scholarly journals The independent indicators for differentiating renal cell carcinoma from renal angiomyolipoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound

2020 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongli Cao ◽  
Liang Fang ◽  
Lin Chen ◽  
Jia Zhan ◽  
Xuehong Diao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Renal Angiomyolipoma ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Contrast Enhanced

scholarly journals The independent indicators for differentiating renal cell carcinoma from renal angiomyolipoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongli Cao ◽  
Liang Fang ◽  
Lin Chen ◽  
Jia Zhan ◽  
Xuehong Diao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Color Doppler ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Renal Angiomyolipoma ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Color Doppler Flow Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Color Doppler Flow

Abstract Background: The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and angiomyolipoma (AML) was analyzed. The purpose of this study was to identify the independent indicators of CEUS for predicting RCC. Methods: A total of 172 renal tumors (150 RCCs, 22 AMLs) in 165 patients underwent conventional ultrasound (CUS) and CEUS examinations before radical or partial nephrectomy, and the features on CUS and CEUS were analyzed. Results: There were significant differences in echogenicity, blood flow signals in color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), peak intensity, homogeneity of enhancement, wash in, wash out, and perilesional rim-like enhancement between RCC and AML ( P <0.05 for all). Multivariate analysis indicated that perilesional rim-like enhancement ( P =0.035, odds ratio [OR]=9.907, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.169-83.971) and fast wash out ( P =0.001, OR =9.755, 95%[CI]: 2.497-38.115) were independent indicators for predicting RCC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for perilesional rim-like enhancement was 0.838 (95% CI:0.774-0.890) with 76.7% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity, while the AUC of fast wash out was 0.833 (95% CI:0.768-0.885) with 74.7% sensitivity and 81.8% specificity. Conclusions: This study indicated that CEUS has value in differentiating RCC and AML. Present perilesional rim-like enhancement and fast wash out may be important indicators for predicting RCC. Key words: Renal cell carcinoma; angiomyolipoma; contrast-enhanced ultrasound; ultrasonography

scholarly journals The independent indicators for differentiating renal cell carcinoma from renal angiomyolipoma by contrast-enhanced ultrasound

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hongli Cao(Former Corresponding Author) ◽  
Liang Fang ◽  
Lin Chen(New Corresponding Author) ◽  
Jia Zhan ◽  
Xuehong Diao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Color Doppler ◽  
Renal Tumors ◽  
Renal Angiomyolipoma ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Color Doppler Flow Imaging ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Color Doppler Flow

Abstract Background: The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and angiomyolipoma (AML) was analyzed. The purpose of this study was to identify the independent indicators of CEUS for predicting RCC. Methods: A total of 172 renal tumors (150 RCCs, 22 AMLs) in 165 patients underwent conventional ultrasound (CUS) and CEUS examinations before radical or partial nephrectomy, and the features on CUS and CEUS were analyzed. Results: There were significant differences in echogenicity, blood flow signals in color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), peak intensity, homogeneity of enhancement, wash in, wash out, and perilesional rim-like enhancement between RCC and AML ( P <0.05 for all). Multivariate analysis indicated that perilesional rim-like enhancement ( P =0.035, odds ratio [OR]=9.907, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.169-83.971) and fast wash out ( P =0.001, OR =9.755, 95%[CI]: 2.497-38.115) were independent indicators for predicting RCC. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for perilesional rim-like enhancement was 0.838 (95% CI:0.774-0.890) with 76.7% sensitivity and 90.9% specificity, while the AUC of fast wash out was 0.833 (95% CI:0.768-0.885) with 74.7% sensitivity and 81.8% specificity. Conclusions: This study indicated that CEUS has value in differentiating RCC and AML. Present perilesional rim-like enhancement and fast wash out may be important indicators for predicting RCC. Key words: Renal cell carcinoma; angiomyolipoma; contrast-enhanced ultrasound; ultrasonography

scholarly journals Contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings of adult renal cell carcinoma associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE3 gene fusion: comparison with clear cell renal cell carcinoma and papillary renal cell carcinoma

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Shuping Wei ◽  
Fuli Tian ◽  
Qiuyuan Xia ◽  
Pengfei Huang ◽  
Yidan Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Cell Carcinoma ◽  
Renal Cell ◽  
Gene Fusion ◽  
Clear Cell ◽  
Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound ◽  
Peak Enhancement ◽  
Contrast Enhanced ◽  
Cystic Component ◽  
Xp11.2 Translocation

Abstract Background To investigate the contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) associated with Xp11.2 translocation/TFE3 gene fusion (Xp11.2/TFE3) in adult patients by comparison with those of clear cell RCC (ccRCC) and papillary RCC (pRCC). Methods In total, 110 patients (110 renal masses) who underwent CEUS examinations were enrolled in this study. The cases included 18 Xp11.2/TFE3 RCCs, 60 ccRCCs and 32 pRCCs. All masses were confirmed by operative pathology. The CEUS imaging data of these patients were retrospectively analysed by two readers. The conventional US and CEUS features of Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC were compared with those of ccRCC and pRCC. Results The age of the patients with Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC ranged from 20 to 68 years, with a mean age of 38.3 ± 16.3 years and a slight female predominance. The weighted kappa value that interprets the concordance between the interobserver agreement of the US and CEUS features ranged from 0.61 to 0.89. On conventional US and CEUS imaging of Xp11.2/TFE3 RCCs, the tumours were hypoechoic (6/18, 33.3%), isoechoic (8/18, 44.4%), and hyperechoic (4/18, 22.2%). The cystic component was present in 5 cases (27.8%), calcification was present in 9 cases (50.0%), and colour flow signal was present in 7 cases (38.9%). Most cases showed simultaneous wash-in (11/18, 61.1%); the peak enhancement showed hypoenhancement (6/18, 33.3%), isoenhancement (10/18, 55.6%), and hyperenhancement (2/18, 11.1%); most cases exhibited heterogeneous enhancement (12/18, 66.7%) and fast- or simultaneous-out (16/18, 88.9%); and a pseudocapsule was present in 6 cases (33.3%). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, calcification and lower peak enhancement were more likely to be present in Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC than in ccRCC (P < 0.05), and younger age and relatively high peak enhancement were more likely to be present in Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC than in pRCC (P < 0.05). The calcification combined peak enhancement model differentiated Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from ccRCC, and the age combined peak enhancement model differentiated Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from pRCC with an AUC, a sensitivity and a specificity of 0.896, 94.4% and 73.3% and 0.786, 50.0% and 100.0%, respectively. Conclusions The specific CEUS features combined with demographic information and clinical symptoms may be helpful for differentiating Xp11.2/TFE3 RCC from ccRCC and pRCC.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document