CONTEXT: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has the potential to be a valuable alternative to contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMR), the current gold standards in characterisation of renal masses. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all available evidence on the qualitative diagnostic performance of CEUS versus that of CECT and CEMR in the evaluation of benign and malignant cystic and solid renal masses. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 1483 articles, six cohort studies and 10 descriptive studies were included. Pooling data from included studies with final diagnosis of benign or malignant renal masses by pathology showed a significant difference in the sensitivity of CEUS (0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-0.98) versus that of CECT (0.90; 95% CI 0.86-0.93). Pooling data from included studies with final diagnosis by pathology report or reaffirmed diagnosis by follow-up imaging without pathology report showed significant difference in the sensitivity of CEUS (0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.0) versus that of CEMR (0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data imply that CEUS may perform at least as well as or better than CECT and CEMR in the diagnosis of renal masses. However, the evidence base is limited, and more high-quality, well-designed, adequately powered, and sampled studies are needed to reach definitive conclusions. PATIENT SUMMARY: Early data suggest that contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a promising option for the evaluation of renal masses, but more reliable evidence is required.
CONTEXT: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has the potential to be a valuable alternative to contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CEMR), the current gold standards in characterisation of renal masses. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review all available evidence on the qualitative diagnostic performance of CEUS versus that of CECT and CEMR in the evaluation of benign and malignant cystic and solid renal masses. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: The review was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: After screening 1483 articles, six cohort studies and 10 descriptive studies were included. Pooling data from included studies with final diagnosis of benign or malignant renal masses by pathology showed a significant difference in the sensitivity of CEUS (0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.94-0.98) versus that of CECT (0.90; 95% CI 0.86-0.93). Pooling data from included studies with final diagnosis by pathology report or reaffirmed diagnosis by follow-up imaging without pathology report showed significant difference in the sensitivity of CEUS (0.98; 95% CI 0.94-1.0) versus that of CEMR (0.78; 95% CI 0.66-0.91). CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary data imply that CEUS may perform at least as well as or better than CECT and CEMR in the diagnosis of renal masses. However, the evidence base is limited, and more high-quality, well-designed, adequately powered, and sampled studies are needed to reach definitive conclusions. PATIENT SUMMARY: Early data suggest that contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a promising option for the evaluation of renal masses, but more reliable evidence is required.