Cargando…

Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions

OBJECTIVES: Histopathology is the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosing renal cell carcinoma but is limited by sample size. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound can differentiate malignant and benign lesions, but the Chinese guidelines on the management of renal cell carcinoma do not include this method. The purpo...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Jin, Li, Xie, Feng
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Faculdade de Medicina / USP 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32130354
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e1489
_version_ 1783498764138315776
author Jin, Li
Xie, Feng
author_facet Jin, Li
Xie, Feng
author_sort Jin, Li
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: Histopathology is the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosing renal cell carcinoma but is limited by sample size. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound can differentiate malignant and benign lesions, but the Chinese guidelines on the management of renal cell carcinoma do not include this method. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic parameters of contrast-enhanced ultrasound against those of contrast-enhanced computed tomography for detecting kidney lesions, with histopathology considered the reference standard. METHODS: Patients with suspected kidney lesions from prior grayscale ultrasonography and computed tomography were included in the analysis (n=191). The contrast-enhanced ultrasound, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and histopathology data were collected and analyzed. A solid, enhanced mass was considered a malignant lesion, and an unenhanced mass or cyst was considered a benign lesion. The Bosniak criteria were used to characterize the lesions. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography both detected that 151 patients had malignant tumors and 40 patients had benign tumors. No significant differences in the tumors and their subtypes were reported between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and histopathology (p=0.804). Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma was detected through contrast-enhanced computed tomography (n=1), but no such finding was reported by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. A total of 35 cases of papillary renal cell carcinoma were reported through contrast-enhanced ultrasound while 32 were reported through histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound might be safe and as accurate as histopathology in diagnosing kidney lesions, especially renal cell carcinoma. Additionally, this study provides additional information over histopathology and has an excellent safety profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7026943
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Faculdade de Medicina / USP
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-70269432020-02-20 Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions Jin, Li Xie, Feng Clinics (Sao Paulo) Original Article OBJECTIVES: Histopathology is the ‘gold standard’ for diagnosing renal cell carcinoma but is limited by sample size. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound can differentiate malignant and benign lesions, but the Chinese guidelines on the management of renal cell carcinoma do not include this method. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic parameters of contrast-enhanced ultrasound against those of contrast-enhanced computed tomography for detecting kidney lesions, with histopathology considered the reference standard. METHODS: Patients with suspected kidney lesions from prior grayscale ultrasonography and computed tomography were included in the analysis (n=191). The contrast-enhanced ultrasound, contrast-enhanced computed tomography, and histopathology data were collected and analyzed. A solid, enhanced mass was considered a malignant lesion, and an unenhanced mass or cyst was considered a benign lesion. The Bosniak criteria were used to characterize the lesions. RESULTS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and contrast-enhanced computed tomography both detected that 151 patients had malignant tumors and 40 patients had benign tumors. No significant differences in the tumors and their subtypes were reported between contrast-enhanced ultrasound and histopathology (p=0.804). Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma was detected through contrast-enhanced computed tomography (n=1), but no such finding was reported by contrast-enhanced ultrasound. A total of 35 cases of papillary renal cell carcinoma were reported through contrast-enhanced ultrasound while 32 were reported through histopathology. CONCLUSIONS: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound might be safe and as accurate as histopathology in diagnosing kidney lesions, especially renal cell carcinoma. Additionally, this study provides additional information over histopathology and has an excellent safety profile. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: III. Faculdade de Medicina / USP 2020-02-18 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7026943/ /pubmed/32130354 http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e1489 Text en Copyright © 2020 CLINICS http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Jin, Li
Xie, Feng
Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
title Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
title_full Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
title_fullStr Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
title_full_unstemmed Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
title_short Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
title_sort untargeted contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus contrast-enhanced computed tomography: a differential diagnostic performance (ddp) study for kidney lesions
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7026943/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32130354
http://dx.doi.org/10.6061/clinics/2020/e1489
work_keys_str_mv AT jinli untargetedcontrastenhancedultrasoundversuscontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyadifferentialdiagnosticperformanceddpstudyforkidneylesions
AT xiefeng untargetedcontrastenhancedultrasoundversuscontrastenhancedcomputedtomographyadifferentialdiagnosticperformanceddpstudyforkidneylesions