K Stock1, H Kübler2, T Maurer3, J Slotta-Huspenina4, K Holzapfel5. 1. Nephrologischer Ultraschall, Abteilung für Nephrologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, München, Deutschland. Konrad.Stock@tum.de. 2. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie und Kinderurologie, Universitätsklinikum Würzburg, Würzburg, Deutschland. 3. Klinik und Poliklinik für Urologie, Klinikum rechts der Isar, TU München, München, Deutschland. 4. Institut für Pathologie und pathologische Anatomie, TU München, München, Deutschland. 5. Institut für Radiologie, Krankenhaus Landshut-Achdorf, Landshut, Deutschland.
Abstract
CLINICAL ISSUE: Renal lesions are detected earlier, often as a result of ultrasound examinations. However, the imaging-based differential diagnosis of different tumour entities remains challenging STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: All renal tumours >1 cm should be evaluated for malignancy by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). If an angiomyolipoma diagnosis cannot be established with imaging, further diagnostics are appropriate or if malignant progression is suspected, then multidisciplinary discussion for TNM-staging based uro-oncologic therapy is usual. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) gives clear information about the microperfusion of renal tumours. PERFORMANCE: CEUS is helpful for the differentiation of renal cysts and especially papillary renal cell carcinomas. Moreover, CEUS advances renal tumour detection compared to B‑mode and Doppler ultrasound per se. Cortical pseudolesions may be confidently ruled out using CEUS. ACHIEVEMENTS: Clear differentiation of benign and malignant renal lesions >1 cm remains challenging, and only in rare cases is it possible with CEUS alone. Nevertheless CEUS is, in combination with other ultrasound techniques, eminently suitable for diagnosing focal pyelonephritis, renal abscesses and suspected renal lymphoma and supports the planning of ultrasound-assisted tumour biopsies. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Combining different imaging techniques is essential to accurately diagnose renal tumors. These imaging results (including the ultrasound/CEUS clips) should be viewed by the multidisciplinary cancer tumour board to facilitate individual treatment concepts for each patient.
CLINICAL ISSUE: Renal lesions are detected earlier, often as a result of ultrasound examinations. However, the imaging-based differential diagnosis of different tumour entities remains challenging STANDARD RADIOLOGICAL METHODS: All renal tumours >1 cm should be evaluated for malignancy by computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). If an angiomyolipoma diagnosis cannot be established with imaging, further diagnostics are appropriate or if malignant progression is suspected, then multidisciplinary discussion for TNM-staging based uro-oncologic therapy is usual. METHODICAL INNOVATIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) gives clear information about the microperfusion of renal tumours. PERFORMANCE: CEUS is helpful for the differentiation of renal cysts and especially papillary renal cell carcinomas. Moreover, CEUS advances renal tumour detection compared to B‑mode and Doppler ultrasound per se. Cortical pseudolesions may be confidently ruled out using CEUS. ACHIEVEMENTS: Clear differentiation of benign and malignant renal lesions >1 cm remains challenging, and only in rare cases is it possible with CEUS alone. Nevertheless CEUS is, in combination with other ultrasound techniques, eminently suitable for diagnosing focal pyelonephritis, renal abscesses and suspected renal lymphoma and supports the planning of ultrasound-assisted tumour biopsies. PRACTICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: Combining different imaging techniques is essential to accurately diagnose renal tumors. These imaging results (including the ultrasound/CEUS clips) should be viewed by the multidisciplinary cancer tumour board to facilitate individual treatment concepts for each patient.
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: Raouf M Seyam; Nabil K Bissada; Said A Kattan; Alaa A Mokhtar; Muhammad Aslam; Wahib E Fahmy; Walid A Mourad; Ali A Binmahfouz; Hassan M Alzahrani; Kamal A Hanash Journal: Urology Date: 2008-09-21 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: D-A Clevert; K Stock; B Klein; J Slotta-Huspenina; L Prantl; U Heemann; M Reiser Journal: Clin Hemorheol Microcirc Date: 2009 Impact factor: 2.375
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