Suat Keskin1, Selçuk Güven2, Zeynep Keskin3, Hüseyin Özbiner1, Ülkü Kerimoğlu1, Ahmet Yeşildağ1. 1. Department of Radiology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Meram School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey; 2. Department of Urology, Necmettin Erbakan University, Meram School of Medicine, Konya, Turkey; 3. Department of Radiology, Konya Training and Research Hospital, Konya, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the diagnostic performance of strain elastography to differentiate renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from angiomyolipoma (AML). METHODS: Strain elastography was performed in 65 patients (mean age 55.5 years; range: 32-81) who had renal lesions (24 AMLs and 41 RCCs) prospectively. Lesions were classified according to lesion size and histological subtypes. The strain ratios of the RCCs and AMLs were evaluated by a radiologist. The area under the curve and the cut-off point were used to assess diagnostic performance. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were obtained. RESULTS: In assessing the mean strain ratio, we divided the groups in 3 according to size: (1) <20-mm lesions; (2) 20- to 40-mm lesions; and (3) >40-mm lesions; the respective mean strain ratios were: 1.5 ± 0.5 (range: 0.06-5.92), 2.8 ± 0.4 (range: 0.17-9.92), 2.7 ± 0.3 (range: 0.08-6.15). When RCCs and AMLs were compared, there was a statistically significant difference in the strain ratio among the 3 groups divided per lesion size (p < 0.01). For the strain ratio, the mean ± standard deviation was 1.1 ± 0.1 for AMLs and 3.4 ± 0.3 for RCCs (p < 0.01). When lesion subtypes were compared, there was a statistically significant difference in the strain ratio between the AML and clear cell RCC (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For assessing renal lesions, strain elastography and strain ratio values may be useful in differentiating RCCs from AMLs.
INTRODUCTION: We evaluate the diagnostic performance of strain elastography to differentiate renal cell carcinoma (RCC) from angiomyolipoma (AML). METHODS: Strain elastography was performed in 65 patients (mean age 55.5 years; range: 32-81) who had renal lesions (24 AMLs and 41 RCCs) prospectively. Lesions were classified according to lesion size and histological subtypes. The strain ratios of the RCCs and AMLs were evaluated by a radiologist. The area under the curve and the cut-off point were used to assess diagnostic performance. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were obtained. RESULTS: In assessing the mean strain ratio, we divided the groups in 3 according to size: (1) <20-mm lesions; (2) 20- to 40-mm lesions; and (3) >40-mm lesions; the respective mean strain ratios were: 1.5 ± 0.5 (range: 0.06-5.92), 2.8 ± 0.4 (range: 0.17-9.92), 2.7 ± 0.3 (range: 0.08-6.15). When RCCs and AMLs were compared, there was a statistically significant difference in the strain ratio among the 3 groups divided per lesion size (p < 0.01). For the strain ratio, the mean ± standard deviation was 1.1 ± 0.1 for AMLs and 3.4 ± 0.3 for RCCs (p < 0.01). When lesion subtypes were compared, there was a statistically significant difference in the strain ratio between the AML and clear cell RCC (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: For assessing renal lesions, strain elastography and strain ratio values may be useful in differentiating RCCs from AMLs.
Authors: Sorin M Dudea; Călin R Giurgiu; Dana Dumitriu; Angelica Chiorean; Anca Ciurea; Carolina Botar-Jid; Ioan Coman Journal: Med Ultrason Date: 2011-03 Impact factor: 1.611
Authors: Hee Jung Moon; Ji Min Sung; Eun-Kyung Kim; Jung Hyun Yoon; Ji Hyun Youk; Jin Young Kwak Journal: Radiology Date: 2012-03 Impact factor: 11.105
Authors: Alexander Kutikov; Lindsay K Fossett; Parvati Ramchandani; John E Tomaszewski; Evan S Siegelman; Marc P Banner; Keith N Van Arsdalen; Alan J Wein; S Bruce Malkowicz Journal: Urology Date: 2006-10 Impact factor: 2.649
Authors: Sinan Tan; Muhammed Fuat Özcan; Fatih Tezcan; Serdar Balci; Mustafa Karaoğlanoğlu; Bülent Huddam; Halil Arslan Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2013-04 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Hersh Sagreiya; Alireza Akhbardeh; Dandan Li; Rosa Sigrist; Benjamin I Chung; Geoffrey A Sonn; Lu Tian; Daniel L Rubin; Jürgen K Willmann Journal: Ultrasound Med Biol Date: 2019-05-25 Impact factor: 2.998
Authors: Vasile Simon; Sorin Marian Dudea; Nicolae Crisan; Vasile Dan Stanca; Marina Dudea-Simon; Iulia Andras; Zoltan Attila Mihaly; Ioan Coman Journal: Diagnostics (Basel) Date: 2022-07-16