Comparative diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for differentiating clear cell and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma

被引:12
|
作者
Zhao, Ping [1 ,2 ]
Zhu, Jianing [2 ,3 ]
Wang, Lanke [2 ]
Li, Nan [2 ]
Zhang, Xinghua [4 ]
Li, Jinfeng [4 ]
Luo, Yukun [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Li, Qiuyang [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Nankai Univ, Sch Med, Tianjin 300071, Peoples R China
[2] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Med Ctr 1, Dept Ultrasound, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
[3] Med Sch Chinese PLA, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
[4] Chinese Peoples Liberat Army Gen Hosp, Med Ctr 1, Dept Radiol, Beijing 100853, Peoples R China
关键词
Renal cell carcinoma; Ultrasound imaging; Magnetic resonance imaging; Differential diagnosis; SUBTYPES; MASSES; PAPILLARY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY; CLASSIFICATION; MANAGEMENT; TUMORS; PART; MRI;
D O I
10.1007/s00330-023-09391-9
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
ObjectiveTo compare the diagnostic efficiency of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with that of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (DCE-MRI) for the differential diagnosis of clear and non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma, as confirmed by subsequent pathology.MethodsA total of 181 patients with 184 renal lesions diagnosed by both CEUS and DCE-MRI were enrolled in the study, including 136 clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) and 48 non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (non-ccRCC) tumors. All lesions were confirmed by histopathologic diagnosis after surgical resection. Interobserver agreement was estimated using a weighted kappa statistic. Diagnostic efficiency in evaluating ccRCC and non-ccRCC was compared between CEUS and DCE-MRI.ResultsThe weighted kappa value for interobserver agreement was 0.746 to 0.884 for CEUS diagnosis and 0.764 to 0.895 for DCE-MRI diagnosis. Good diagnostic performance in differential diagnosis of ccRCC and non-ccRCC was displayed by both CEUS and DCE-MRI: sensitivity was 89.7% and 91.9%, respectively; specificity was 77.1% and 68.8%, respectively; and area under the receiver operating curve was 0.834 and 0.803, respectively. No statistically significant differences were present between the two methods (p = 0.54).ConclusionsBoth CEUS and DCE-MRI imaging are effective for the differential diagnosis of ccRCC and non-ccRCC. Thus, CEUS could be an alternative to DCE-MRI as a first test for patients at risk of renal cancer, particularly where DCE-MRI cannot be carried out.
引用
收藏
页码:3766 / 3774
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced magnetic resonance for breast nodules
    Cuiying Li
    Haiyan Gong
    Lijun Ling
    Liwen Du
    Tong Su
    Shui Wang
    Jie Wang
    TheJournalofBiomedicalResearch, 2018, 32 (03) : 198 - 207
  • [32] Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and enhanced magnetic resonance for breast nodules
    Li, Cuiying
    Gong, Haiyan
    Ling, Lijun
    Du, Liwen
    Su, Tong
    Wang, Shui
    Wang, Jie
    JOURNAL OF BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH, 2018, 32 (03): : 198 - 207
  • [33] The diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differentiating small renal carcinoma and angiomyolipoma
    Chen, Lin
    Wang, Ling
    Diao, Xuehong
    Qian, Weiqing
    Fang, Liang
    Pang, Yun
    Zhan, Jia
    Chen, Yue
    BIOSCIENCE TRENDS, 2015, 9 (04) : 252 - 258
  • [34] Contrast agents in dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging
    Yan, Yuling
    Sun, Xilin
    Shen, Baozhong
    ONCOTARGET, 2017, 8 (26) : 43491 - 43505
  • [35] Comparison of dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound for evaluation of the effects of sorafenib in a rat model of hepatocellular carcinoma
    Munoz, Nina M.
    Minhaj, Adeeb A.
    Maldonado, Kiersten L.
    Kingsley, Charles, V
    Cortes, Andrea C.
    Taghavi, Houra
    Polak, Urszula
    Mitchell, Jennifer M.
    Ensor, Joe E.
    Bankson, James A.
    Rashid, Asif
    Avritscher, Rony
    MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING, 2019, 57 : 156 - 164
  • [36] Accuracy of conventional ultrasound, contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in assessing the size of breast cancer
    Shi, Xian-Quan
    Dong, Yunyun
    Tan, Xiaoqu
    Yang, Peipei
    Wang, Chunmei
    Feng, Wei
    Lin, Yuxuan
    Qian, Linxue
    CLINICAL HEMORHEOLOGY AND MICROCIRCULATION, 2022, 82 (02) : 157 - 168
  • [37] Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging versus diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging
    Yamamoto, Akira
    Tamada, Tsutomu
    Ito, Katsuyoshi
    Sone, Teruki
    Kanki, Akihiko
    Tanimoto, Daigo
    Noda, Yasufumi
    CLINICAL IMAGING, 2017, 41 : 53 - 58
  • [38] Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the diagnosis of cystic renal cell carcinoma
    Yuan, Xinchun
    Zhou, Aiyun
    Chen, Li
    Xu, Pan
    Zhang, Cheng
    Zhang, Yan
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL MEDICINE, 2017, 10 (07): : 10820 - 10826
  • [39] Intestinal perfusion measurements with contrast-enhanced ultrasound and dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging enterography: A comparison study
    Wilkens, R.
    Peters, D. A.
    Nielsen, A. H.
    Hovgaard, V. P.
    Glerup, H.
    Krogh, K.
    JOURNAL OF CROHNS & COLITIS, 2016, 10 : S164 - S165
  • [40] Diagnostic Value of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Features for WHO/ISUP Grading in Renal Cell Carcinoma
    Huang, Xiao
    Nie, Fang
    Zhu, Ju
    Liu, Luping
    Wang, Nan
    JOURNAL OF ULTRASOUND IN MEDICINE, 2023, 42 (07) : 1519 - 1525