Die Rolle von kontrastmittelverstärktem „pulse inversion harmonic imaging“ (CEUS) und kontrastmittelverstärkter Computertomographie (CECT) bei der präoperativen Diagnose von renalen Raumforderungen

ZusammenfassungZielsetzungPräoperative Analyse struktureller und funktioneller Veränderungen renaler Tumoren unter Einsatz von kontrastmittelverstärktem „pulse inversion harmonic imaging“ (CEUS) und kontrastmittelverstärkter Computertomographie (CECT).Material und MethodenProspektiv wurden Patienten beim Verdacht maligner renaler Läsionen mithilfe von CEUS und CECT unter den Bedingungen des vordefinierten Studienprotokolls untersucht. Alle malignomverdächtigen Nierenläsionen wurden einer histopathologischen Untersuchung unterzogen. Die als benigne gewerteten Läsionen wurden entsprechend dem Studienprotokoll weiterverfolgt. Die Genauigkeit von CEUS und CECT gegenüber der endgültigen Histologie oder den Follow-up-Ergebnissen sowie der statistisch signifikante Unterschied zwischen beiden bildgebenden Techniken wurden berechnet.ErgebnisseÜber einen Zeitraum von 3 Jahren (2008–2011) erfüllten 68 von 93 untersuchten Patienten die Studienkriterien. Die Prävalenz maligner Tumoren in der Studie betrug 72; 54 (79 %) Patienten unterzogen sich einer Operation und wiesen einen histologisch gesicherten Nierentumor auf (klarzelliges Karzinom 45, urothelial-papilläres Karzinom 4, Angiomyolipom 1, Onkozytom 3, xanthogranulomatöse Pyelonephritis 1), wohingegen 14 (21 %) Patienten einem regelmäßigen Follow-up unterzogen wurden. Die erreichte Spezifität, Sensitivität und AUC („area under the curve“) betrug 57,9 %, 98 % und 0,779 für CEUS und 52,6 % 98 % und 0,753 für CECT.SchlussfolgerungDie Ergebnisse zeigen, dass beide bildgebenden Verfahren aufgrund fehlenden Enhancements eine maligne Erkrankung zuverlässig ausschließen können. CEUS sollte als Methode der Wahl zur Differenzierung renaler Raumforderungen bei fehlenden schwerwiegenden Risiken oder Nebenwirkungen der Vorzug gegeben werden, während CECT dem Staging vorbehalten sein sollte.AbstractObjectiveThe preoperative assessment of structural and functional changes in renal tumors using contrast-enhanced pulse inversion harmonic imaging (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT).Materials and methodsAll consecutive patients referred to two tertiary hospitals for surgery on suspicion of a malignant renal lesion, who had been examined under the predefined study protocol using CEUS and CECT, were prospectively included in the study. All renal lesions suspected of being malignant were subjected to histopathological examination. Lesions expected to be benign were followed up according to the study protocol. The accuracy of CEUS and CECT with the final histology or follow-up results and the statistically significant difference between the two imaging techniques was calculated.ResultsOver a period of 3 years (2008–2011), 68 of 93 patients examined met the study criteria. The prevalence of malignant tumors in the study was 72%. Fifty four (79%) patients underwent surgery and had a histologically confirmed renal tumor (clear cell carcinoma 45, urothelial papillocarcinoma 4, angiomyolipoma 1, oncytoma 3, xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis 1) and 14 (21%) patients underwent regular follow-up. Specificity, sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) reached 57.9%, 98% and 0.779 for CEUS and 52.6%, 98% and 0.753 for CECT.ConclusionThe results show that both imaging methods can reliably rule out malignant disease due to absence of enhancement. Taking into consideration that CEUS can be carried out without severe risk or discomfort, it is time to reconsider CEUS as the method of choice for diagnosis, while CECT should be reserved for staging.

[1]  P. Choyke,et al.  From the RSNA refresher courses: a practical approach to the cystic renal mass. , 2004, Radiographics : a review publication of the Radiological Society of North America, Inc.

[2]  A. Ignee,et al.  Contrast enhanced ultrasound of renal masses. , 2010, World journal of radiology.

[3]  E. DeLong,et al.  Comparing the areas under two or more correlated receiver operating characteristic curves: a nonparametric approach. , 1988, Biometrics.

[4]  N. Rofsky,et al.  Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. , 1996, Radiology.

[5]  M. Lockhart,et al.  Renal imaging with ultrasound contrast: current status. , 2003, Radiologic clinics of North America.

[6]  M. Bosio,et al.  Guidelines and Good Clinical Practice Recommendations for Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) - Update 2008 , 2008, Ultraschall in der Medizin.

[7]  E. Quaia,et al.  Characterization of renal tumours with pulse inversion harmonic imaging by intermittent high mechanical index technique: initial results , 2003, European Radiology.

[8]  D. Rennie,et al.  The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. , 2003, Annals of internal medicine.

[9]  P. Pickhardt,et al.  From the Archives of the AFIP: Infiltrative Renal Lesions: Radiologic-Pathologic Correlation , 2000 .

[10]  Carlo Magno,et al.  Contrast-enhanced second-harmonic sonography in the detection of pseudocapsule in renal cell carcinoma. , 2004, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[11]  Wenping Wang,et al.  Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of cystic renal mass: in comparison to contrast-enhanced CT and conventional ultrasound , 2014, Abdominal Imaging.

[12]  C. Magno,et al.  Complex Cystic Renal Masses: Characterizationwith , 2007 .

[13]  E. Belgrano,et al.  The application of ultrasound contrast agents in the characterization of renal tumors , 2004, World Journal of Urology.

[14]  Emilio Quaia,et al.  Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: an update , 2007, European Radiology.

[15]  C. Balleyguier,et al.  Ultrasound of renal tumors , 2001, European Radiology.

[16]  L. Bolondi,et al.  The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. , 2006, Ultrasound in medicine & biology.

[17]  E. Quaia,et al.  Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with unenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses. , 2008, AJR. American journal of roentgenology.

[18]  P. Choyke,et al.  Small (< or = 3-cm) renal masses: detection with CT versus US and pathologic correlation. , 1996, Radiology.

[19]  Tae Hoon Oh,et al.  Diagnostic Efficacy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound for Small Renal Masses , 2014, Korean journal of urology.

[20]  B. K. Park,et al.  Assessment of cystic renal masses based on Bosniak classification: comparison of CT and contrast-enhanced US. , 2007, European journal of radiology.

[21]  M. Reiser,et al.  Staging of renal cell carcinoma , 2007, European Radiology.

[22]  A Donner,et al.  Testing the equality of two dependent kappa statistics. , 2000, Statistics in medicine.

[23]  Michael Riccabona,et al.  Potential of modern sonographic techniques in paediatric uroradiology. , 2002, European journal of radiology.

[24]  C. Magno,et al.  Complex cystic renal masses: characterization with contrast-enhanced US. , 2007, Radiology.

[25]  D. Rennie,et al.  Diagnostic Accuracy: The STARD Initiative , 2006 .

[26]  David Moher,et al.  Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. , 2003, Radiology.

[27]  N. Rofsky,et al.  Problems in the detection and characterization of small renal masses. , 1996, Radiology.

[28]  B. Kreft,et al.  [Cystic renal lesions]. , 2003, RoFo : Fortschritte auf dem Gebiete der Rontgenstrahlen und der Nuklearmedizin.