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

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Jin, Li
Data de Publicação: 2020
Outros Autores: Xie, Feng
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Clinics
Texto Completo: https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128
Resumo: 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.
id USP-19_36bb6eeaf9b121b677d97bd11168e2e8
oai_identifier_str oai:revistas.usp.br:article/167128
network_acronym_str USP-19
network_name_str Clinics
repository_id_str
spelling Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney LesionsChromophobe Renal Cell CarcinomaContrast-Enhanced Computed TomographyContrastEnhanced UltrasoundHistopathologyPapillary Renal Cell CarcinomaRenal Cell CarcinomaOBJECTIVES: 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.Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo2020-02-28info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfapplication/xmlhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/16712810.6061/clinics/2020/e1489Clinics; Vol. 75 (2020); e1489Clinics; v. 75 (2020); e1489Clinics; Vol. 75 (2020); e14891980-53221807-5932reponame:Clinicsinstname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)instacron:USPenghttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128/159575https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128/159576Copyright (c) 2020 Clinicsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessJin, LiXie, Feng2020-02-28T13:32:04Zoai:revistas.usp.br:article/167128Revistahttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinicsPUBhttps://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/oai||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br1980-53221807-5932opendoar:2020-02-28T13:32:04Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv 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
spellingShingle Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
Jin, Li
Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma
Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography
ContrastEnhanced Ultrasound
Histopathology
Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
title_short 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_sort Untargeted Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Versus Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography: A Differential Diagnostic Performance (DDP) Study for Kidney Lesions
author Jin, Li
author_facet Jin, Li
Xie, Feng
author_role author
author2 Xie, Feng
author2_role author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Jin, Li
Xie, Feng
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma
Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography
ContrastEnhanced Ultrasound
Histopathology
Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
topic Chromophobe Renal Cell Carcinoma
Contrast-Enhanced Computed Tomography
ContrastEnhanced Ultrasound
Histopathology
Papillary Renal Cell Carcinoma
Renal Cell Carcinoma
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.
publishDate 2020
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2020-02-28
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128
10.6061/clinics/2020/e1489
url https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128
identifier_str_mv 10.6061/clinics/2020/e1489
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128/159575
https://www.revistas.usp.br/clinics/article/view/167128/159576
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Clinics
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv Copyright (c) 2020 Clinics
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
application/xml
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Clinics; Vol. 75 (2020); e1489
Clinics; v. 75 (2020); e1489
Clinics; Vol. 75 (2020); e1489
1980-5322
1807-5932
reponame:Clinics
instname:Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron:USP
instname_str Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
instacron_str USP
institution USP
reponame_str Clinics
collection Clinics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Clinics - Universidade de São Paulo (USP)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||clinics@hc.fm.usp.br
_version_ 1800222764694503424