Correlation of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound features with invasive histological features in T 1a clear cell renal cell carcinoma
10.3760/cma.j.cn115355-20241106-00517
- VernacularTitle:T 1a期肾透明细胞癌常规超声及超声造影特征与侵袭性组织学特征之间的相关性
- Author:
Jinghua NIU
1
;
Shaoling YUAN
;
Yan ZHANG
;
Xinyang GUO
;
Jinfeng WANG
Author Information
1. 山西医科大学医学影像学院，太原 030001
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Carcinoma, renal cell;
Ultrasonography;
Contrast-enhanced ultrasound;
Pathological nuclear grading
- From:
Cancer Research and Clinic
2025;37(6):445-450
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective:To explore the correlation between conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound features and invasive histological features of T 1a clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC). Methods:A retrospective case series study was conducted. Sixty-seven T 1a ccRCC patients who were admitted to Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital from May 2018 to August 2023 were selected. According to the World Health Organization (WHO)/International Society of Urology and Pathology (ISUP) renal tumor grading system, the patients were divided into the low-grade group (WHO/ISUP grades 1-2, 53 cases) and the high-grade group (WHO/ISUP grades 3-4, 14 cases). The conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound characteristics of two groups of patients were compared. Multivariate logistic regression model was used to analyze the independent factors of conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound related to T 1a ccRCC with WHO/ISUP high grade. Results:There were no statistically significant differences in clinical characteristics between the two groups of patients (all P > 0.05). In conventional ultrasound examination, the proportion of patients with tumor exophytic rate <50% in the high-grade group was higher than that in the low-grade group [64.3% (9/14) vs. 34.0% (18/53)], and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2 = 4.23, P = 0.040); there were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of patients with different tumor maximum diameter, laterality, polarity, depth, echo, boundary, and shape between the two groups (all P > 0.05). In contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination, the proportion of patients lack of pseudocapsule sign in the high-grade group was higher than that in the low-grade group [57.1% (8/14) vs. 24.5% (13/53)], and the difference was statistically significant ( χ2 = 4.06, P = 0.044); there were no statistically significant differences in the distribution of patients with different perfusion mode, enhancement degree, enhancement uniformity, and regression mode between the two groups (all P > 0.05). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the conventional ultrasound tumor exophytic rate < 50% (compared to exophytic rate ≥ 50%, OR = 3.732, 95% CI: 1.019-13.664, P = 0.047) and the absence of pseudocapsule sign (compared to the presence of pseudocapsule sign, OR = 4.357, 95% CI: 1.201-15.804, P = 0.025) on contrast-enhanced ultrasound were independent risk factors for high-grade T 1a ccRCC. Conclusions:T 1a ccRCC with the exophytic rate <50% and absence of pseudocapsule sign may have invasive histological features.
