Pedram Akbari1, Fatemah Nasri2, Shirley X Deng1, Saima Khowaja1, Seung H Lee1, William Warnica2, Hua Lu3, Anand Rattansingh2, Mostafa Atri2, Korosh Khalili2, Pei York4. 1. Division of Nephrology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Medical Imaging, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Cell Biology Program, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Division of Nephrology, University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada york.pei@uhn.ca.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total kidney volume is a validated prognostic biomarker for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Total kidney volume by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and manual segmentation is considered the "reference standard," but it is time consuming and not readily accessible. By contrast, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound provides a promising technology for total kidney volume measurements with unknown potential. Here, we report a comparative study of total kidney volume measurements by 3D ultrasound versus the conventional methods by ultrasound ellipsoid and MRI ellipsoid. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This single-center prospective study included 142 patients who completed a standardized 3D ultrasound and MRI. Total kidney volumes by 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid were compared with those by MRI. We assessed the agreement of total kidney volume measurements by Bland-Altman plots and misclassification of the Mayo Clinic imaging classes between the different imaging methods, and we assessed prediction of Mayo Clinic imaging classes 1C-1E by average ultrasound kidney length >16.5 cm. RESULTS: Compared with MRI manual segmentation, MRI ellipsoid, 3D ultrasound, and ultrasound ellipsoid underestimated total kidney volume (mean difference: -3%, -9%, and -11%, respectively), with Mayo Clinic imaging classes misclassified in 11%, 21%, and 22% of patients, respectively; most misclassified cases by MRI ellipsoid (11 of 16), 3D ultrasound (23 of 30), and ultrasound ellipsoid (26 of 31) were placed into a lower Mayo Clinic imaging class. Predictions of the high-risk Mayo Clinic imaging classes (1C-1E) by MRI ellipsoid, 3D ultrasound, and ultrasound ellipsoid all yielded high positive predictive value (96%, 95%, and 98%, respectively) and specificity (96%, 96%, and 99%, respectively). However, both negative predictive value (90%, 88%, and 95%, respectively) and sensitivity (88%, 85%, and 94%, respectively) were lower for 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid compared with MRI ellipsoid. An average ultrasound kidney length >16.5 cm was highly predictive of Mayo Clinic imaging classes 1C-1E only in patients aged ≤45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Total kidney volume measurements in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease by 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid displayed similar bias and variability and are less accurate than MRI ellipsoid. Prediction of high-risk Mayo Clinic imaging classes (1C-1E) by all three methods provides high positive predictive value, but ultrasound ellipsoid is simpler to use and more readily available.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Total kidney volume is a validated prognostic biomarker for autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease. Total kidney volume by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and manual segmentation is considered the "reference standard," but it is time consuming and not readily accessible. By contrast, three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound provides a promising technology for total kidney volume measurements with unknown potential. Here, we report a comparative study of total kidney volume measurements by 3D ultrasound versus the conventional methods by ultrasound ellipsoid and MRI ellipsoid. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This single-center prospective study included 142 patients who completed a standardized 3D ultrasound and MRI. Total kidney volumes by 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid were compared with those by MRI. We assessed the agreement of total kidney volume measurements by Bland-Altman plots and misclassification of the Mayo Clinic imaging classes between the different imaging methods, and we assessed prediction of Mayo Clinic imaging classes 1C-1E by average ultrasound kidney length >16.5 cm. RESULTS: Compared with MRI manual segmentation, MRI ellipsoid, 3D ultrasound, and ultrasound ellipsoid underestimated total kidney volume (mean difference: -3%, -9%, and -11%, respectively), with Mayo Clinic imaging classes misclassified in 11%, 21%, and 22% of patients, respectively; most misclassified cases by MRI ellipsoid (11 of 16), 3D ultrasound (23 of 30), and ultrasound ellipsoid (26 of 31) were placed into a lower Mayo Clinic imaging class. Predictions of the high-risk Mayo Clinic imaging classes (1C-1E) by MRI ellipsoid, 3D ultrasound, and ultrasound ellipsoid all yielded high positive predictive value (96%, 95%, and 98%, respectively) and specificity (96%, 96%, and 99%, respectively). However, both negative predictive value (90%, 88%, and 95%, respectively) and sensitivity (88%, 85%, and 94%, respectively) were lower for 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid compared with MRI ellipsoid. An average ultrasound kidney length >16.5 cm was highly predictive of Mayo Clinic imaging classes 1C-1E only in patients aged ≤45 years. CONCLUSIONS: Total kidney volume measurements in autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease by 3D ultrasound and ultrasound ellipsoid displayed similar bias and variability and are less accurate than MRI ellipsoid. Prediction of high-risk Mayo Clinic imaging classes (1C-1E) by all three methods provides high positive predictive value, but ultrasound ellipsoid is simpler to use and more readily available.
Authors: Alan S L Yu; Chengli Shen; Douglas P Landsittel; Jared J Grantham; Larry T Cook; Vicente E Torres; Arlene B Chapman; Kyongtae Ty Bae; Michal Mrug; Peter C Harris; Frederic F Rahbari-Oskoui; Tiange Shi; William M Bennett Journal: Kidney Int Date: 2019-03-04 Impact factor: 10.612
Authors: W Charles O'Neill; Michelle L Robbin; Kyongtae T Bae; Jared J Grantham; Arlene B Chapman; Lisa M Guay-Woodford; Vicente E Torres; Bernard F King; Louis H Wetzel; Paul A Thompson; J Philip Miller Journal: Am J Kidney Dis Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 8.860
Authors: York Pei; James Obaji; Annie Dupuis; Andrew D Paterson; Riccardo Magistroni; Elizabeth Dicks; Patrick Parfrey; Benvon Cramer; Eliecer Coto; Roser Torra; Jose L San Millan; Robert Gibson; Martijn Breuning; Dorien Peters; David Ravine Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2008-10-22 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Steven Soroka; Ahsan Alam; Micheli Bevilacqua; Louis-Philippe Girard; Paul Komenda; Rolf Loertscher; Philip McFarlane; Sanjaya Pandeya; Paul Tam; Daniel G Bichet Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2017-03-01