OBJECTIVE: Nearly 25% of solid renal tumors are indolent cancer or benign and can be managed conservatively in selected patients. This prospective study was performed to determine whether preoperative IV microbubble contrast-enhanced ultrasound can be used to differentiate indolent and benign renal tumors from more aggressive clear cell carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with renal tumors underwent preoperative gray-scale, color, power Doppler, and octafluoropropane microbubble IV contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Three blinded radiologists reading in consensus compared rate of contrast wash-in, grade and pattern of enhancement, and contrast washout compared with adjacent parenchyma. Contrast ultrasound findings were compared with surgical histopathologic findings for all patients. RESULTS: The 34 patients had 23 clear cell carcinomas, three type 1 papillary carcinomas, one chromophobe carcinoma, one clear rare multilocular low-grade malignant tumor, two unclassified lesions, three oncocytomas, and one benign angiomyolipoma. The combination of heterogeneous lesion echotexture and delayed lesion washout had 85% positive predictive value, 43% negative predictive value, 48% sensitivity, and 82% specificity for predicting whether a lesion was conventional clear cell carcinoma or another tumor. Diminished lesion enhancement grade had 75% positive predictive value, 81% negative predictive value, 55% sensitivity, and 91% specificity for non-clear cell histologic features, either benign or low-grade malignant. Combining delayed washout with quantitative lesion peak intensity of at least 20% of kidney peak intensity had 91% positive predictive value, 40% negative predictive value, 63% sensitivity, and 80% specificity in the prediction of clear cell histologic features. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound features of gray-scale heterogeneity, lesion washout, grade of contrast enhancement, and quantitative measure of peak intensity may be useful for differentiating clear cell carcinoma and non-clear cell renal tumors.
OBJECTIVE: Nearly 25% of solid renal tumors are indolent cancer or benign and can be managed conservatively in selected patients. This prospective study was performed to determine whether preoperative IV microbubble contrast-enhanced ultrasound can be used to differentiate indolent and benign renal tumors from more aggressive clear cell carcinoma. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients with renal tumors underwent preoperative gray-scale, color, power Doppler, and octafluoropropane microbubble IV contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Three blinded radiologists reading in consensus compared rate of contrast wash-in, grade and pattern of enhancement, and contrast washout compared with adjacent parenchyma. Contrast ultrasound findings were compared with surgical histopathologic findings for all patients. RESULTS: The 34 patients had 23 clear cell carcinomas, three type 1 papillary carcinomas, one chromophobe carcinoma, one clear rare multilocular low-grade malignant tumor, two unclassified lesions, three oncocytomas, and one benign angiomyolipoma. The combination of heterogeneous lesion echotexture and delayed lesion washout had 85% positive predictive value, 43% negative predictive value, 48% sensitivity, and 82% specificity for predicting whether a lesion was conventional clear cell carcinoma or another tumor. Diminished lesion enhancement grade had 75% positive predictive value, 81% negative predictive value, 55% sensitivity, and 91% specificity for non-clear cell histologic features, either benign or low-grade malignant. Combining delayed washout with quantitative lesion peak intensity of at least 20% of kidney peak intensity had 91% positive predictive value, 40% negative predictive value, 63% sensitivity, and 80% specificity in the prediction of clear cell histologic features. CONCLUSION: Ultrasound features of gray-scale heterogeneity, lesion washout, grade of contrast enhancement, and quantitative measure of peak intensity may be useful for differentiating clear cell carcinoma and non-clear cell renal tumors.
Authors: M Jinzaki; A Tanimoto; M Mukai; E Ikeda; S Kobayashi; Y Yuasa; Y Narimatsu; M Murai Journal: J Comput Assist Tomogr Date: 2000 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 1.826
Authors: Jeong Kon Kim; Tae Kyoung Kim; Han Jong Ahn; Chung Soo Kim; Kyu-Rae Kim; Kyoung-Sik Cho Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2002-06 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Wolfgang M Thaiss; Jens Bedke; Stephan Kruck; Daniel Spira; Arnulf Stenzl; Konstantin Nikolaou; Marius Horger; Sascha Kaufmann Journal: World J Urol Date: 2018-10-15 Impact factor: 4.226
Authors: Sandeep K Kasoji; Emily H Chang; Lee B Mullin; Wui K Chong; W Kimryn Rathmell; Paul A Dayton Journal: Ultrason Imaging Date: 2016-09-22 Impact factor: 1.578