J Rübenthaler1, R Reimann1, P Hristova1, M Staehler2, M Reiser1, D A Clevert1. 1. Department of Clinical Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich-Grosshadern Campus, Marchioninistr., Munich, Germany. 2. Department of Urology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich-Grosshadern Campus, Marchioninistr., Munich, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) examined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and a second generation blood pool agent (SonoVue®, Bracco, Milan, Italy) before clinical intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 41 patients with histologically proven subtypes of RCC were examined. 29 patients had a clear cell RCC and 12 patients showed a papillary RCC. Average size in the clear cell RCC group was 6.07 cm and 1.88 cm in the papillary RCC group. An experienced radiologist examined all patients with CEUS. The following parameters were analysed: maximum signal intensity (PEAK), time elapsed until PEAK is reached (MTT), local blood flow (RBF), area under the time intensity curve (AUC) and the signal intensity (SI) during the course of time. For both groups all comparisons were made based on healthy renal parenchyma. RESULTS: In the clear cell RCC significant differences (significance level p < 0.05) between cancerous tissue and the healthy renal parenchyma were noticed in all four parameters. The clear cell RCC showed a significant reduced blood volume. It reached the PEAK reading relatively rapidly and its signal intensity was always lower than that of the healthy renal parenchyma. In the arterial phase retarded absorption of the contrast agent was observed, followed by fast washing out of the contrast agent bubbles.In the papillary RCC group, significant findings as to PEAK and RBF as well as a slightly significant difference as to AUC were recorded. The papillary RCC had a lower blood supply and reached its PEAK reading later. Its signal intensity was also reduced. The signal intensity of papillary NCC was significantly lower compared with clear cell RCC; absorption and washing out of the contrast agent was delayed. CONCLUSION: CEUS seems to be an useful additional method to clinically differentiate between clear cell and papillary RCC. In daily clinical use, patients with contraindication for other imaging methods, especially the magnetic resonance imaging, might particularly benefit from this method.
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to analyse clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) examined with contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and a second generation blood pool agent (SonoVue®, Bracco, Milan, Italy) before clinical intervention. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 41 patients with histologically proven subtypes of RCC were examined. 29 patients had a clear cell RCC and 12 patients showed a papillary RCC. Average size in the clear cell RCC group was 6.07 cm and 1.88 cm in the papillary RCC group. An experienced radiologist examined all patients with CEUS. The following parameters were analysed: maximum signal intensity (PEAK), time elapsed until PEAK is reached (MTT), local blood flow (RBF), area under the time intensity curve (AUC) and the signal intensity (SI) during the course of time. For both groups all comparisons were made based on healthy renal parenchyma. RESULTS: In the clear cell RCC significant differences (significance level p < 0.05) between cancerous tissue and the healthy renal parenchyma were noticed in all four parameters. The clear cell RCC showed a significant reduced blood volume. It reached the PEAK reading relatively rapidly and its signal intensity was always lower than that of the healthy renal parenchyma. In the arterial phase retarded absorption of the contrast agent was observed, followed by fast washing out of the contrast agent bubbles.In the papillary RCC group, significant findings as to PEAK and RBF as well as a slightly significant difference as to AUC were recorded. The papillary RCC had a lower blood supply and reached its PEAK reading later. Its signal intensity was also reduced. The signal intensity of papillary NCC was significantly lower compared with clear cell RCC; absorption and washing out of the contrast agent was delayed. CONCLUSION: CEUS seems to be an useful additional method to clinically differentiate between clear cell and papillary RCC. In daily clinical use, patients with contraindication for other imaging methods, especially the magnetic resonance imaging, might particularly benefit from this method.
Authors: Thomas Geyer; Vincent Schwarze; Constantin Marschner; Moritz L Schnitzer; Matthias F Froelich; Johannes Rübenthaler; Dirk-André Clevert Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-11-19 Impact factor: 2.430