AJR Get Involved! Great Benefits! Join ARRS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quaia, E.
Right arrow Articles by Cova, M. A.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quaia, E.
Right arrow Articles by Cova, M. A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
DOI:10.2214/AJR.07.3546
AJR 2008; 191:1239-1249
© American Roentgen Ray Society


Original Research

Comparison of Contrast-Enhanced Sonography with Unenhanced Sonography and Contrast-Enhanced CT in the Diagnosis of Malignancy in Complex Cystic Renal Masses

Emilio Quaia1, Michele Bertolotto, Vincenzo Cioffi, Alexia Rossi, Elisa Baratella, Riccardo Pizzolato and Maria Assunta Cova

1 All authors: Department of Radiology, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149 Trieste, Italy.

OBJECTIVE. The objective of our study was to evaluate contrast-enhanced sonography in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses.

MATERIALS AND METHODS. We analyzed a series of 40 cystic renal masses (diameter, 2–8 cm) with a complex pattern at contrast-enhanced CT in 40 consecutive subjects (18 men, 22 women; mean age ± SD, 62 ± 11 years). Each renal mass was scanned using sonography without contrast material and after IV injection of sulfur hexafluoride–filled microbubbles during the arterial (15–40 seconds) and venous (40–120 seconds from injection) phases. Two radiologists in consensus assessed onsite the enhancement patterns in the peripheral wall and intracystic septa and the evidence of solid endocystic components. Three blinded readers with 2, 6, and 10 years of experience in renal imaging performed a retrospective off-site interpretation of unenhanced sonography, contrast-enhanced sonography, and CT images and made a benign or malignant diagnosis according to refer ence diagnostic criteria for contrast-enhanced sonography and to the Bosniak classification for CT.

RESULTS. Final diagnoses comprised two multilocular cystic nephromas, two inflammatory and seven hemorrhagic cysts, and eight uncomplicated benign cysts and 21 cystic renal cell carcinomas. The overall diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced sonography was better than unenhanced sonography and CT (contrast-enhanced sonography vs unenhanced sonography vs CT: reader 1, 83% vs 30% vs 75%; reader 2, 83% vs 30% vs 63%; reader 3, 80% vs 30% vs 70%; p < 0.05, McNemar test).

CONCLUSION. Contrast-enhanced sonography was found to be better than unenhanced sonography and CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses.

Keywords: Bosniak classification • microbubbles • renal cell carcinoma • renal cysts • renal masses • ultrasound contrast media


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Roentgen Ray Society.