR. International Society of Urological Pathology (ISUP) consensus conference on renal neoplasia: rationale and organization. Am J Surg Pathol. 2013;37(10):1463–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Lewington S, Clarke R, Qizilbash N, Peto R, Collins R, Prospective Studies C. Age-specific relevance of usual blood pressure to vascular mortality: a meta-analysis of individual data for one million adults in 61 prospective studies. Lancet. 2002;360(9349):1903–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Duchene DA, Lotan Y, Cadeddu JA, Sagalowsky AI, Koeneman KS. Histopathology of surgically managed renal tumors: analysis of a contemporary series. Urology. 2003;62(5):827–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Austin PC, Merlo J. Intermediate and advanced topics in multilevel logistic regression analysis. Stat Med. 2017;36(20):3257–77.

    Article  MathSciNet  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Merlo J, Chaix B, Ohlsson H, Beckman A, Johnell K, Hjerpe P, Rastam L, Larsen K. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60(4):290–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Kummerlin IP, ten Kate FJ, Wijkstra H, Zwinderman A, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP. A decade of surgically removed small renal masses in the Netherlands: characteristics and trends in type of surgery and pathologic reporting. J Endourol. 2010;24(10):1675–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Violette P, Abourbih S, Szymanski KM, Tanguay S, Aprikian A, Matthews K, Brimo F, Kassouf W. Solitary solid renal mass: can we predict malignancy? BJU Int. 2012;110(11 Pt B):E548–552.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Woo S, Kim SH. Differentiation of small, solid renal masses: a pattern Recognition Approach. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 2017;38(1):28–36.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Schindera ST, Torrente JC, Ruder TD, Hoppe H, Marin D, Nelson RC, Szucs-Farkas Z. Decreased detection of hypovascular liver tumors with MDCT in obese patients: a phantom study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(6):W772–776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Bauman TM, Potretzke AM, Wright AJ, Knight BA, Vetter JM, Figenshau RS. Partial nephrectomy for presumed renal-cell carcinoma: incidence, predictors, and Perioperative outcomes of Benign lesions. J Endourol. 2017;31(4):412–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Choudhary S, Rajesh A, Mayer NJ, Mulcahy KA, Haroon A. Renal oncocytoma: CT features cannot reliably distinguish oncocytoma from other renal neoplasms. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(5):517–22.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Zhang Y, Li X, Lv Y, Gu X. Review of Value of CT Texture Analysis and Machine Learning in differentiating Fat-Poor Renal Angiomyolipoma from Renal Cell Carcinoma. Tomography. 2020;6(4):325–32.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  20. Richard PO, Jewett MA, Tanguay S, Saarela O, Liu ZA, Pouliot F, Kapoor A, Rendon R, Finelli A. Safety, reliability and accuracy of small renal tumour biopsies: results from a multi-institution registry. BJU Int. 2017;119(4):543–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Ordon M, Landman J. Renal mass biopsy: just do it. J Urol. 2013;190(5):1638–40.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Zlotta AR, Hermanns T, Juvet T, Finelli A. Renal tumor biopsy for small renal masses: a single-center 13-year experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1007–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Patel HD, Johnson MH, Pierorazio PM, Sozio SM, Sharma R, Iyoha E, Bass EB, Allaf ME. Diagnostic accuracy and risks of Biopsy in the diagnosis of a renal Mass Suspicious for localized renal cell carcinoma: systematic review of the literature. J Urol. 2016;195(5):1340–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Richard PO, Lavallee LT, Pouliot F, Komisarenko M, Martin L, Latouff JB, Finelli A. Is routine use of renal tumor biopsy associated with lower rates of benign histology following nephrectomy for small renal masses? The Journal of urology 2018.

  25. Organ M, Jewett M, Basiuk J, Morash C, Pautler S, Siemens DR, Tanguay S, Gleave M, Drachenberg D, Chow R, et al. Growth kinetics of small renal masses: a prospective analysis from the Renal Cell Carcinoma Consortium of Canada. Can Urol Association J = J de l’Association des urologues du Can. 2014;8(1–2):24–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Park SW, Lee SS, Lee DH, Nam JK, Chung MK. Growth kinetics of small renal mass: initial analysis of active surveillance registry. Invest Clin Urol. 2017;58(6):429–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Smaldone MC, Corcoran AT, Uzzo RG. Active surveillance of small renal masses. Nat Reviews Urol. 2013;10(5):266–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Ball MW, Gorin MA, Trock BJ, Chang P, Wagner AA, McKiernan JM, Allaf ME. Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DISSRM registry. Eur Urol. 2015;68(3):408–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Canvasser NE, Kay FU, Xi Y, Pinho DF, Costa D, de Leon AD, Khatri G, Leyendecker JR, Yokoo T, Lay A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of Multiparametric Magnetic Resonance Imaging to identify clear cell renal cell carcinoma in cT1a renal masses. J Urol. 2017;198(4):780–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Gulati M, King KG, Gill IS, Pham V, Grant E, Duddalwar VA. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) of cystic and solid renal lesions: a review. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(6):1982–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Merkx RIJ, Lobeek D, Konijnenberg M, Jimenez-Franco LD, Kluge A, Oosterwijk E, Mulders PFA, Rijpkema M. Phase I study to assess safety, biodistribution and radiation dosimetry for (89)Zr-girentuximab in patients with renal cell carcinoma. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2021;48(10):3277–85.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund grant funded by the Korea government (the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Ministry of Health & Welfare, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety).

Funding

This work was supported by the Korea Medical Device Development Fund grant funded by the Korea government (the Ministry of Science and ICT, the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy, the Ministry of Health & Welfare, the Ministry of Food and Drug Safety) (Project Number: 1711174374, RS-2020-KD000252).

Author information

Author notes

  1. Chang Wook Jeong, Jang Hee Han authors contributed equally to this work.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Hospital, 101 Daehak-ro, Jongno-gu, 03080, Seoul, Korea

    Chang Wook Jeong, Jang Hee Han & Cheol Kwak

  2. Department of Urology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

    Seok Soo Byun

  3. Department of Urology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Cheryn Song

  4. Department of Urology, Seoul St. Mary’s Hospital, College of Medicine, The Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, Korea

    Sung-Hoo Hong

  5. Department of Urology, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

    Jinsoo Chung

  6. Department of Urology, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University School of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

    Seong Il Seo

  7. Department of Urology, Pusan National University Hospital, Busan, Korea

    Hong Koo Ha

  8. Department of Urology, Chonnam National University Hwasun Hospital, Hwasun, Korea

    Eu Chang Hwang

  9. Department of Urology, Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea

    Ill Young Seo

  10. Department of Urology, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA

    Joseph G. Cheaib, Phillip M. Pierorazio & Misop Han

  11. Department of Urology, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA, USA

    Phillip M. Pierorazio

Authors
  1. Chang Wook Jeong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jang Hee Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seok Soo Byun
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cheryn Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Sung-Hoo Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jinsoo Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Seong Il Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Hong Koo Ha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Eu Chang Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ill Young Seo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Joseph G. Cheaib
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Phillip M. Pierorazio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Misop Han
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Cheol Kwak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

C.W. Jeong: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing, statistical analysis. and study supervision.J.H. Han: data collection or management, data analysis, and manuscript writing/editing. critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content, Statistical analysis.S. S. Byun: data collection or management, critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content, data analysis, study supervision;C.S: data collection or management, critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content, data analysis, study supervision;S.H.H: data collection or management, critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content, study supervision, data analysis;J.C: data collection or management, critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content, study supervision, data analysis;S.I.S: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, study supervision;H.K.H: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, study supervision;E.C.H: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, study supervision;I.Y.S: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, study supervision;J.G.C: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, study supervisionP.M.P: data collection or management, manuscript writing/editing, study supervisionM.H: data collection or management, Critical revision of the manuscript for scientific and factual content, study supervision;C. Kwak: protocol/project development, data collection or management, data analysis, manuscript writing/editing, and study supervision.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cheol Kwak.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Seoul National University Hospital (IRB no. H-1608-034-783). The requirement for informed consent was waived by IRB of the Seoul National University Hospital Ethic committee owing to the study’s retrospective nature. The study was performed in accordance with applicable laws and regulations, good clinical practices, and ethical principles as described in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jeong, C.W., Han, J.H., Byun, S.S. et al. Rate of benign histology after resection of suspected renal cell carcinoma: multicenter comparison between Korea and the United States. BMC Cancer 24, 216 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-11941-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-024-11941-3

Keywords

BMC Cancer

ISSN: 1471-2407

Contact us