Diagnostic Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Small Renal Masses.
10.4111/kju.2014.55.9.587
- Author:
Tae Hoon OH
1
;
Young Hwan LEE
;
Ill Young SEO
Author Information
1. Department of Urology, Institute of Wonkwang Medical Science, Wonkwang University School of Medicine, Iksan, Korea. seraph@wku.ac.kr
- Publication Type:Original Article ; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
- Keywords:
Angiomyolipoma;
Contrast media;
Renal cell carcinoma;
Ultrasonography
- MeSH:
Adult;
Aged;
Aged, 80 and over;
Angiomyolipoma/*ultrasonography;
Carcinoma, Renal Cell/*ultrasonography;
Contrast Media/diagnostic use;
Diagnosis, Differential;
Female;
Humans;
Kidney Neoplasms/*ultrasonography;
Male;
Middle Aged;
Reproducibility of Results;
Retrospective Studies;
Sensitivity and Specificity;
Sulfur Hexafluoride/diagnostic use;
Ultrasonography/*methods
- From:Korean Journal of Urology
2014;55(9):587-592
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
PURPOSE: Ultrasound (US) is highly sensitive in the detection of renal masses. However, it may not be able to differentiate benign and malignant lesions in smaller masses. The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for small renal masses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: From January 2011 to December 2013, a total of 85 patients underwent CEUS for evaluation of renal masses. Of these patients, CEUS findings were retrospectively analyzed for small renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases (n=38) and angiomyolipoma (AML) cases (n=11). The tumor echogenicity and enhancement patterns and degrees were evaluated. The diagnostic efficacy of CEUS in differentiating the two diseases was compared. RESULTS: On CEUS, the findings of diffuse heterogeneous enhancement (observed in 78.9% of RCCs and 27.3% of AMLs, p=0.003), washout from hyperenhancement or iso-enhancement to hypoenhancement in late phase (73.7% of RCCs and 18.2% of AMLs, p=0.001), and perilesional rim-like enhancement (57.9% of RCCs and 9.1% of AMLs, p=0.006) were significantly different between AML and RCC cases. The corresponding sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 86.8% (33/38), 63.6% (7/11), 89.2% (33/37), 58.3% (7/12), and 81.6% (40/49), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the characteristic CEUS features could have diagnostic value in the evaluation of small renal mass. CEUS showed a higher diagnostic efficacy than conventional US for differentiating RCC and AML.
