Johannes Rübenthaler1,2, G Negrão de Figueiredo3, K Mueller-Peltzer3, D A Clevert3. 1. Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich-Grosshadern Campus, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Johannes.Ruebenthaler@med.uni-muenchen.de. 2. Department of Radiology, Interdisciplinary Ultrasound Center, University of Munich-Grosshadern Campus, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany. Johannes.Ruebenthaler@med.uni-muenchen.de. 3. Department of Radiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich-Grosshadern Campus, Marchioninistr. 15, 81377, Munich, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of renal masses. METHODS: This study included 255 patients with renal masses. Ages ranged from 18-86 years. CEUS was used for determining malignancy or benignancy and findings were correlated with the histopathological outcome. Out of 255 lesions, 212 lesions were malignant (83.1%) and 43 were benign (16.9%). Diagnostic accuracy was tested using the histopathological diagnosis as the gold standard. RESULTS: CEUS showed a sensitivity of 99.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 96.7%, 99.9%], a specificity of 80.5% (CI: 65.1%, 91.2%), a positive predictive value of 96.4% (CI: 93.0%, 98.4%) and a negative predictive value of 94.3% (CI: 80.8%, 99.3%). Kappa for diagnostic accuracy was κ = 0.85 (CI: 0.75, 0.94). Of 212 malignant lesions, 200 renal cell carcinomas and 12 other malignant lesions were diagnosed. Out of 43 benign lesions, 10 angiomyolipomas, 3 oncocytomas, 8 renal cysts and 22 other benign lesions were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: CEUS is an useful method to differentiate between malignant and benignant renal lesions. To date, to our knowledge, this is the largest study in Europe for the evaluation of renal lesions using CEUS with a histopathological validation. KEY POINTS: • CEUS helps clinicians detect and characterise unclear solid and cystic renal lesions • CEUS shows a high diagnostic accuracy in the characterization of these lesions • Proper surgical treatment or follow-up can be given with better diagnostic confidence.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the evaluation of renal masses. METHODS: This study included 255 patients with renal masses. Ages ranged from 18-86 years. CEUS was used for determining malignancy or benignancy and findings were correlated with the histopathological outcome. Out of 255 lesions, 212 lesions were malignant (83.1%) and 43 were benign (16.9%). Diagnostic accuracy was tested using the histopathological diagnosis as the gold standard. RESULTS: CEUS showed a sensitivity of 99.1% [95% confidence interval (CI): 96.7%, 99.9%], a specificity of 80.5% (CI: 65.1%, 91.2%), a positive predictive value of 96.4% (CI: 93.0%, 98.4%) and a negative predictive value of 94.3% (CI: 80.8%, 99.3%). Kappa for diagnostic accuracy was κ = 0.85 (CI: 0.75, 0.94). Of 212 malignant lesions, 200 renal cell carcinomas and 12 other malignant lesions were diagnosed. Out of 43 benign lesions, 10 angiomyolipomas, 3 oncocytomas, 8 renal cysts and 22 other benign lesions were diagnosed. CONCLUSION: CEUS is an useful method to differentiate between malignant and benignant renal lesions. To date, to our knowledge, this is the largest study in Europe for the evaluation of renal lesions using CEUS with a histopathological validation. KEY POINTS: • CEUS helps clinicians detect and characterise unclear solid and cystic renal lesions • CEUS shows a high diagnostic accuracy in the characterization of these lesions • Proper surgical treatment or follow-up can be given with better diagnostic confidence.
Authors: R Reimann; J Rübenthaler; P Hristova; M Staehler; M Reiser; D A Clevert Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: J Rübenthaler; R Reimann; P Hristova; M Staehler; M Reiser; D A Clevert Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2015-10-16 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Robert J Motzer; Thomas E Hutson; Piotr Tomczak; M Dror Michaelson; Ronald M Bukowski; Olivier Rixe; Stéphane Oudard; Sylvie Negrier; Cezary Szczylik; Sindy T Kim; Isan Chen; Paul W Bycott; Charles M Baum; Robert A Figlin Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2007-01-11 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Borje Ljungberg; Karim Bensalah; Steven Canfield; Saeed Dabestani; Fabian Hofmann; Milan Hora; Markus A Kuczyk; Thomas Lam; Lorenzo Marconi; Axel S Merseburger; Peter Mulders; Thomas Powles; Michael Staehler; Alessandro Volpe; Axel Bex Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Jeffrey M Woldrich; Katherine Mallin; Jamie Ritchey; Peter R Carroll; Christopher J Kane Journal: J Urol Date: 2008-03-17 Impact factor: 7.450
Authors: D-A Clevert; N Minaifar; S Weckbach; E M Jung; K Stock; M Reiser; M Staehler Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2008 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Vincent Schwarze; Constantin Marschner; Wiebke Völckers; Sergio Grosu; Giovanna Negrão de Figueiredo; Johannes Rübenthaler; Dirk-André Clevert Journal: J Int Med Res Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 1.671
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
Authors: Kun Shan; A Bu DU Li Ai Ze Zi Ha Li Fu; Ningning Liu; Qiliang Cai; Qingfeng Fu; Leyi Liu; Xiaoyu Sun; Zhihong Zhang Journal: Medicine (Baltimore) Date: 2020-11-13 Impact factor: 1.889
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
Authors: Vincenza Granata; Roberta Grassi; Roberta Fusco; Andrea Belli; Carmen Cutolo; Silvia Pradella; Giulia Grazzini; Michelearcangelo La Porta; Maria Chiara Brunese; Federica De Muzio; Alessandro Ottaiano; Antonio Avallone; Francesco Izzo; Antonella Petrillo Journal: Infect Agent Cancer Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 2.965