Post Treatment Follow-up and Active Surveillance of Renal Cell Carcinoma

Variant: 1 Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US kidneys retroperitoneal	May Be Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography skeletal survey	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
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 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	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 2 Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US abdomen with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
US kidneys retroperitoneal	May Be Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography skeletal survey	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
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 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	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Variant: 3 Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
CT abdomen with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
US kidneys retroperitoneal	May Be Appropriate	O
Radiography chest	May Be Appropriate	☢
MRI abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	O
CT abdomen and pelvis with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT chest without IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢
CT abdomen and pelvis without and with IV contrast	May Be Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
Radiography abdomen	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Radiography intravenous urography	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
Radiography skeletal survey	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢
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 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	☢☢☢
CTU without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢
FDG-PET/CT skull base to mid-thigh	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢☢☢

Panel Members

Andrei S. Purysko, MD^a; Paul Nikolaidis, MD^b; Gaurav Khatri, MD^c; Moises Auron, MD^d; Alberto Diaz De Leon, MD^e; Dhakshinamoorthy Ganeshan, MBBS^f; John L. Gore, MD, MS^g; Rajan T. Gupta, MD^h; Simon S.. Lo, MB, ChBⁱ; Andrej Lyshchik, MD, PhD^j; Stephen J. Savage, MD^k; Andrew D. Smith, MD, PhD^l; Myles T. Taffel, MD^m; Don C. Yoo, MDⁿ; Mark E. Lockhart, MD, MPH^o.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
A. Radiography Chest

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
B. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
C. Radiography Skeletal Survey

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
D. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
E. CT Abdomen

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
F. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
G. CTU

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
H. CT Chest

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
I. CT Head

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
J. MRI Abdomen

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
K. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
L. MRU

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
M. MRI Head

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
N. US Kidney Retroperitoneal

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
O. US Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
P. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 1: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post radical or partial nephrectomy.
Q. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
A. Radiography Chest

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
B. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
C. Radiography Skeletal Survey

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
D. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
E. CT Abdomen

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
F. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
G. CT Chest

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
H. CT Head

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
I. CTU

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
J. MRI Abdomen

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
K. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
L. MRU

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
M. MRI Head

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
N. US Kidney Retroperitoneal

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
O. US Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
P. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 2: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; post ablation.
Q. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
A. Radiography Chest

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
B. Radiography Abdomen

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
C. Radiography Skeletal Survey

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
D. Radiography Intravenous Urography

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
E. CT Abdomen

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
F. CT Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
G. CTU

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
H. CT Chest

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
I. CT Head

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
J. MRI Abdomen

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
K. MRI Abdomen and Pelvis

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
L. MRI Head

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
M. MRU

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
N. US Kidney Retroperitoneal

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
O. US Abdomen with IV Contrast

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
P. Bone Scan Whole Body

Variant 3: Follow-up for clinically localized renal cell carcinoma; active surveillance.
Q. FDG-PET/CT Skull Base to Mid-Thigh

Summary of Highlights

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.”

Relative Radiation Level Information

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.	Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics, 2020. CA Cancer J Clin. 70(1):7-30, 2020 01.
2.	Motzer RJ, Jonasch E, Agarwal N, et al. Kidney Cancer, Version 2.2017, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. J. Natl. Compr. Cancer Netw.. 15(6):804-834, 2017 06.
3.	Andrews JR, Atwell T, Schmit G, et al. Oncologic Outcomes Following Partial Nephrectomy and Percutaneous Ablation for cT1 Renal Masses. Eur Urol. 76(2):244-251, 2019 Aug.
4.	Choi SH, Kim JW, Kim JH, Kim KW. Efficacy and Safety of Microwave Ablation for Malignant Renal Tumors: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature Since 2012. Korean J Radiol. 19(5):938-949, 2018 Sep-Oct.
5.	Iannuccilli JD, Dupuy DE, Beland MD, Machan JT, Golijanin DJ, Mayo-Smith WW. Effectiveness and safety of computed tomography-guided radiofrequency ablation of renal cancer: a 14-year single institution experience in 203 patients. Eur Radiol. 26(6):1656-64, 2016 Jun.
6.	Katsanos K, Mailli L, Krokidis M, McGrath A, Sabharwal T, Adam A. Systematic review and meta-analysis of thermal ablation versus surgical nephrectomy for small renal tumours. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2014;37(2):427-437.
7.	Yu J, Zhang X, Liu H, et al. Percutaneous Microwave Ablation versus Laparoscopic Partial Nephrectomy for cT1a Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Propensity-matched Cohort Study of 1955 Patients. Radiology. 294(3):698-706, 2020 Mar.
8.	Smaldone MC, Kutikov A, Egleston BL, et al. Small renal masses progressing to metastases under active surveillance: a systematic review and pooled analysis. [Review]. Cancer. 118(4):997-1006, 2012 Feb 15.
9.	Donat SM, Diaz M, Bishoff JT, et al. Follow-up for Clinically Localized Renal Neoplasms: AUA Guideline. J Urol. 190(2):407-16, 2013 Aug.
10.	Merrill SB, Sohl BS, Hamirani A, et al. Capturing Renal Cell Carcinoma Recurrences When Asymptomatic Improves Patient Survival. Clin Genitourin Cancer. 17(2):132-138, 2019 04.
11.	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.
12.	Williamson TJ, Pearson JR, Ischia J, Bolton DM, Lawrentschuk N. Guideline of guidelines: follow-up after nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma. [Review]. BJU Int. 117(4):555-62, 2016 Apr.
13.	Dabestani S, Beisland C, Stewart GD, et al. Intensive Imaging-based Follow-up of Surgically Treated Localised Renal Cell Carcinoma Does Not Improve Post-recurrence Survival: Results from a European Multicentre Database (RECUR). Eur Urol. 75(2):261-264, 2019 02.
14.	Antonelli A, Furlan M, Sodano M, et al. Features, risk factors and clinical outcome of "very late" recurrences after surgery for localized renal carcinoma: A retrospective evaluation of a cohort with a minimum of 10 years of follow up. Int J Urol. 23(1):36-40, 2016 Jan.
15.	Levy DA, Slaton JW, Swanson DA, Dinney CP. Stage specific guidelines for surveillance after radical nephrectomy for local renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1998; 159(4):1163-1167.
16.	Romeo A, Garcia Marchinena P, Jurado AM, Gueglio G. Renal fossa recurrence after radical nephrectomy: Current management, and oncological outcomes. UROL. ONCOL.. 38(2):42.e7-42.e12, 2020 Feb.
17.	Stephenson AJ, Chetner MP, Rourke K, et al. Guidelines for the surveillance of localized renal cell carcinoma based on the patterns of relapse after nephrectomy. J Urol. 2004; 172(1):58-62.
18.	Stewart-Merrill SB, Thompson RH, Boorjian SA, et al. Oncologic Surveillance After Surgical Resection for Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Novel Risk-Based Approach. J Clin Oncol. 33(35):4151-7, 2015 Dec 10.
19.	Zisman A, Pantuck AJ, Wieder J, et al. Risk group assessment and clinical outcome algorithm to predict the natural history of patients with surgically resected renal cell carcinoma. J Clin Oncol. 2002; 20(23):4559-4566.
20.	Itano NB, Blute ML, Spotts B, Zincke H. Outcome of isolated renal cell carcinoma fossa recurrence after nephrectomy. J Urol. 2000; 164(2):322-325.
21.	Sandock DS, Seftel AD, Resnick MI. A new protocol for the followup of renal cell carcinoma based on pathological stage. J Urol. 1995; 154(1):28-31.
22.	Saidi JA, Newhouse JH, Sawczuk IS. Radiologic follow-up of patients with T1-3a,b,c or T4N+M0 renal cell carcinoma after radical nephrectomy. Urology. 1998; 52(6):1000-1003.
23.	Lau WK, Blute ML, Weaver AL, Torres VE, Zincke H. Matched comparison of radical nephrectomy vs nephron-sparing surgery in patients with unilateral renal cell carcinoma and a normal contralateral kidney. Mayo Clin Proc 2000; 75(12):1236-1242.
24.	Chow AK, Kahan AN, Hwang T, Coogan CL, Latchamsetty KC. Should We Separate the Pulmonary Surveillance Protocol for Postsurgical T1a and T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma? A Multicenter Database Analysis. Urology. 122:127-132, 2018 Dec.
25.	Kaiser A, Davenport MS, Hafez KS, Alva A, Bailey JJ, Francis IR. Utility of Pelvic CT for Surveillance of T2-T4 Renal Cell Carcinoma After Nephrectomy With Curative Intent. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 210(5):1088-1091, 2018 May.
26.	Lee HS, Kang WJ, Cho NH, Park SY. Is Chest Computed Tomography Always Necessary Following Nephrectomy for Renal Cell Carcinoma? A Pilot Study in Single Tertiary Institution. J Comput Assist Tomogr 2019;43:333-37.
27.	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.
28.	Doornweerd BH, de Jong IJ, Bergman LM, Ananias HJ. Chest X-ray in the follow-up of renal cell carcinoma. World J Urol. 32(4):1015-9, 2014 Aug.
29.	Kowalczyk KJ, Harbin AC, Choueiri TK, et al. Use of surveillance imaging following treatment of small renal masses. J Urol. 190(5):1680-5, 2013 Nov.
30.	Hafez KS, Novick AC, Campbell SC. Patterns of tumor recurrence and guidelines for followup after nephron sparing surgery for sporadic renal cell carcinoma. J Urol. 1997; 157(6):2067-2070.
31.	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.
32.	Gofrit ON, Rabinovich I, Yutkin V, et al. Abbreviated CT protocol for postoperative surveillance of renal cancer. UROL. ONCOL.. 36(11):498.e9-498.e13, 2018 11.
33.	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.
34.	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.
35.	Eiken PW, Atwell TD, Kurup AN, Boorjian SA, Thompson RH, Schmit GD. Imaging following renal ablation: what can we learn from recurrent tumors?. Abdom Radiol. 43(10):2750-2755, 2018 10.
36.	Mouracade P, Chavali JS, Kara O, et al. Imaging strategy and outcome following partial nephrectomy. Urol Oncol 2017;35:660 e1-60 e8.
37.	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.
38.	Platzek I, Zastrow S, Deppe PE, et al. Whole-body MRI in follow-up of patients with renal cell carcinoma. Acta Radiol. 2010; 51(5):581-589.
39.	Kisa E, Sahin H, Cakmak O, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging characteristics and changes in hemostatic agents after partial nephrectomy. Int Urol Nephrol. 51(6):917-925, 2019 Jun.
40.	Quinlan M, Wei G, Davis N, et al. Renal Cell Carcinoma Follow-Up - Is it Time to Abandon Ultrasound?. Curr. urol.. 13(1):19-24, 2019 Sep.
41.	Atri M, Alrashed A, Hassan A, Khalili K, Kim TK, Jang HJ. Negative Predictive Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound of Liver and Kidney Thermal Ablation Sites for Local Tumour Progression During Long-term Follow-up: A Retrospective Consecutive Study. Can Assoc Radiol J. 70(4):434-440, 2019 Nov.
42.	Barwari K, Wijkstra H, van Delden OM, de la Rosette JJ, Laguna MP. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for the evaluation of the cryolesion after laparoscopic renal cryoablation: an initial report. J Endourol. 27(4):402-7, 2013 Apr.
43.	Calio BP, Lyshchik A, Li J, et al. Long Term Surveillance of Renal Cell Carcinoma Recurrence Following Ablation using 2D and 3D Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. Urology. 121:189-196, 2018 11.
44.	Garbajs M, Popovic P. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for assessment of therapeutic response after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation of small renal tumors. J. Balk. Union Oncol.. 21(3):685-90, 2016 May-Jun.
45.	Guo F, Hu B, Chen L, Li J. Clinical application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound after percutaneous renal tumor ablation. Br J Radiol. 92(1103):20190183, 2019 Nov.
46.	Hoeffel C, Pousset M, Timsit MO, et al. Radiofrequency ablation of renal tumours: diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for early detection of residual tumour. Eur Radiol. 20(8):1812-21, 2010 Aug.
47.	Kong WT, Zhang WW, Guo HQ, et al. Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography after radiofrequency ablation for renal cell carcinoma: is it sufficient for assessment of therapeutic response?. Abdom Imaging. 36(3):342-7, 2011 Jun.
48.	Sanz E, Hevia V, Arias F, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): an excellent tool in the follow-up of small renal masses treated with cryoablation. Current Urology Reports. 16(1):469, 2015 Jan.
49.	Zeccolini G, Del Biondo D, Cicero C, Casarin A, Guarise A, Celia A. Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Scan (CEUS) and MRI in the follow-up of cryoablation for small renal tumors. Experience on 25 cases. Urologia. 81 Suppl 23:S1-8, 2014 Jan-Mar.
50.	Blacher E, Johnson DE, Haynie TP. Value of routine radionuclide bone scans in renal cell carcinoma. Urology, 1985; 26(5):432-434.
51.	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.
52.	Ma H, Shen G, Liu B, Yang Y, Ren P, Kuang A. Diagnostic performance of 18F-FDG PET or PET/CT in restaging renal cell carcinoma: a systematic review and meta-analysis. [Review]. Nucl Med Commun. 38(2):156-163, 2017 Feb.
53.	Elahmadawy MA, Elazab MSS, Ahmed S, Salama M. Diagnostic value of F-18 FDG PET/CT for local and distant disease relapse surveillance in surgically treated RCC patients: Can it aid in establishing consensus follow up strategy?. Nucl Med Rev Cent East Eur. 21(2):85-91, 2018.
54.	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.
55.	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.
56.	Sawicki LM, Buchbender C, Boos J, et al. Diagnostic potential of PET/CT using a 68Ga-labelled prostate-specific membrane antigen ligand in whole-body staging of renal cell carcinoma: initial experience. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 44(1):102-107, 2017 Jan.
57.	Mues AC, Okhunov Z, Haramis G, D'Agostino H, Shingleton BW, Landman J. Comparison of percutaneous and laparoscopic renal cryoablation for small (<3.0 cm) renal masses. J Endourol. 2010; 24(7):1097-1100.
58.	Pirasteh A, Snyder L, Boncher N, Passalacqua M, Rosenblum D, Prologo JD. Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation for small renal masses. Acad Radiol. 2011; 18(1):97-100.
59.	Young EE, Castle SM, Gorbatiy V, Leveillee RJ. Comparison of safety, renal function outcomes and efficacy of laparoscopic and percutaneous radio frequency ablation of renal masses. J Urol. 2012; 187(4):1177-1182.
60.	Aron M, Kamoi K, Remer E, Berger A, Desai M, Gill I. Laparoscopic renal cryoablation: 8-year, single surgeon outcomes. J Urol. 2010; 183(3):889-895.
61.	Balageas P, Cornelis F, Le Bras Y, et al. Ten-year experience of percutaneous image-guided radiofrequency ablation of malignant renal tumours in high-risk patients. Eur Radiol. 23(7):1925-32, 2013 Jul.
62.	Breen DJ, Bryant TJ, Abbas A, et al. Percutaneous cryoablation of renal tumours: outcomes from 171 tumours in 147 patients. BJU Int. 112(6):758-65, 2013 Oct.
63.	Georgiades CS, Rodriguez R. Efficacy and safety of percutaneous cryoablation for stage 1A/B renal cell carcinoma: results of a prospective, single-arm, 5-year study. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 37(6):1494-9, 2014 Dec.
64.	McDougal WS, Gervais DA, McGovern FJ, Mueller PR. Long-term followup of patients with renal cell carcinoma treated with radio frequency ablation with curative intent. J Urol. 2005; 174(1):61-63.
65.	Shapiro DD, Wells SA, Best SL, et al. Comparing Outcomes for Patients with Clinical T1b Renal Cell Carcinoma Treated With Either Percutaneous Microwave Ablation or Surgery. Urology. 135:88-94, 2020 Jan.
66.	Wah TM, Irving HC, Gregory W, Cartledge J, Joyce AD, Selby PJ. Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of renal cell carcinoma (RCC): experience in 200 tumours. BJU Int. 113(3):416-28, 2014 Mar.
67.	Zagoria RJ, Pettus JA, Rogers M, Werle DM, Childs D, Leyendecker JR. Long-term outcomes after percutaneous radiofrequency ablation for renal cell carcinoma. Urology. 2011; 77(6):1393-1397.
68.	Best SL, Park SK, Yaacoub RF, et al. Long-term outcomes of renal tumor radio frequency ablation stratified by tumor diameter: size matters. J Urol. 2012; 187(4):1183-1189.
69.	Javadi S, Ahrar JU, Ninan E, Gupta S, Matin SF, Ahrar K. Characterization of contrast enhancement in the ablation zone immediately after radiofrequency ablation of renal tumors. J Vasc Interv Radiol. 21(5):690-5, 2010 May.
70.	Nielsen TK, Ostraat O, Andersen G, Hoyer S, Graumann O, Borre M. Computed Tomography Contrast Enhancement Following Renal Cryoablation--Does it Represent Treatment Failure?. J Endourol. 29(12):1353-60, 2015 Dec.
71.	Park SY, Kim CK, Park BK. Dual-energy CT in assessing therapeutic response to radiofrequency ablation of renal cell carcinomas. Eur J Radiol. 83(2):e73-9, 2014 Feb.
72.	Lee HJ, Chung HJ, Wang HK, et al. Evolutionary magnetic resonance appearance of renal cell carcinoma after percutaneous cryoablation. Br J Radiol. 89(1065):20160151, 2016 Sep.
73.	Takaki H, Nakatsuka A, Cornelis F, et al. False-Positive Tumor Enhancement After Cryoablation of Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Prospective Study. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 206(2):332-9, 2016 Feb.
74.	Porter CA 4th, Woodrum DA, Callstrom MR, et al. MRI after technically successful renal cryoablation: early contrast enhancement as a common finding. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 194(3):790-3, 2010 Mar.
75.	Borghesi M, Brunocilla E, Volpe A, et al. Active surveillance for clinically localized renal tumors: An updated review of current indications and clinical outcomes. [Review]. Int J Urol. 22(5):432-8, 2015 May.
76.	Mason RJ, Abdolell M, Trottier G, et al. Growth kinetics of renal masses: analysis of a prospective cohort of patients undergoing active surveillance. Eur Urol. 59(5):863-7, 2011 May.
77.	Patel N, Cranston D, Akhtar MZ, et al. Active surveillance of small renal masses offers short-term oncological efficacy equivalent to radical and partial nephrectomy. BJU Int. 110(9):1270-5, 2012 Nov.
78.	Pierorazio PM, Johnson MH, Ball MW, et al. Five-year analysis of a multi-institutional prospective clinical trial of delayed intervention and surveillance for small renal masses: the DISSRM registry. Eur Urol. 68(3):408-15, 2015 Sep.
79.	Van Poppel H, Becker F, Cadeddu JA, et al. Treatment of localised renal cell carcinoma. [Review]. Eur Urol. 60(4):662-72, 2011 Oct.
80.	Yang G, Villalta JD, Meng MV, Whitson JM. Evolving practice patterns for the management of small renal masses in the USA. BJU Int. 110(8):1156-61, 2012 Oct.
81.	Haramis G, Mues AC, Rosales JC, et al. Natural history of renal cortical neoplasms during active surveillance with follow-up longer than 5 years. Urology. 77(4):787-91, 2011 Apr.
82.	Nayyar M, Cheng P, Desai B, et al. Active Surveillance of Small Renal Masses: A Review on the Role of Imaging With a Focus on Growth Rate. [Review]. J Comput Assist Tomogr. 40(4):517-23, 2016 Jul-Aug.
83.	Tan WS, Trinh QD, Hayn MH, et al. Delayed nephrectomy has comparable long-term overall survival to immediate nephrectomy for cT1a renal cell carcinoma: A population-based analysis. UROL. ONCOL.. 2019 Dec 18.
84.	Uzosike AC, Patel HD, Alam R, et al. Growth Kinetics of Small Renal Masses on Active Surveillance: Variability and Results from the DISSRM Registry. J Urol. 199(3):641-648, 2018 03.
85.	Patel HD, Nichols PE, Su ZT, et al. Renal Mass Biopsy is Associated with Reduction in Surgery for Early-Stage Kidney Cancer. Urology. 135:76-81, 2020 Jan.
86.	Doshi AM, Huang WC, Donin NM, Chandarana H. MRI features of renal cell carcinoma that predict favorable clinicopathologic outcomes. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 204(4):798-803, 2015 Apr.
87.	Rosenkrantz AB, Mussi TC, Somberg MB, Taneja SS, Babb JS. Comparison of CT-based methodologies for detection of growth of solid renal masses on active surveillance. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 199(2):373-8, 2012 Aug.
88.	Quaia E, Bertolotto M, Cioffi V, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with unenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(4):1239-1249.
89.	Barr RG, Peterson C, Hindi A. Evaluation of indeterminate renal masses with contrast-enhanced US: a diagnostic performance study. Radiology. 271(1):133-42, 2014 Apr.
90.	Zarzour JG, Lockhart ME, West J, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Classification of Previously Indeterminate Renal Lesions. Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine. 36(9):1819-1827, 2017 Sep.
91.	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.