» Articles » PMID: 34432542

Role of Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound in Assessing Indeterminate Renal Lesions and Bosniak ≥2F Complex Renal Cysts Found Incidentally on CT or MRI

Overview
Journal Br J Radiol
Specialty Radiology
Date 2021 Aug 25
PMID 34432542
Citations 3
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: To investigate the impact of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in reclassifying incidental renal findings categorized as indeterminate lesions (IL) or Bosniak ≥ 2F complex renal cysts (CRC) on CT or MRI.

Methods: We retrospectively included 44 subjects who underwent CEUS between 2016 and 2019 to assess 48 IL ( = 12) and CRC ( = 36) incidentally found on CT or MRI. CEUS was performed by one radiologist with 10 year of experience with a sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubble contrast agent. The same radiologist, blinded to clinical information and previous CT/MRIs, retrospectively reviewed CEUS images/videos, categorizing renal findings with Bosniak-derived imaging categories ranging from 0 (indeterminate) to 5 (solid lesion). CEUS-related reclassification rate was calculated (proportion of IL reclassified with an imaging category >0, or CRC reclassified below or above imaging category >2F). Using histological examination or ≥ 24 months follow-up as the standard of reference, we also estimated per-lesion sensitivity/specificity for malignancy.

Results: CEUS reclassified 24/48 findings (50.0%; 95% C.I. 35.2-64.7), including 12/12 IL (100%; 95% CI 73.5-100) and 12/36 CRC (33.3%; 95% C.I. 18.5-50.9), mostly above category >2F (66.7%). CEUS and CT/MRI showed 96.0% (95%CI 79.7-99.9) 44.0% (95%CI 24.4-65.1) sensitivity, and 82.6% (95%CI 61.2-95.1) 60.9% (95%CI 38.5-80.3%) specificity.

Conclusion: CEUS provided substantial and accurate reclassification of CT/MRI incidental findings.

Advances In Knowledge: Previous studies included Bosniak 2 incidental findings, thus possibly underestimating CEUS-induced reclassification rates. Using a more meaningful cut-off (Bosniak ≥2F), problem-solving CEUS was effective as well, with higher reclassification rates for CRC than in literature.

Citing Articles

Clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with quantitative analysis in Bosniak ≥ II cystic renal masses.

He H, Jin X, Liu Y, Chen Y, Vaishnani D, Xia Y Abdom Radiol (NY). 2024; .

PMID: 39694945 DOI: 10.1007/s00261-024-04744-4.


Contrast-enhanced US Bosniak Classification: intra- and inter-rater agreement, confounding features, and diagnostic performance.

Jin D, Zhuang B, Lin K, Zhang N, Qiao B, Xie X Insights Imaging. 2024; 15(1):285.

PMID: 39614021 PMC: 11607359. DOI: 10.1186/s13244-024-01858-7.


2023 UPDATE - Canadian Urological Association guideline: Management of cystic renal lesions Prior to original publication (March 2017), this guideline underwent review by the CUA Guidelines Committee, CUA members at large, and the CUA Executive....

Richard P, Violette P, Bhindi B, Breau R, Gratton M, Jewett M Can Urol Assoc J. 2023; 17(6):162-174.

PMID: 37310905 PMC: 10263289. DOI: 10.5489/cuaj.8389.

References
1.
van Oostenbrugge T, Futterer J, Mulders P . Diagnostic Imaging for Solid Renal Tumors: A Pictorial Review. Kidney Cancer. 2019; 2(2):79-93. PMC: 6364093. DOI: 10.3233/KCA-180028. View

2.
Defortescu G, Cornu J, Bejar S, Giwerc A, Gobet F, Werquin C . Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of complex renal cysts: A prospective study. Int J Urol. 2017; 24(3):184-189. DOI: 10.1111/iju.13289. View

3.
Jemal A, Bray F, Center M, Ferlay J, Ward E, Forman D . Global cancer statistics. CA Cancer J Clin. 2011; 61(2):69-90. DOI: 10.3322/caac.20107. View

4.
Tames A, Fonseca E, Ide Yamauchi F, Arrais G, de Andrade T, Baroni R . Progression rate in Bosniak category IIF complex renal cysts. Radiol Bras. 2019; 52(3):155-160. PMC: 6561359. DOI: 10.1590/0100-3984.2018.0038. View

5.
Rubenthaler J, Bogner F, Reiser M, Clevert D . Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) of the Kidneys by Using the Bosniak Classification. Ultraschall Med. 2016; 37(3):234-51. DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-104646. View