Diagnostic value and clinical significance of ultrasound combined with CT in cystic renal cell carcinoma

Clinical Evaluation of Cystic Renal Masses With Bosniak Classification by Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound and Contrast-Enhanced Computer Tomography

OBJECTIVES

The study aims to compare retrospectively three clinically applied methods for the diagnostic performance of cystic renal masses (CRMs) by contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computer tomography (CECT) with Bosniak classification system.

METHODS

A total of 52 cases of Bosniak II-IV CRMs in 49 consecutive patients were diagnosed from January 2013 to July 2022 and their data were analyzed. All patients had been subjected to CEUS and CECT simultaneously. Pathological diagnoses and masses stability were used as standard references to determine whether lesions were malignant or benign. Then 49 CRMs only with pathologic results were classified into group 1 and 2.

RESULTS

A total of 52 CRMs in 49 enrolled patients were classified into 8 category II, 16 category IIF, 15 category III, and 13 category IV by CEUS (EFSUMB 2020), 10 category II, 13 category IIF, 16 category III, and 13 category IV by CEUS (V2019), while 15 category II, 9 category IIF, 13 category III, and 15 category IV by CECT (V2019). Pathological results and masses stability longer than 5 years follow-up performed substantially for CEUS (EFSUMB 2020), CEUS (V2019), and CECT (V2019) (kappa values were 0.696, 0.735, and 0.696, respectively). Among 49 pathologic approving CRMs, wall/septation thickness ≥4 mm, wall/septation thickness, presence of enhancing nodule and the diameter were found to be statistically significant for malignancy. Twenty-two malignant masses were correctly diagnosed by CEUS (V2019), while 21 malignant masses were both correctly diagnosed by CEUS (EFSUMB 2020) and CECT (V2019), and 1 mass was misdiagnosed.

CONCLUSIONS

Bosniak classification of EFSUMB 2020 version might be as accurate as version 2019 CEUS and version 2019 CECT in diagnosing CRMs, and CEUS is found to have an excellent safety profile in dealing with clinical works.

Bosniak classification version 2019: a prospective comparison of CT and MRI

OBJECTIVE

To assess the diagnostic accuracy and agreement of CT and MRI in terms of the Bosniak classification version 2019 (BCv2019).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A prospective multi-institutional study enrolled 63 patients with 67 complicated cystic renal masses (CRMs) discovered during ultrasound examination. All patients underwent CT and MRI scans and histopathology. Three radiologists independently assessed CRMs using BCv2019 and assigned Bosniak class to each CRM using CT and MRI. The final analysis included 60 histopathologically confirmed CRMs (41 were malignant and 19 were benign).

RESULTS

Discordance between CT and MRI findings was noticed in 50% (30/60) CRMs when data were analyzed in terms of the Bosniak classes. Of these, 16 (53.3%) were malignant. Based on consensus reviewing, there was no difference in the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the BCv2019 with MRI and BCv2019 with CT (87.8%; 95% CI = 73.8-95.9% versus 75.6%; 95% CI = 59.7-87.6%; p = 0.09, 84.2%; 95% CI = 60.4-96.6% versus 78.9%; 95% CI = 54.4-93.9%; p = 0.5, and 86.7%; 95% CI = 64.0-86.6% versus 76.7%; 95% CI = 75.4-94.1%; p = 0.1, respectively). The number and thickness of septa and the presence of enhanced nodules accounted for the majority of variations in Bosniak classes between CT and MRI. The inter-reader agreement (IRA) was substantial for determining the Bosniak class in CT and MRI (k = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.54-0.76, k = 0.62; 95% CI = 0.50-0.73, respectively). The inter-modality agreement of the BCv219 between CT and MRI was moderate (κ = 0.58).

CONCLUSION

In terms of BCv2019, CT and MRI are comparable in the classification of CRMs with no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy and reliability.

KEY POINTS

• There is no significant difference in the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of the BCv2019 with MRI and BCv2019 with CT. • The number of septa and their thickness and the presence of enhanced nodules accounted for the majority of variations in Bosniak classes between CT and MRI. • The inter-reader agreement was substantial for determining the Bosniak class in CT and MRI and the inter-modality agreement of the BCv219 between CT and MRI was moderate.

CT and MRI findings of cystic renal cell carcinoma: comparison with cystic collecting duct carcinoma

BACKGROUND

Cystic renal cell carcinoma (CRCC) and cystic collecting duct carcinoma (CCDC) share similar oncogeni and some imaging findings. The aim of this study was to characterize the clinical and CT imagings features of CRCC and CCDC.

METHODS

Thirty-three patients with CRCC and thirteen patients with CCDC with pathologically proven were retrospectively studied. Tumor characteristics were assessed.

RESULTS

On CT imaging, 33 patients(100 %) with CRCC and 13 patients(100 %) with CCDC, tumors calcifications (8 vs. 9, P < 0.0001), had a clear boundary (capsule sign, 30 vs. 2, P < 0.0001), infiltrative appearance (1 vs. 13, P < 0.0001), exogenous appearance (29 vs. 3, P < 0.0001), invaded the renal pelvis or ureter (1 vs. 10, P < 0.0001), hemorrhage (1 vs. 10, P < 0.0001), had retroperitoneal lymph node or distant metastasis (2 vs. 10, P < 0.0001), thickened enhancing internal septations (31 vs. 2, P < 0.0001), and mural soft-tissue nodules (21 vs. 1, P < 0.0001). On MR imaging,13 patients(39 %) with CRCC and 4 patients(31 %) with CCDC, all CRCCs appeared hypointense on T1-weighted images and hyperintense on T2-weighted images, however, all CCDCs appeared hypointense on T1-weighted images and hypointense on T2-weighted images(P < 0.0001). 33 patients with CRCC, they were all alive from3 years to 10 years follow-up, however, 13 patients with CCDC, of which 11 patients were able to be followed up, and 9 patients expired within 5 years of the initial diagnosis and the others are currently still alive.

CONCLUSIONS

Distinguishing features of CRCC and CCDC included calcifications, capsule signs, infiltrative appearance, metastasis, internal septations, mural nodules and signal on CT or MR images. These imaging features may help in differentiating the two renal tumor types.

Accuracy of ultrasound vs computed tomography scan for upper urinary tract malignancies and development of a risk-based diagnostic algorithm for haematuria in a UK tertiary centre

PURPOSE

There is no consensus across guidelines on a diagnostic algorithm for upper urinary tract (UUT) evaluation following presentation with haematuria. Our aim is to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (USS) compared to CT-scan for UUT malignancies and also determine the considerations important for a risk-based diagnostic protocol for haematuria.

METHODS

We reviewed our 'haematuria clinic' database to identify patients who had both USS and CT-scan for UUT evaluation between September 2015 and August 2017, and calculated the diagnostic accuracy of these imaging modalities for histologically confirmed UUT cancers. Furthermore, we identified risk factors in our diagnostic algorithm for haematuria and conducted regression analysis to determine their ability to predict UUT malignancies.

RESULTS

Overall, 575 patient records were studied. Age range was 21-92 years, M:F was 1.4:1, majority (81.2%) had visible haematuria, and 12 (2.1%) UUT cancers were diagnosed [renal cell carcinoma-1.4%; upper tract urothelial cancer-0.7%]. USS and CT-scan had diagnostic accuracy for UUT cancers of 95.8 and 99.1%, respectively (p < 0.001). Haematuria type was a significant consideration only on univariate analysis, while multivariate binary logistic regression showed that male gender, smoking, occupational exposure, and positive urologic history were the main risk factors associated with UUT malignancies.

CONCLUSION

USS and CT-scan have comparably high diagnostic accuracy for detecting UUT malignancies. USS may, therefore, be considered as the first-line UUT imaging modality when utilized in a risk-based diagnostic algorithm. Larger, multicentred studies are needed to validate our findings and influence guideline development.