» Articles » PMID: 36422743

The Comparison Between Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound and Contrast-enhanced Magnetic Resonance Imaging in Diagnosing Bladder Urothelial Carcinoma

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Nephrology
Date 2022 Nov 24
PMID 36422743
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Purpose: The surgical treatment of bladder urothelial carcinoma depends on whether the tumor has invaded the bladder muscular layer. Normal ultrasound and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (contrast-enhanced MRI) are widely used in patients bear bladder tumors; the latter is also widely used in estimating the muscularis invasion of bladder cancer (BC). However, contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) is rarely used in this aspect. As the gold standard in diagnosing muscularis invasion remains being pathological examination, this study was set to find out whether there are differences between CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing bladder malignant tumors and in diagnosing the muscularis invasion of the bladder urothelial carcinoma under the guide of the pathological results.

Methods: 160 patients from Yongchuan Hospital of Chongqing Medical University and The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University were recruited from July 1st, 2021, to June 30th, 2022. Patients are arranged to undergo CEUS, contrast-enhanced MRI and then take a surgery. After surgery, we compare the results of CEUS, MRI and the pathological results, using software to run the statistical examinations.

Results: The accuracies of CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing malignant bladder tumors were 85.90 and 84.62%, and they had no differences (P > 0.05). While the accuracies of CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI in diagnosing the muscularis invasion were 84.62 and 76.92%, in which CEUS had a better sensitivity (P < 0.05).

Conclusions: We found that CEUS and contrast-enhanced MRI had no differences in diagnosing the different pathological types (benign or malignant) of BC, but CEUS holds a better sensitivity in diagnosing muscularis invasions of bladder urothelial carcinoma than the contrast-enhanced MRI.

Citing Articles

The Current Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Diagnosis and Staging of Bladder Cancer: A Review of the Available Literature.

Santarelli V, Rosati D, Canale V, Salciccia S, Di Lascio G, Bevilacqua G Life (Basel). 2024; 14(7).

PMID: 39063611 PMC: 11278273. DOI: 10.3390/life14070857.


Quantitative differentiation of non-invasive bladder urothelial carcinoma and inverted papilloma based on CT urography.

Jin P, Yang L, Liu Y, Huang J, Wang X BMC Urol. 2024; 24(1):73.

PMID: 38532363 PMC: 10964599. DOI: 10.1186/s12894-024-01459-y.


Diagnostic Accuracy of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Detection of Muscle-Invasive Bladder Cancer: A Systematic Review and Diagnostic Meta-Analysis.

Tufano A, Rosati D, Moriconi M, Santarelli V, Canale V, Salciccia S Curr Oncol. 2024; 31(2):818-827.

PMID: 38392054 PMC: 10888477. DOI: 10.3390/curroncol31020060.

References
1.
Dobruch J, Oszczudlowski M . Bladder Cancer: Current Challenges and Future Directions. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021; 57(8). PMC: 8402079. DOI: 10.3390/medicina57080749. View

2.
Ge X, Lan Z, Chen J, Zhu S . Effectiveness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detecting the staging and grading of bladder cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Med Ultrason. 2021; 23(1):29-35. DOI: 10.11152/mu-2730. View

3.
Green D, Durand M, Gumpeni N, Rink M, Cha E, Karakiewicz P . Role of magnetic resonance imaging in bladder cancer: current status and emerging techniques. BJU Int. 2012; 110(10):1463-70. DOI: 10.1111/j.1464-410X.2012.11129.x. View

4.
Caruso G, Salvaggio G, Campisi A, Melloni D, Midiri M, Bertolotto M . Bladder tumor staging: comparison of contrast-enhanced and gray-scale ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009; 194(1):151-6. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.09.2741. View

5.
Kirkali Z, Chan T, Manoharan M, Algaba F, Busch C, Cheng L . Bladder cancer: epidemiology, staging and grading, and diagnosis. Urology. 2006; 66(6 Suppl 1):4-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.urology.2005.07.062. View