Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Histotype differentiation of hypo-echoic renal tumors on CEUS: usefulness of enhancement homogeneity and intensity

  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate qualitative and quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differential diagnoses of hypo-echoic renal tumor histotypes.

Methods

Our study cohort comprised 103 clear cell renal cell carcinomas (ccRCCs), 24 papillary renal cell carcinomas (pRCCs), 28 chromophobe renal cell carcinomas (cRCCs), and 34 angiomyolipomas (AMLs), hypo-echoic on ultrasound, and imaged between January 2011 and December 2013. Enhancement homogeneity and tumor-to-cortex intensity ratio (TOC ratio) were retrospectively analyzed.

Results

Overall, heterogeneous enhancement was more common in ccRCCs than AMLs, pRCCs, and cRCCs. TOC ratio showed the trend ccRCC > AML > pRCC = cRCC. Similar trends were seen in tumors <4 cm. Using heterogeneous enhancement or TOC ratio >107.5% to differentiate ccRCC from other histotypes, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 93.1%, 74.5%, 84.8%, and 87.5%, respectively. Tumors >4 cm exhibited considerable overlap in enhancement homogeneity among different histotypes. TOC ratios were similar between homo- and heterogeneously enhancing tumors for ccRCCs and for pRCCs and cRCCs, but higher in homogeneously enhancing than heterogeneously enhancing AMLs. In homo- and heterogeneously enhancing tumors, TOC ratios followed the trends ccRCCs > AMLs > pRCCs = cRCCs and ccRCCs > AMLs = pRCCs = cRCCs, respectively. With TOC ratio >105.81% and >72.37% to differentiate homo- and heterogeneously enhancing ccRCCs from other histotypes in tumors >4 cm with same enhancement homogeneity, the sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values were 70.0%, 85.7%, 70.0%, 85.7%, and 91.7%, 94.4%, 95.7%, 89.5%, respectively.

Conclusion

CEUS homogeneity and TOC ratio are helpful in differential diagnosis of hypo-echoic renal tumor histotypes. Diameter and enhancement homogeneity should be considered when deciding the diagnostic TOC ratio cutoff.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eble JN, Sauter G, Epstein JI, Sesterhenn IA (2004) Pathology and genetics: tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs. Lyon: IARC, p 65

    Google Scholar 

  2. Reuter VE (2006) The pathology of renal epithelial neoplasms. Semin Oncol 33:534–543. doi:10.1053/j.seminoncol.2006.06.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Hagenkord JM, Gatalica Z, Jonasch E, Monzon FA (2011) Clinical genomics of renal epithelial tumors. Cancer Genet 204:285–297. doi:10.1016/j.cancergen.2011.06.001

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Lam JS, Shvarts O, Leppert JT, Figlin RA, Belldegrun AS (2005) Renal cell 2005: new frontiers in staging, prognostication and targeted molecular therapy. J Urol 173:1853–1862. doi:10.1097/01.ju.0000165693.68449.c3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Stadler WM (2005) Targeted agents for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma. Cancer 104:2323–2333. doi:10.1002/cncr.21453

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hartman DS, Goldman SM, Friedman AC, et al. (1981) Angiomyolipoma: ultrasonic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 139:451–458. doi:10.1148/radiology.139.2.7220890

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Raj GV, Bach AM, Iasonos A, et al. (2007) Predicting the histology of renal masses using preoperative Doppler ultrasonography. J Urol 177:53–58. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2006.08.067

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lai HY, Chen CK, Lee YH, et al. (2006) Multicentric aggressive angiomyolipomas: a rare form of PEComas. Am J Roentgenol 186:837–840. doi:10.2214/AJR.04.1639

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. González-Michaca L, Chew-Wong A, Soltero L, Gamba G, Correa-Rotter R (2000) Percutaneous kidney biopsy, analysis of 26 years: complication rate and risk factors; comment [in Spanish]. Rev Invest Clin 52:125–131

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lebret T, Poulain JE, Molinie V, et al. (2007) Percutaneous core biopsy for renal masses: indications, accuracy and results. J Urol 178:1184–1188. doi:10.1016/j.juro.2007.05.155

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Gerst S, Hann LE, Li D, et al. (2011) Evaluation of renal massed with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: initial experience. Am J Roentgenol 197:897–906. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.6330

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Fan L, Lianfang D, Jinfang X, Yijin S, Ying W (2008) Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in solid renal parenchymal lesions with maximum diameters of 5 cm. J Ultrasound Med 27:875–885

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Quaia E, Alaimo V, Baratella E, et al. (2010) Effect of observer experience in the differentiation between benign and malignant liver tumors after ultrasound contrast agent injection. J Ultrasound Med 29:25–36

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Tang MX, Mulvana H, Gauthier T, et al. (2011) Quantitative contrast-enhanced ultrasound imaging: a review of sources of variability. Interface Focus 1:520–539. doi:10.1098/rsfs.2011.0026

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goertz RS, Bernatik T, Strobel D, Hahn EG, Haendl T (2010) Software-based quantification of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in focal liver lesions-A feasibility study. Eur J Radiol 75:e22–e26. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2009.11.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ignee A, Jedrejczyk M, Schuessler G, Jakubowski W, Dietrich CF (2010) Quantitative contrast enhanced ultrasound of the liver for time intensity curves-reliability and potential sources of errors. Eur J Radiol 73:153–158. doi:10.1016/j.ejrad.2008.10.016

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lu Q, Wang W, Huang B, Li C, Li C (2012) Minimal fat renal angiomuyolipoma: the initial study with contrast enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 38:1896–1901. doi:10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2012.07.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tsai CC, Wu WJ, Li CC, et al. (2009) Epithelioid angiomyolipoma of the kidney mimicking renal cell carcinoma: a clinicopathologic analysis of cases and literature review. Kaohsiung J Med Sci 25:133–140. doi:10.1016/S1607-551X(09)70052-X

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Herts BR, Coll DM, Novick AC, et al. (2002) Enhancement characteristics of papillary renal neoplasms revealed on triphasic helical CT of the kidney. AJR 178:367–372. doi:10.2214/ajr.178.2.1780367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Fitzgerald EF, et al. (2010) MRI features of renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. AJR 95:W421–W427. doi:10.2214/AJR.10.4718

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Bosniak MA, Birnbaum BA, Krinsky GA, et al. (1995) Small renal parenchymal neoplasms: further observations on growth. Radiology 197:589–597. doi:10.1148/radiology.197.3.7480724

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Roy C, Sauer B, Lindner V, et al. (2007) MR imaging of papillary renal neoplasms: potential application for characterization of small renal masses. Eur Radiol 17:193–200. doi:10.1007/s00330-006-0271-9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM, et al. (2007) Solid renal cortical tumors differentiation with CT. Radiology 244:494–504. doi:10.1148/radiol.2442060927

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Lee WK, Byun SS, Kim HH, et al. (2010) Characteristics and prognosis of chromophobe non-metastatic renal cell carcinoma: a multicenter study. Int J Urol 17:898–904. doi:10.1111/j.1442-2042.2010.02630.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Klatte T, Han KR, Said JW, et al. (2008) Pathobiology and prognosis of chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Urol Oncol 26:604–609. doi:10.1016/j.urolonc.2007.07.015

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Prasad SR, Surabhi VR, Menias CO, Raut AA, Chintapalli KN (2008) Benign renal neoplasms in adults: cross-sectional imaging findings. Am J Roentgenol 190:158–164. doi:10.2214/AJR.07.2724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Siracusano S, Quaia E, Bertolotto M, et al. (2004) The application of ultrasound contrast agents in the characterization of renal tumors. World J Urol 22:316–322. doi:10.1007/s00345-004-0410-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Ultrasound, Shanghai Medical Imaging Institute, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, 180 Fenglin Road, Xuhui District, Shanghai, 200032, China

    Qing Lu, Li-yun Xue, Bei-jian Huang, Wen-ping Wang & Cui-xian Li

Authors
  1. Qing Lu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Li-yun Xue
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Bei-jian Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Wen-ping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Cui-xian Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Bei-jian Huang.

Additional information

Qing Lu and Li-yun Xue have contributed to the work equally.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lu, Q., Xue, Ly., Huang, Bj. et al. Histotype differentiation of hypo-echoic renal tumors on CEUS: usefulness of enhancement homogeneity and intensity. Abdom Imaging 40, 1675–1683 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0340-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-014-0340-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation