Literature DB >> 24475802

Evaluation of indeterminate renal masses with contrast-enhanced US: a diagnostic performance study.

Richard G Barr1, Cynthia Peterson, Ammar Hindi.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the utility of contrast material-enhanced ultrasonography (US) in the characterization of indeterminate renal masses.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective performance study was approved by the institutional review board and was HIPAA compliant, with waiver of informed consent. Patients included 721 individuals referred for contrast-enhanced US with 1018 indeterminate renal masses from 1999 to 2010, identified initially with an imaging study. Three hundred twenty patients (44.4%) were female, and 401 (55.6%) were male. Patient ages ranged from 17 to 95 years (mean ± standard deviation, 70 years ± 15). Lesion size varied from 2 to 161 mm (mean, 26.6 mm ± 19.5). Contrast-enhanced US enhancement patterns were used to characterize masses as benign or malignant. For lesions with a definitive diagnosis, 306 of 1018 (30.0%) were correlated with contrast-enhanced US findings: 167 (54.6%) were benign, and 139 (45.4%) were malignant. For lesions without a pathologic diagnosis, 712 (70.0%) were followed for as long as 10 years. Diagnostic accuracy measures were calculated by using pathologic diagnosis as the reference standard, as well as lesion stability at 3 and 5 years.
RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced US had a sensitivity of 100% (126 of 126; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 97.1%, 100%), specificity of 95.0% (132 of 139; 95% CI: 89.9%, 98.0%), positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.7% (126 of 133), and negative predictive value (NPV) of 100% (132 of 132). The five false-positive masses included three oncocytomas and two Bosniak category 3 cystic lesions. Of the 290 lesions that had follow-up of at least 36 months, none of the lesions demonstrated changes that necessitated lesion reclassification. If these lesions were included, assuming lesions classified as malignant were malignant, then of the 596 lesions, sensitivity was 100% (161 of 161), specificity was 96.6% (420 of 435), PPV was 91.5% (161 of 176), and NPV was 100% (420 of 420).
CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced US evaluation is a highly sensitive and specific method for characterization of indeterminate renal masses. Online supplemental material is available for this article. RSNA, 2013

Entities:  

Keywords:  CEUS; Renal masses; contrast enhanced ultrasound; kidney; Indeterminate renal masses

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24475802     DOI: 10.1148/radiol.13130161

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Radiology        ISSN: 0033-8419            Impact factor:   11.105


  40 in total

Review 1.  Management of incidental renal masses: Time to consider contrast-enhanced ultrasonography.

Authors:  Francesca Di Vece; Paola Tombesi; Francesca Ermili; Sergio Sartori
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2016-01-14

2.  Acoustic radiation force impulse elastography in differentiating renal solid masses: a preliminary experience.

Authors:  Le-Hang Guo; Bo-Ji Liu; Hui-Xiong Xu; Chang Liu; Li-Ping Sun; Yi-Feng Zhang; Jun-Mei Xu; Jian Wu; Xiao-Hong Xu
Journal:  Int J Clin Exp Pathol       Date:  2014-10-15

Review 3.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the kidneys and adrenals in children.

Authors:  Susan J Back; Patricia T Acharya; Richard D Bellah; Harris L Cohen; Kassa Darge; Annamaria Deganello; Zoltan Harkanyi; Damjana Ključevšek; Aikaterini Ntoulia; Harriet J Paltiel; Maciej Piskunowicz
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2021-05-12

4.  A Festschrift in Honor of Edward M. Messing, MD, FACS.

Authors:  Jean V Joseph; Ralph Brasacchio; Chunkit Fung; Jay Reeder; Kevin Bylund; Deepak Sahasrabudhe; Shu Yuan Yeh; Ahmed Ghazi; Patrick Fultz; Deborah Rubens; Guan Wu; Eric Singer; Edward Schwarz; Supriya Mohile; James Mohler; Dan Theodorescu; Yi Fen Lee; Paul Okunieff; David McConkey; Hani Rashid; Chawnshang Chang; Yves Fradet; Khurshid Guru; Janet Kukreja; Gerald Sufrin; Yair Lotan; Howard Bailey; Katia Noyes; Seymour Schwartz; Kathy Rideout; Gennady Bratslavsky; Steven C Campbell; Ithaar Derweesh; Per-Anders Abrahamsson; Mark Soloway; Leonard Gomella; Dragan Golijanin; Robert Svatek; Thomas Frye; Seth Lerner; Ganesh Palapattu; George Wilding; Michael Droller; Donald Trump
Journal:  Bladder Cancer       Date:  2018-10-03

Review 5.  An Introduction to Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Nephrologists.

Authors:  Emily H Chang
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  2017-11-09       Impact factor: 2.847

Review 6.  The clinical use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the kidney.

Authors:  Sean C Tenant; Catherine M Gutteridge
Journal:  Ultrasound       Date:  2016-01-19

Review 7.  CT and MRI of small renal masses.

Authors:  Zhen J Wang; Antonio C Westphalen; Ronald J Zagoria
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2018-05-10       Impact factor: 3.039

Review 8.  An overview of non-invasive imaging modalities for diagnosis of solid and cystic renal lesions.

Authors:  Ravinder Kaur; Mamta Juneja; A K Mandal
Journal:  Med Biol Eng Comput       Date:  2019-11-21       Impact factor: 2.602

Review 9.  Imaging of Solid Renal Masses.

Authors:  Fernando U Kay; Ivan Pedrosa
Journal:  Urol Clin North Am       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 2.241

10.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the kidney: a single-institution experience.

Authors:  Sheng F Oon; Robert W Foley; Deirdre Quinn; David M Quinlan; Robert G Gibney
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2017-12-07       Impact factor: 1.568

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.