Qualitative and quantitative analysis with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography: diagnosis value in hypoechoic renal angiomyolipoma

Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study

PURPOSE

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ-CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE-CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE-MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

306 consecutive patients (from 7 centers) with renal masses (40 benign tumors, 266 malignant tumors) diagnosed by both SNZ-CEUS, CE-CT or CE-MRI were enrolled between September 2020 and February 2021. The examinations were performed within 7 days, but the sequence was not fixed. Histologic results were available for 301 of 306 (98.37%) lesions and 5 lesions were considered benign after at least 2 year follow-up without change in size and image characteristics. The diagnostic performances were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and compared by McNemar's test.

RESULTS

In the head-to-head comparison, SNZ-CEUS and CE-MRI had comparable sensitivity (95.60 vs. 94.51%, P = 0.997), specificity (65.22 vs. 73.91%, P = 0.752), positive predictive value (91.58 vs. 93.48%) and negative predictive value (78.95 vs. 77.27%); SNZ-CEUS and CE-CT showed similar sensitivity (97.31 vs. 96.24%, P = 0.724); however, SNZ-CEUS had relatively lower than specificity than CE-CT (59.09 vs. 68.18%, P = 0.683). For nodules > 4 cm, CE-MRI demonstrated higher specificity than SNZ-CEUS (90.91 vs. 72.73%, P = 0.617) without compromise the sensitivity.

CONCLUSIONS

SNZ-CEUS, CE-CT, and CE-MRI demonstrate desirable and comparable sensitivity for the differentiation of renal mass. However, the specificity of all three imaging modalities is not satisfactory. SNZ-CEUS may be a suitable alternative modality for patients with renal dysfunction and those allergic to gadolinium or iodine-based agents.

Qualitative and quantitative characteristics of CEUS for renal cell carcinoma and angiomyolipoma: a narrative review

Incidental findings of renal masses are increasing. However, a substantial portion of surgically treated renal masses turn out to be benign on histopathological examination. Thus, there is a clear need for improved pre-surgical assessment to minimize unnecessary invasive procedures. The challenge intensifies when distinguishing between renal cell carcinoma (RCC) and angiomyolipoma (AML) in renal lesions smaller than 4 cm with minimal adipose tissue. In such cases, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has emerged as a valuable diagnostic tool, by utilizing both qualitative and quantitative parameters. Quantitative measures offer objectivity, reliability, and reproducibility compared to qualitative parameters, enabling the characterization of RCC subtypes and differentiation from AML. Qualitative features as enhancement pattern, degree, and peak were less helpful in distinguishing triphasic minimal fat AML (TAML) from epithelioid AML (EAML), with the pseudocapsule sign potentially being the only distinguishing qualitative feature. The pseudocapsule sign was more frequently observed in ccRCCs (38.0%) than in AMLs (15.6%). Moreover, it was detected in 40.0% of EAMLs and 34.5% of ccRCCs but not in TAMLs due to similar growth patterns between EAMLs and low-grade ccRCCs. Quantitative measures such as the time-to-peak (TTP) ratio can further enhance diagnostic accuracy and also TOC ratio should be considered, as it was higher in clear cell RCCs (ccRCCs) and in EAMLs compared to TAMLs, indicating behavior similar to ccRCCs. However, CEUS remains an operator-dependent exam.

MRI-Based Radiomics and Urine Creatinine for the Differentiation of Renal Angiomyolipoma With Minimal Fat From Renal Cell Carcinoma: A Preliminary Study

Objectives

Standard magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) techniques are different to distinguish minimal fat angiomyolipoma (mf-AML) with minimal fat from renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Here we aimed to evaluate the diagnostic performance of MRI-based radiomics in the differentiation of fat-poor AMLs from other renal neoplasms.

Methods

A total of 69 patients with solid renal tumors without macroscopic fat and with a pathologic diagnosis of RCC (n=50) or mf-AML (n=19) who underwent conventional MRI and intravoxel incoherent motion diffusion-weighted imaging (IVIM-DWI) were included. Clinical data including age, sex, tumor location, urine creatinine, and urea nitrogen were collected from medical records. The apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC), pure diffusion coefficient (D), pseudodiffusion coefficient (D*), and perfusion fraction (f) were measured from renal tumors. We used the ITK-SNAP software to manually delineate the regions of interest on T2-weighted imaging (T2WI) and IVIM-DWI from the largest cross-sectional area of the tumor. We extracted 396 radiomics features by the Analysis Kit software for each MR sequence. The hand-crafted features were selected by using the Pearson correlation analysis and least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO). Diagnostic models were built by logistic regression analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was performed using five-fold cross-validation and the mean area under the curve (AUC) values were calculated and compared between the models to obtain the optimal model for the differentiation of mf-AML and RCC. Decision curve analysis (DCA) was used to evaluate the clinical utility of the models.

Results

Clinical model based on urine creatinine achieved an AUC of 0.802 (95%CI: 0.761-0.843). IVIM-based model based on f value achieved an AUC of 0.692 (95%CI: 0.627-0.757). T2WI-radiomics model achieved an AUC of 0.883 (95%CI: 0.852-0.914). IVIM-radiomics model achieved an AUC of 0.874 (95%CI: 0.841-0.907). Combined radiomics model achieved an AUC of 0.919 (95%CI: 0.894-0.944). Clinical-radiomics model yielded the best performance, with an AUC of 0.931 (95%CI: 0.907-0.955). The calibration curve and DCA confirmed that the clinical-radiomics model had a good consistency and clinical usefulness.

Conclusion

The clinical-radiomics model may be served as a noninvasive diagnostic tool to differentiate mf-AML with RCC, which might facilitate the clinical decision-making process.

The quantitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differentiation of small renal cell carcinoma subtypes and angiomyolipoma

Background

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has been widely used for renal lesion diagnosis and differential diagnosis. However, qualitative analysis of CEUS is subject to examinations with low reproducibility. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic value of CEUS quantitative parameters in differentiating small renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes and angiomyolipoma (AML).

Methods

A retrospective analysis was performed on 97 cases of a small renal mass undergoing a CEUS before a radical or partial nephrectomy procedure. A region of interest (ROI) was placed in the tumor's maximum enhanced region (ROI_max) as much as possible, and adjacent renal cortex (ROI_refer) was selected from normal renal tissue around a mass of the same depth. The time-intensity curve (TIC) was used to analyze the ROI_max and the ROI_refer of the tumors quantitatively. Then the parameters of the ROI_max and the ROI_refer, including the differences between the parameters of the ROI_max and the ROI_refer, were analyzed statistically.

Results

In RCC and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the peak intensity (PI), slope (SL), area under the curve (AUC), area under the wash-in curve (AWI), area under the wash-out curve (AWO), time to peak intensity (TTP) and the mean transit time (MTT) were statistically significant between ROI_max and ROI_refer (all P=0.000). The △PI (△PI = PI_max - PI_refer), △SL (△SL = SL_max - SL_refer), △AUC (△AUC = AUC_max - AUC_refer), △AWI (△AWI = AWI_max - AWI_refer) and △AWO (△AWO = AWO_max - AWO_refer) of RCC were significantly higher than in AML (P=0.007, 0.000, 0.003, 0.048, 0.009, respectively), while the TTP (△TTP = TTP_max - TTP_refer) and △MTT (△MTT = MTT_max - MTT_refer) of RCC were significantly lower (both P=0.000). In comparison with papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC), the △PI, △SL, △AUC and △AWO of ccRCC were all larger (all P<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the combination of parameter difference for differentiating RCC from AML were 100%, 81.2%, and 0.965, respectively, and for differentiating ccRCC from pRCC and chRCC, 85.71%, 85.92% and 0.911, respectively.

Conclusions

CEUS quantitative parameters have value in differentiating small RCC from AML and distinguishing ccRCC from pRCC and chRCC.

Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Renal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is an examination mode for detecting blood vessels in tissues, and it has been gradually used in the diagnosis of kidney cancer in recent years. This study explores the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the clinical diagnosis of renal cancer, and provides an accurate and effective method for clinical diagnosis of renal cancer.

Methods

CEUS and RCC were selected as the keywords. Searching the PubMed and Embase from 2007 to 2020, the original data were abstracted and performed heterogeneity test with the Meta-Disc software. The weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio and negative likelihood ratio were calculated, as well as the summary receiver operating characteristic (SROC) curve. Further estimated the diagnostic value of CEUS in the research of renal cancer by calculating the area under the curve (AUC). The quality of evidence in researches was evaluated by QUADAS items. Meta-disc, Review Manager 5.3, and STATA 13 were used.

Results

A total of 20 studies were adopted for Meta-analysis. The weighted sensitivity, specificity, positive likelihood ratio, negative likelihood ratio, and diagnostic odds ratio were 0.97, 0.86, 6.8, 0.04 and 171, respectively; and AUC was 0.97. The results showed that there was high heterogeneity.

Conclusion

CEUS technology has a good diagnostic value for RCC.

Value of Perfusion Parameters for Differentiating Hepatocellular Carcinoma and Liver Metastasis With Hypervascularity and a Normal Hepatic Background on Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound Imaging

OBJECTIVES

To retrospectively evaluate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) perfusion parameters in the differential diagnosis of hepatocellular carcinomas (HCCs) and metastatic liver tumors (MLTs) with hypervascularity.

METHODS

Sixty-seven HCCs and 55 MLTs with arterial homogeneous/heterogeneous hyperenhancement on CEUS imaging and a normal liver background were included in this retrospective study. Six CEUS perfusion parameters were compared between HCCs and MLTs with different sizes and HCC differentiations: rise time (RT), time to peak (TTP), mean transit time, wash-out time (WT), maximum intensity (IMAX), and area under the curve (AUC). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) was determined to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the parameters.

RESULTS

The RT, TTP, and WT were significant longer and the IMAX and AUC were significantly higher in HCCs than in MLTs. In distinguishing between HCCs and MLTs, the AUROC was highest for the WT (0.922; sensitivity, 85.1%; specificity, 89.6%); the AUC and IMAX had the second and third highest AUROCs (AUC: 0.855; sensitivity, 76.1%; specificity, 80.6%; IMAX: 0.827; sensitivity, 76.1%; specificity, 77.6%). The AUROC was lowest for the TTP and RT (TTP: 0.719; sensitivity, 70.1%; specificity, 61.2%; RT: 0.707; sensitivity, 67.2%; specificity, 65.7%). In HCCs, both the tumor size and degree of differentiation affected the IMAX, AUC, and WT. In MLTs, perfusion parameters were not influenced by the tumor size.

CONCLUSIONS

In HCCs and MLTs with hypervascularity and a normal liver background on CEUS imaging, various CEUS perfusion parameters, including IMAX, AUC, WT, RT, and TTP, differed significantly between tumor types. The WT may be the most useful parameter for differentiating between these tumors.

Dynamic Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound of Gastric Cancer: Correlation with Perfusion CT and Histopathology

Objective

To assess the relationship between contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) parameters and perfusion CT (PCT) parameters of gastric cancers and their correlation with histologic features.

Materials and Methods

This prospective study was approved by our Institutional Review Board. We included 43 patients with pathologically-proven gastric cancers undergoing CEUS using SonoVue® (Bracco) and PCT on the same day. Correlation between the CEUS parameters (peak intensity [PI], area under the curve [AUC], rise time [RT] from 10% to 90% of PI, time to peak [TTP_US], and mean transit time [MTT_US]) and PCT parameters (blood flow, blood volume, TTP_CT, MTT_CT, and permeability surface product) of gastric cancers were analyzed using Spearman's rank correlation test. In cases of surgical resection, the CEUS and PCT parameters were compared according to histologic features using Mann-Whitney test.

Results

CEUS studies were of diagnostic quality in 88.4% (38/43) of patients. Among the CEUS parameters of gastric cancers, RT and TTP_US showed significant positive correlations with TTP_CT (rho = 0.327 and 0.374, p = 0.045 and 0.021, respectively); PI and AUC were significantly higher in well-differentiated or moderately-differentiated tumors (n = 4) than poorly-differentiated tumors (n = 18) (p = 0.026 and 0.033, respectively), whereas MTT_CT showed significant differences according to histologic types (poorly cohesive carcinoma [PCC] vs. non-PCC), T-staging (≤ T2 vs. ≥ T3), N-staging (N0 vs. N-positive), and epidermal growth factor receptor expression (≤ faint vs. ≥ moderate staining) (p values < 0.05).

Conclusion

In patients with gastric cancers, CEUS is technically feasible for the quantification of tumor perfusion and may provide correlative and complementary information to that of PCT, which may allow prediction of histologic features.

Two in One: Epithelioid angiomyolipoma within a classic kidney angiomyolipoma - a case report

Background

Epithelioid angiomyolipoma is defined as potentially malignant mesenchymal neoplasm, characterized by proliferating epithelioid cells, whereas classic angiomyolipoma, composed of fat, smooth muscle cells and dysmorphic vessels, is defined as a potentially benign. The usual or classic angiomyolipoma is often found incidentally on imaging studies, relatively easily identified due to the presence of fat, in contrast to the epithelioid angiomyolipoma that can pose diagnostic challenges.

Case presentation

We report a 51-year-old female patient in which an ultrasonography examination showed a solid mass close to the right renal pelvis with hypoechoic and hyperechoic areas. A differential diagnosis of atypical sinus lipomatosis, lipoma and a transitional cell carcinoma was postulated whereas in a subsequent computed tomography a classic angiomyolipoma was postulated. A re-examination by contrast enhanced ultrasound revealed a striking perfusion difference of the hypoechoic and hyperechoic areas. The hypoechoic area showed homogenous and prolonged enhancement whereas the hypoechoic area displayed a marked slower contrast material flooding and a relatively rapid wash out. The histological analysis from the biopsy of the hyperechoic area showed a classic angiomyolipoma, whereas the sample of the hypoechoic central portion revealed an epithelioid angiomyolipoma. A nephrectomy was performed because of the malignant potential of the epithelioid variant of the angiomyolipoma.

Conclusions

A solid kidney mass with two sharply defined parts, one-part compatible with a classical angiomyolipoma and the other being suspected of carcinoma, is rare, but also illustrative and instructive. The combination of different imaging modalities in the work up of a solid renal mass facilitated to discriminate benign from malignant areas.

Selection and Reporting of Statistical Methods to Assess Reliability of a Diagnostic Test: Conformity to Recommended Methods in a Peer-Reviewed Journal

Objective

To evaluate the frequency and adequacy of statistical analyses in a general radiology journal when reporting a reliability analysis for a diagnostic test.

Materials and Methods

Sixty-three studies of diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) and 36 studies reporting reliability analyses published in the Korean Journal of Radiology between 2012 and 2016 were analyzed. Studies were judged using the methodological guidelines of the Radiological Society of North America-Quantitative Imaging Biomarkers Alliance (RSNA-QIBA), and COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) initiative. DTA studies were evaluated by nine editorial board members of the journal. Reliability studies were evaluated by study reviewers experienced with reliability analysis.

Results

Thirty-one (49.2%) of the 63 DTA studies did not include a reliability analysis when deemed necessary. Among the 36 reliability studies, proper statistical methods were used in all (5/5) studies dealing with dichotomous/nominal data, 46.7% (7/15) of studies dealing with ordinal data, and 95.2% (20/21) of studies dealing with continuous data. Statistical methods were described in sufficient detail regarding weighted kappa in 28.6% (2/7) of studies and regarding the model and assumptions of intraclass correlation coefficient in 35.3% (6/17) and 29.4% (5/17) of studies, respectively. Reliability parameters were used as if they were agreement parameters in 23.1% (3/13) of studies. Reproducibility and repeatability were used incorrectly in 20% (3/15) of studies.

Conclusion

Greater attention to the importance of reporting reliability, thorough description of the related statistical methods, efforts not to neglect agreement parameters, and better use of relevant terminology is necessary.

Does the Reporting Quality of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies, as Defined by STARD 2015, Affect Citation?

Objective

To determine the rate with which diagnostic test accuracy studies that are published in a general radiology journal adhere to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) 2015, and to explore the relationship between adherence rate and citation rate while avoiding confounding by journal factors.

Materials and Methods

All eligible diagnostic test accuracy studies that were published in the Korean Journal of Radiology in 2011–2015 were identified. Five reviewers assessed each article for yes/no compliance with 27 of the 30 STARD 2015 checklist items (items 28, 29, and 30 were excluded). The total STARD score (number of fulfilled STARD items) was calculated. The score of the 15 STARD items that related directly to the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS)-2 was also calculated. The number of times each article was cited (as indicated by the Web of Science) after publication until March 2016 and the article exposure time (time in months between publication and March 2016) were extracted.

Results

Sixty-three articles were analyzed. The mean (range) total and QUADAS-2-related STARD scores were 20.0 (14.5–25) and 11.4 (7–15), respectively. The mean citation number was 4 (0–21). Citation number did not associate significantly with either STARD score after accounting for exposure time (total score: correlation coefficient = 0.154, p = 0.232; QUADAS-2-related score: correlation coefficient = 0.143, p = 0.266).

Conclusion

The degree of adherence to STARD 2015 was moderate for this journal, indicating that there is room for improvement. When adjusted for exposure time, the degree of adherence did not affect the citation rate.

What's new in urologic ultrasound?

Ultrasound is an imaging technology that has evolved swiftly and has come a long way since its beginnings. It is a commonly used initial diagnostic imaging modality as it is rapid, effective, portable, relatively inexpensive, and causes no harm to human health. In the last few decades, there have been significant technological improvements in the equipment as well as the development of contrast agents that allowed ultrasound to be even more widely adopted for urologic imaging. Ultrasound is an excellent guidance tool for an array of urologic interventional procedures and also has therapeutic application in the form of high-intensity focused ultrasound (HIFU) for tumor ablation. This article focuses on the recent advances in ultrasound technology and its emerging clinical applications in urology.