Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Jin L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7026943 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Jin Li L Xie Feng F

Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) 20200227

<h4>Objectives</h4>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 histopatholog ...[more]

PMID: 32130354

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) versus computed tomography (CT) for distinguishing neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps. Given whether laparoscopic cholecystectomy is needed, differential diagnosis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps is more important than benign and malignant polyps.MethodsA total of 89 consecutive patients with polypoid lesions of the gallbladder > 10 mm in size without local invasion or distant metastasis during primary screening were enrolled in this prospective and comparative study. All patients who met the inclusion criteria underwent CEUS and CT examinations prior to surgical resection. The enhancement patterns and microvascular imaging types were analyzed on CEUS. The maximum diameter and CT value of the lesions were also recorded and subjected to a comparative analysis. The clinical value of the two diagnostic methods is compared.ResultsOf the 89 patients, there were 58 (65.2%) cases of non-neoplastic polyps and 31 (34.8%) cases of neoplastic polyps. The average diameter of neoplastic polyps was significantly higher than that of non-neoplastic polyps (P<0.001). The detection rate using CEUS was 100%. The proportion of perceived non-neoplastic polyps in the nonenhanced and arterial phases were 48.3% and 77.6%, respectively, which were significantly lower than those of neoplastic polyps (93.5%, P<0.001 and 100.0%, P<0.001, respectively). However, in the venous and delayed phases, all cholesterol polyps and neoplastic polyps were perceived. CT showed that non-neoplastic polyps exhibited delayed enhancement. On CEUS 29.0% neoplastic polyps showed a perfusion defect, whereas 6.9% non-neoplastic polyps showed a perfusion defect (P=0.005). The microvascular architecture of the lesions on CEUS was categorized into 4 types: spotty, linear, branched, and spinous, and there were significant differences between the two groups (P<0.001). The sensitivities and specificities were 87.10% and 68.97% for CEUS and 83.87% and 77.59% for CT, respectively (P=0.406).ConclusionsCEUS and CT are useful for differential diagnosis of neoplastic and nonneoplastic polypoid lesions of the gallbladder. Diagnostic efficacy was comparable between CEUS and CT. Thus, CEUS is preferred over CT in the differential diagnosis of neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps due to its comparable diagnostic efficacy and lack of radiation dose.

Project description:BackgroundPatients with mass-forming pancreatitis (MFP) or pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) presented similar clinical symptoms, but required different treatment approaches and had different survival outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in differentiating MFP from PDAC.MethodsA literature search was performed in the PubMed, EMBASE (Ovid), Cochrane Library (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Weipu (VIP), and WanFang databases to identify original studies published from inception to August 20, 2021. Studies reporting the diagnostic performances of CEUS and CECT for differentiating MFP from PDAC were included. The meta-analysis was performed with Stata 15.0 software. The outcomes included the pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio (+LR), negative likelihood ratio (-LR), diagnostic odds ratio (DOR), and summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curves of CEUS and CECT. Meta-regression was conducted to investigate heterogeneity. Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted to indirectly compare the overall diagnostic performance.ResultsTwenty-six studies with 2115 pancreatic masses were included. The pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS for MFP were 82% (95% confidence interval [CI], 73%-88%; I2 = 0.00%) and 95% (95% CI, 90%-97%; I2 = 63.44%), respectively; the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 15.12 (95% CI, 7.61-30.01), 0.19 (95% CI, 0.13-0.29), and 78.91 (95% CI, 30.94-201.27), respectively; and the area under the SROC curve (AUC) was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-92). However, the overall sensitivity and specificity of CECT were 81% (95% CI, 75-85%; I2 = 66.37%) and 94% (95% CI, 90-96%; I2 = 74.87%); the overall +LR, -LR, and DOR values were 12.91 (95% CI, 7.86-21.20), 0.21 (95% CI, 0.16-0.27), and 62.53 (95% CI, 34.45-113.51), respectively; and, the SROC AUC was 0.92 (95% CI, 0.90-0.94). The overall diagnostic accuracy of CEUS was comparable to that of CECT for the differential diagnosis of MFP and PDAC (relative DOR 1.26, 95% CI [0.42-3.83], P > 0.05).ConclusionsCEUS and CECT have comparable diagnostic performance for differentiating MFP from PDAC, and should be considered as mutually complementary diagnostic tools for suspected focal pancreatic lesions.

Project description:BackgroundThe UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) has recommended contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterisation of focal liver lesions where the results of standard unenhanced ultrasound are inconclusive. A further recommendation is for CEUS to replace other imaging modalities. However, little is currently known about the diagnostic pathways in the National Health Service (NHS) followed by patients with potential liver lesions. The aim of this study was to identify the diagnostic pathways for a number of representative hospital trusts and record the clinicians' views on patient experiences of these processes through a series of semi-structured interviews with UK clinicians (radiologists and sonographers) (N = 7). This study was undertaken in the broader context of a larger research project where the overarching research question is focused on patient preferences for CEUS and other imaging modalities, and how these impact on patient quality of life (QOL).ResultsThe results from the semi-structured interviews with UK clinicians revealed that there is a great deal of heterogeneity in diagnostic pathways followed by patients with potential liver lesions which differ both within and between hospitals. In terms of the patient experience, the clinicians believed that a combination of the more patient-friendly ultrasound process, and the fact that scan results are given to patients in 80-90% of cases on the day, as well as the problems inherent to other scan modalities (claustrophobia, anxiety) would lead to patients preferring ultrasound compared with other imaging modalities (CT or MR). However, current clinical practice means that patient choice is virtually non-existent.ConclusionsThe significant variation in diagnostic pathways across the NHS will require further standardisation through local agreements if contrast-enhanced ultrasound is to replace other imaging modalities in characterising focal liver lesions in line with NICE Diagnostics Guidance. The gradual development of patient choice of modalities may necessitate a change of practice in radiology processes.

Project description:BackgroundThe presence of a few renal cysts is considered of little relevance in healthy adults, although acquired renal cystic disease occurs in advanced kidney failure. The objective of this study was to detail renal cystic and solid lesions and identify any association with clinical characteristics.Study designClinical-pathologic correlation.Setting & participantsPotential kidney donors undergoing a standardized evaluation at the Mayo Clinic in 2000-2008.PredictorsAge, kidney function, and chronic kidney disease risk factors.MeasurementsRenal cystic and solid lesions by contrast-enhanced computed tomographic images.OutcomesCyst number, diameter, and location.ResultsAfter excluding 8 with cystic disease, 7 of whom had autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease, there were 1,948 potential kidney donors (42% men; mean age, 43 years). A cortical, medullary, or parapelvic cyst ≥5 mm was present in 12%, 14%, or 2.8%. For ages 19-49 years, 39%, 22%, 7.9%, and 1.6% had a cortical or medullary cyst ≥2, ≥5, ≥10, and ≥20 mm in diameter. For ages 50-75 years, 63%, 43%, 22%, and 7.8% had a cortical or medullary cyst ≥2, ≥5, ≥10, and ≥20 mm in diameter. The 97.5th percentile for number of cortical and medullary cysts ≥5 mm increased with age (10 for men and 4 for women in the 60- to 69-year group). After age and sex adjustment, cortical and medullary cysts ≥5 mm were associated with higher 24-hour urine albumin excretion, as well as increased body surface area, hypertension, and higher glomerular filtration rate in some analyses. Angiomyolipomas, hyperdense cysts, and enhancing masses or cysts with concerning features for malignancy occurred in 2.2%, 1.2%, and 0.6% and were associated with older age (P ≤ 0.05 for each).LimitationsPersons with known chronic kidney disease were excluded.ConclusionsRenal cysts are common, particularly in older men, and may be a marker of early kidney injury because they associate with albuminuria, hypertension, and hyperfiltration.

Project description:BackgroundPerihepatic fluorouracil encapsulated lesions (FELs) can result in potentially confusing computed tomography (CT) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) features in postoperative examinations of gastrointestinal tumors. This retrospective study aimed to summarize the typical imaging features of FELs and determine the best imaging modality to distinguish FELs from liver metastases for junior residents.MethodsPatients with FELs who had undergone gastrointestinal tumor surgery in Tongji Hospital from January 2016 to June 2022 were evaluated. The imaging features of FELs were summarized by two senior radiologists. Contrast-enhanced CT (CECT) was used as the primary follow-up tool for postoperative gastrointestinal tumor patients. Patients with FELs and available CECT and MRI examinations were matched with patients with liver metastases based on gender and age and presented in chronological order in a 2:1 ratio. Different imaging modality combinations were used for further evaluation, including a CECT group (modality Ⅰ), CECT and nonenhanced MRI group (modality Ⅱ) and CECT with all MRI sequences group (modality Ⅲ). Subsequently, two junior residents blindly evaluated three groups following a 4-week interval based on a 5-point scale (1= definite benign lesion, 2= probable benign lesion, 3= indeterminate, 4= probable liver metastasis, 5= definite liver metastasis).ResultsImaging features of 33 patients with 36 FELs were analyzed. CECT and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) showed no enhancement in most lesions. Additionally, 20 patients with FELs meeting the requirements were matched with 40 patients with liver metastases. The highest sensitivity, specificity, and consistency for identifying liver metastases were achieved using a combination of CECT and MRI encompassing all sequences yielded, including modality Ⅰ (reader 1: 72.0% and 17.4%; reader 2: 62.0% and 17.4%; kappa value 0.295), modality Ⅱ (reader 1: 88.0% and 8.7%; reader 2: 92.0% and 34.8%; kappa value 0.259), and modality Ⅲ (reader 1: 98.0% and 34.8%; reader 2: 92.0% and 39.1%; kappa value 0.680).ConclusionsFELs are typically non-enhancing lesions. In our study, two junior residents could best distinguish FELs from liver metastases using CECT with all MRI sequences.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets