Characteristics of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of solid clear cell renal cell carcinomas ≤4 cm: A meta‐analysis

Purpose To compare the sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the evaluation of unclear renal lesions to the histopathological outcome. Materials and methods A total of 255 patients with a single unclear renal mass with initial imaging studies between 2005 and 2015 were included. Patient ages ranged from 18 to 86 with (mean age 62 years; SD ± 13). CEUS (255 patients), CT (88 out of 255 patients; 34.5 %) and MRI (36 out of 255 patients; 14.1 %) were used for determining malignancy or benignancy and initial findings were correlated with the histopathological outcome. Results CEUS showed a sensitivity of 99.1 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): 96.7 %, 99.9 %), a specificity of 80.5 % (95 % CI: 65.1 %, 91.2 %), a positive predictive value (PPV) of 96.4 % (95 % CI: 93.0 %, 98.4 %) and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 94.3 % (95 % CI: 80.8 %, 99.3 %). CT showed a sensitivity of 97.1 % (95 % CI: 89.9 %, 99.6 %), a specificity of 47.4 % (95 % CI: 24.4 %, 71.1 %), a PPV of 87.0 % (95 % CI: 77.4 %, 93.6 %) and a NPV of 81.8 % (95 % CI: 48.2 %, 97.7 %). MRI showed a sensitivity of 96.4 % (95 % CI: 81.7 %, 99.9 %), a specificity of 75.0 % (95 % CI: 34.9 %, 96.8 %), a PPV of 93.1 % (95 % CI: 77.2 %, 99.2 %) and a NPV of 85.7 % (95 % CI: 42.1 %, 99.6 %). Out of the 212 malignant lesions a total of 130 clear cell renal carcinomas, 59 papillary renal cell carcinomas, 7 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas, 4 combined clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinomas and 12 other malignant lesions, e. g. metastases, were diagnosed. Out of the 43 benign lesions a total 10 angiomyolipomas, 3 oncocytomas, 8 benign renal cysts and 22 other benign lesions, e. g. renal adenomas were diagnosed. Using CEUS, 10 lesions were falsely identified as malignant or benign, whereas 8 lesions were false positive and 2 lesions false negative. Conclusion CEUS is an useful method which can be additionally used to clinically differentiate between malignant and benign renal lesions. CEUS shows a comparable sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV to CT and MRI. In daily clinical routine, patients with contraindications for other imaging modalities can particularly benefit using this method. Key Points: Citation Format

Download Full-text

Parametric imaging of clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinoma using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS)

Clinical Hemorheology and Microcirculation ◽

10.3233/ch-152010 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 63 (2) ◽

pp. 89-97 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

J. Rübenthaler ◽

R. Reimann ◽

P. Hristova ◽

M. Staehler ◽

M. Reiser ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽

Cell Carcinoma ◽

Renal Cell ◽

Clear Cell ◽

Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽

Parametric Imaging ◽

Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽

Contrast Enhanced

Download Full-text

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings of adult renal cell carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE3 gene fusion: comparison with clear cell renal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma

Cancer Imaging ◽

10.1186/s40644-019-0268-7 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Shuping Wei ◽

Fuli Tian ◽

Qiuyuan Xia ◽

Pengfei Huang ◽

Yidan Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽

Cell Carcinoma ◽

Renal Cell ◽

Gene Fusion ◽

Clear Cell ◽

Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽

Peak Enhancement ◽

Contrast Enhanced ◽

Cystic Component ◽

Xp11.2 Translocation

Abstract Background To investigate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE3 gene fusion (Xp11.2/TFE3) in adult patients by comparison with those of clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and papillary RCC (pRCC). Methods In total, 110 patients (110 renal masses) who underwent CEUS examinations were enrolled in this study. The cases included 18 Xp11.2/TFE3 RCCs, 60 ccRCCs and 32 pRCCs. All masses were confirmed by operative pathology. The CEUS imaging data of these patients were retrospectively analysed by two readers. The conventional US and CEUS features of Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC were compared with those of ccRCC and pRCC. Results The age of the patients with Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC ranged from 20 to 68 years, with a mean age of 38.3 ± 16.3 years and a slight female predominance. The weighted kappa value that interprets the concordance between the interobserver agreement of the US and CEUS features ranged from 0.61 to 0.89. On conventional US and CEUS imaging of Xp11.2/TFE3 RCCs, the tumours were hypoechoic (6/18, 33.3%), isoechoic (8/18, 44.4%), and hyperechoic (4/18, 22.2%). The cystic component was present in 5 cases (27.8%), calcification was present in 9 cases (50.0%), and colour flow signal was present in 7 cases (38.9%). Most cases showed simultaneous wash-in (11/18, 61.1%); the peak enhancement showed hypoenhancement (6/18, 33.3%), isoenhancement (10/18, 55.6%), and hyperenhancement (2/18, 11.1%); most cases exhibited heterogeneous enhancement (12/18, 66.7%) and fast- or simultaneous-out (16/18, 88.9%); and a pseudocapsule was present in 6 cases (33.3%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, calcification and lower peak enhancement were more likely to be present in Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC than in ccRCC (P < 0.05), and younger age and relatively high peak enhancement were more likely to be present in Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC than in pRCC (P < 0.05). The calcification combined peak enhancement model differentiated Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from ccRCC, and the age combined peak enhancement model differentiated Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from pRCC with an AUC, a sensitivity and a specificity of 0.896, 94.4% and 73.3% and 0.786, 50.0% and 100.0%, respectively. Conclusions The specific CEUS features combined with demographic information and clinical symptoms may be helpful for differentiating Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from ccRCC and pRCC.

Download Full-text