Sheng F Oon1, Robert W Foley2, Deirdre Quinn2, David M Quinlan3, Robert G Gibney2. 1. Department of Radiology, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. sheng.oon@petermac.org. 2. Department of Radiology, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland. 3. Department of Urology, St. Vincent's University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Focal renal masses are typically evaluated by means of triphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI scan but use of iodinated contrast or gadolinium is unsuitable for some patients. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging alternative in this scenario but has limited availability in Ireland. AIM: The aim of the study was to retrospectively evaluate experience with selective use of CEUS for non-invasive characterization of focal renal masses in a tertiary referral institution in Ireland, with a particular focus on cystic renal lesions and the influence of CEUS on final Bosniak classification and treatment outcomes. METHODS: All cases of renal CEUS between 2009 and 2017 were identified. Imaging history, patient records, histopathology reports, urology conference notes, clinical follow-up details, details of lesion progression or stability on surveillance, biopsy and/or resection details and pre- and post-CEUS Bosniak scores were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients underwent renal CEUS (7 solid renal lesions, 21 cystic renal lesions and 3 'indeterminate' renal lesions). After CEUS, the CEUS-modified Bosniak score was upgraded in nine patients and downgraded in two patients. All three lesions upgraded from Bosniak III to IV were renal cell carcinomas. One of two lesions downgraded from Bosniak IV to III was resected (cystic nephroma) and the other showed no progression after 19 months of surveillance. CONCLUSION: CEUS is a valuable alternative to CT in assessing complex cystic or solid renal lesions where iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium is inappropriate. CEUS can also refine the Bosniak category of atypical cystic renal lesions and help facilitate treatment decisions.
BACKGROUND: Focal renal masses are typically evaluated by means of triphasic contrast-enhanced CT or MRI scan but use of iodinated contrast or gadolinium is unsuitable for some patients. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an imaging alternative in this scenario but has limited availability in Ireland. AIM: The aim of the study was to retrospectively evaluate experience with selective use of CEUS for non-invasive characterization of focal renal masses in a tertiary referral institution in Ireland, with a particular focus on cystic renal lesions and the influence of CEUS on final Bosniak classification and treatment outcomes. METHODS: All cases of renal CEUS between 2009 and 2017 were identified. Imaging history, patient records, histopathology reports, urology conference notes, clinical follow-up details, details of lesion progression or stability on surveillance, biopsy and/or resection details and pre- and post-CEUS Bosniak scores were recorded. RESULTS: Thirty-one patients underwent renal CEUS (7 solid renal lesions, 21 cystic renal lesions and 3 'indeterminate' renal lesions). After CEUS, the CEUS-modified Bosniak score was upgraded in nine patients and downgraded in two patients. All three lesions upgraded from Bosniak III to IV were renal cell carcinomas. One of two lesions downgraded from Bosniak IV to III was resected (cystic nephroma) and the other showed no progression after 19 months of surveillance. CONCLUSION: CEUS is a valuable alternative to CT in assessing complex cystic or solid renal lesions where iodinated CT contrast or gadolinium is inappropriate. CEUS can also refine the Bosniak category of atypical cystic renal lesions and help facilitate treatment decisions.
Authors: M Claudon; D Cosgrove; T Albrecht; L Bolondi; M Bosio; F Calliada; J-M Correas; K Darge; C Dietrich; M D'Onofrio; D H Evans; C Filice; L Greiner; K Jäger; N de Jong; E Leen; R Lencioni; D Lindsell; A Martegani; S Meairs; C Nolsøe; F Piscaglia; P Ricci; G Seidel; B Skjoldbye; L Solbiati; L Thorelius; F Tranquart; H P Weskott; T Whittingham Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: F Piscaglia; C Nolsøe; C F Dietrich; D O Cosgrove; O H Gilja; M Bachmann Nielsen; T Albrecht; L Barozzi; M Bertolotto; O Catalano; M Claudon; D A Clevert; J M Correas; M D'Onofrio; F M Drudi; J Eyding; M Giovannini; M Hocke; A Ignee; E M Jung; A S Klauser; N Lassau; E Leen; G Mathis; A Saftoiu; G Seidel; P S Sidhu; G ter Haar; D Timmerman; H P Weskott Journal: Ultraschall Med Date: 2011-08-26 Impact factor: 6.548
Authors: Jeremiah S Hinson; Michael R Ehmann; Derek M Fine; Elliot K Fishman; Matthew F Toerper; Richard E Rothman; Eili Y Klein Journal: Ann Emerg Med Date: 2017-01-25 Impact factor: 5.721
Authors: Anas M Saad; Mohamed M Gad; Muneer J Al-Husseini; Inas A Ruhban; Mohamad Bassam Sonbol; Thai H Ho Journal: Clin Genitourin Cancer Date: 2018-10-11 Impact factor: 2.872
Authors: M Beatrice Damasio; Lil-Sofie Ording Müller; Thomas A Augdal; Fred E Avni; Luca Basso; Costanza Bruno; Damjana Ključevšek; Annemieke S Littooij; Stéphanie Franchi-Abella; Luisa M Lobo; Hans-Joachim Mentzel; Marcello Napolitano; Aikaterini Ntoulia; Michael Riccabona; Samuel Stafrace; M Magdalena M Woźniak; Philippe Petit Journal: Pediatr Radiol Date: 2019-11-27
Authors: Vincent Schwarze; Johannes Rübenthaler; Saša Čečatka; Constantin Marschner; Matthias Frank Froelich; Bastian Oliver Sabel; Michael Staehler; Thomas Knösel; Thomas Geyer; Dirk-André Clevert Journal: Medicina (Kaunas) Date: 2020-12-12 Impact factor: 2.430