Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

International Journal of Urology (2017) 24, 184--189 doi: 10.1111/iju.

13289

Original Article: Clinical Investigation

Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and


magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of complex renal
cysts: A prospective study
Guillaume Defortescu,1 Jean-Nicolas Cornu,1 Soane Bejar,2 Anthony Giwerc,1 Francoise Gobet,3
Claire Werquin,2 Christian Pster1 and Francois-Xavier Nouhaud1
1
Urology Department, 2Radiology Department, and 3Pathology Department, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France

Abbreviations & Acronyms Objectives: To compare the diagnostic performance of computed tomography,
CEUS = contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and contrast enhanced ultrasonography for the assessment
ultrasonography of complex renal cysts.
CT = computed tomography Methods: We carried out a prospective single-center study from January 2012 to
MRI = magnetic resonance December 2013. We included patients with Bosniak category 2F or 3 renal cysts found
imaging on computed tomography and reviewed by two expert radiologists. Magnetic resonance
NPV = negative predictive imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography were then carried out. Patients with a
values Bosniak 3 cyst on magnetic resonance imaging, as well as those upgraded as
PPV = positive predictive appearing malignant on contrast-enhanced ultrasonography, were surgically managed.
values Imaging results were compared with histological data. For patients without surgery,
US = ultrasonography imaging examinations were compared with follow-up data. For each imaging
examination, diagnostic performance and Cohens kappa coefficient were assessed.
Correspondence: Francois- Results: A total of 47 patients were included. The median follow up was 36 months
Xavier Nouhaud M.D., Urology (range 1748 months). At initial computed tomography, cysts were classified as
Department, Rouen University Bosniak 2F and Bosniak 3 in 34 and 13 patients, respectively. Magnetic resonance
Hospital, 1 rue de Germont, imaging found 13 Bosniak 3 cysts, and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography upgraded
76031 Rouen Cedex, France. six more patients with cysts that appeared malignant. A total of 19 patients had surgery.
Email: fx.nouhaud@chu-rouen.fr Histological analysis reported 14 malignant tumors. No tumor progression was found in
followed-up patients. Computed tomography showed poor sensitivity (36%) and
Received 19 May 2016;
specificity (76%; j = 0.11). Magnetic resonance imaging showed 71% sensitivity and 91%
accepted 5 December 2016.
specificity (j = 0.64). Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography showed high sensitivity (100%)
Online publication 1 February
and specificity (97%), and a negative predictive value at 100% (j = 0.95).
2017
Conclusions: The present results suggested that contrast-enhanced ultrasonography
could be useful in improving the assessment of complex renal cysts. Indeed, computed
tomography accuracy might be limited in this indication requiring further investigations
to determine the best treatment strategy.
Key words: computed tomography, contrast media, diagnostic imaging, magnetic
resonance imaging, renal cyst.

Introduction
Renal cysts are frequently encountered in clinical practice, with an incidence rate of approxi-
mately 50% in patients aged >50 years.1 At diagnosis, the main challenge is to discriminate
benign cysts from cystic renal cell carcinomas requiring specic oncological care. These cys-
tic cancers are reported in up to 10% of renal cancers.2 Although radiological diagnosis of
simple cysts and highly suspicious lesions is quite simple, characterizing complex cysts can
be difcult.2 Indeed, these atypical cysts consist of a set of benign or malignant lesions, and
their characterization is sometimes difcult, but nonetheless essential to determine the best
treatment strategy.
To date, the Bosniak classication is used most commonly to guide the management of
renal cysts. It allows the classication of cysts according to morphological criteria, representa-
tive of their oncological potential.35 However, in this classication, two categories remain
undetermined: cysts 2F and 3 corresponding to malignant lesions, respectively, in 10% and
50% of cases.6 For these cysts, the guidelines recommend using all imaging techniques avail-
able (MRI, CEUS and CT scan) as soon as necessary to narrow down the diagnosis.6 In

184 2017 The Japanese Urological Association


Imaging assessment of complex renal cyst

addition, biopsy of these cystic lesions is not recommended,


59 patients considered for
thus limiting histological evidence for the best treatment strat- inclusion with a Bosniak 2F
egy.6,7 As a result, the therapeutic decision is based mainly or 3 renal cyst on a CT-scan
on radiological ndings.
In this context, CEUS seems to be the optimal examination 12 patients excluded
for characterization of these lesions.8 Indeed, it provides a 3 upgraded Bosniak 4
better time resolution than CT or MRI, because it allows a Centralized radiological
review of the CT-scans 2 downgraded Bosniak 2
real-time view of enhancement.8,9 Thus, it improves the
detection of blood vessels in renal masses. It also has a 7 no or low quality CT scans
higher spatial resolution.8,9 As such, the advantages of CEUS
make it a useful tool for improving the radiological diagnosis 47 patients included
of atypical cysts, as several recent studies have suggested.812 Having both MRI an CEUS
The aim of the present study was to compare the diagnos-
tic performances of CEUS, CT scan and MRI in the treat-
ment of atypical cystic renal tumors classied as Bosniak 2F
or 3. Bosniak 3 on MRI?

No
Methods
Patients Malignant on CEUS? Yes

We carried out a prospective single-center observational study


No Yes
from January 2012 to December 2013. During this period, 59
patients referred consecutively to our tertiary care center for
an asymptomatic renal cyst Bosniak 2F or 3 on contrast-
enhanced CT were considered for inclusion. A total of 47 Imaging follow-up Surgical treatment
patients were denitely included after a centralized CT
review by two expert radiologists had conrmed the cysts
were Bosniak 2F or 3. Patients with contraindication to con- Fig. 1 Flow chart of the included patients and surgical treatment strategy.
trast-enhanced MRI were excluded, as well as patients with a
symptomatic cyst and those without a CT scan available or S2000-Siemens10 (Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany).
of low quality, especially slice thickness >2.5 mm (see A convex probe was used with frequency ranging from 3 to
below). A ow chart of the study is represented in Figure 1. 4.5 MHz. Each lesion was scanned rst using unenhanced
All included patients gave their informed consent for renal gray-scale ultrasonography in the harmonic mode. Then, each
MRI and CEUS for diagnostic purposes, and the principles of cyst was scanned after injection of an intravenous bolus of
Helsinki were respected. (1.2 mL) microbubbles (Sonovue; Bracco Imaging, Milan,
Italy) followed by 10 mL normal saline ash. Technical
parameters were: Cadence Contrast Pulse Sequencing (Acu-
Radiological study
son Siemens Healthcare) as the contrast-specic mode with
At Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France, CTs were car- sensitivity similar to the microbubble harmonic signal, low
ried out with a 64-slice scanner (GE discovery HD 750; GE transmission power insonation (mechanical index 0.060.1),
Healthcare, Chicago, IL, USA). Studies were carried out dynamic range of 80 dB, temporal resolution between frames
using 120 KVp and 280 mAs. Contrast media (1.5 mL/kg of of 71100 ms (1014 frames/s) and one focus below the
non-ionic Omnipaque 350 mg/mL Ihhexol; GE Healthcare) renal cyst.
was intravenously injected at the rate of 23 mL s through a
MRI
power injector. Images were obtained at the unenhanced,
nephrographic and early excretory phase. The following MRI was carried out on MRI ACHIEVA 1.5T-PHILIPS-07
parameters were used: section 1.25/1.25 mm, pitch 1375, device (Philips Healthcare, Amsterdam, The Netherlands).
rotation time 0.7 s, detector width 0.675 9 64 = 40 mm, MRI examinations were carried out with a phase-array body
scan eld of view 50 cm and matrix 512.2 Outside CTs were coil with the patient in the supine position. Each examination
also considered if they were carried out according to a similar included: axial and coronal half Fourier single shot fast (or
protocol with slice thickness up to 2.5 mm. Renal MRI and turbo) spin echo images (TE: 80 ms, TR: 362 ms, Flip angle:
CEUS were then carried out for each included patient within 90, breath hold), axial T2-weighted TSE with fat suppres-
1 month after enrolment. These radiological examinations sion (TR: 3466 ms, TE: 70 ms, Flip angle: 90, slice: 5 mm,
were carried out blinded to previous imaging data. respiratory triggering, matrix 272 9 156), axial T1-weighted
gradient echo sequence, in phase and opposed phase (TR:
CEUS
103 ms, TE: 4.6/2.3 ms, ip angle 55, slice 5 mm, breath
All CEUS were carried out by a third different radiologist, hold matrix 192 9 94) as dual echo sequence and axial 3-D
experienced in renal CEUS (>100 cases), according to a stan- fat-suppressed GRE T1-weighted imaging (TR: 415 ms, TE:
dardized protocol using ultrasonography machine ACUSON 2.2 ms, ip angle 10, slice 2.5 mm, matrix 256 9 18)

2017 The Japanese Urological Association 185


G DEFORTESCU ET AL.

obtained before and after the intravenous administration of


contrast media (Gadovist 1 mmol/mL; Bayer, Leverkusen, Table 1 Patients characteristics

Germany) at the corticomedullary, nephrographic and delayed Variables n (%)


phases. No. patients 47
For CT and MRI, the cystic lesions were classied accord- Median age at diagnosis 64.7 (3776)
ing to the Bosniak classication using the described criteria Sex (male/female) 30 (64%)/17 (36%)
for CT and MRI classication (35.13). A 1-mm threshold Median body mass index (kg/m2) 25.8 (18.738.4)
was used to determine the boundary between perceptible and Median tumor size (cm) 3.8 (1.85.8)
Tumor side (left/right) 28 (60%)/19 (40%)
measurable enhancement, and classify the cyst as 2F (percep-
Tumor location (anterior/posterior) 27 (57%)/20 (43%)
tible, 1 mm) or 3 (measurable, >1 mm). CEUS classied Tumor location (lateral) 23 (49%)
the cysts as appearing benign or malignant. The malignancy Surgical treatment 19 (40%)
criteria for CEUS were contrast enhancement of the septa Histological data (n = 19)
and/or the walls, the same 1-mm threshold was used between Clear cell carcinoma 8 (42%)
perceptible and measurable. Perceptible enhancement was Papillary carcinoma 3 (16%)
Chromophobe carcinoma 2 (11%)
considered as benign.
Other renal cell carcinoma 1 (5%)
Infected cyst (benign) 1 (5%)
Treatment strategy Cystic nephroma (benign) 4 (21%)

Patients with a cyst described as Bosniak 3 on MRI and


those with a cyst upgraded as appearing malignant on CEUS
underwent surgical treatment (Fig. 1). For patients with both Patient and tumor characteristics are detailed in Table 1.
MRI and CEUS pointing to a benign lesion (Bosniak 2F), a On CT, cysts were classied as Bosniak 2F and Bosniak 3 in
follow up by renal imaging (CT or MRI) was scheduled 34 and 13 patients, respectively (Table 2). On MRI, cysts
every 6 months for 5 years, according to the guidelines.3,6 In were classied as Bosniak 2F and Bosniak 3 in 34 patients
cases of radiological progression during follow up, patients and 13 patients, respectively, with ve patients upgraded to
were offered surgical treatment. Bosniak 3 compared with CT scan (Table 2). On CEUS, 15
cysts (31.9%) were classied as malignant and 32 (68.1%) as
benign, including nine patients who were upgraded to
Statistical analysis
malignant compared with the CT results (Table 2).
Demographic, clinical and imaging data (including age at A total of 19 patients (40%) had surgery according to the
inclusion, sex, Bosniak classication, tumor location, surgical aforementioned criteria. Histological analysis found 14 malig-
treatment and imaging follow-up data) were collected in a nant tumors and ve benign tumors. Histological data are
dedicated database at inclusion and during follow up. In addi- given in Table 1. Among the 28 patients followed up, none
tion, histological data were collected for patients who had presented any upgrade of their cyst during a median follow
surgery. up of 36 months.
The initial radiological diagnosis of each examination (CT, The diagnostic values of the different imaging examina-
MRI and CEUS) was compared with the nal diagnosis in tions are detailed in Table 2 and Figure 2. We found that CT
order to determine the sensitivity, specicity, PPV, NPV, had low sensitivity (36%) and specicity (76%), with a low
accuracy and the rate of undetected cancers for each imaging kappa coefcient (0.11). MRI showed higher sensitivity
technique. In this aim, the nal diagnosis was dened accord- (71%) and specicity (91%), and a kappa coefcient of 0.64
ing to Bertolotto et al. and Chen et al.8,9 For patients who (range 0.390.88). CEUS showed superior results, with a sen-
had surgery, tumors were classied as either benign or malig- sitivity of 100% and a specicity of 97%, a positive predic-
nant based on histological diagnosis. For patients followed tive value of 93%, and a negative predictive value of 100%.
up, classication was based on tumor progression on imaging Furthermore, it was the only examination with a 0% rate of
examination, with a median follow up of 36 months (range undetected cancer. Finally, the kappa coefcient of CEUS
1748 months). Lesions, which had not evolved at last fol- was also high: 0.95 (range 0.851). Figure 3 shows a sample
low-up imaging examination, were considered as benign. CEUS usefulness.
The Cohen kappa coefcient was also calculated to assess
the agreement of imaging techniques and nal diagnosis.
Statistical analyses were made with the 12.0.3.0 version of
Discussion
MedCalc software (MedCalc Software bvba, Ostend, Bel- Bosniak classication based on review of a single CT of a
gium). cyst might be insufcient to determine optimal treatment
strategy. Further morphological assessment using more accu-
rate imaging examinations appears necessary.
Results In this context, the present results suggested that CEUS
A total of 47 patients were included in the present study 30 provides higher diagnostic accuracy than MRI or CT. Stan-
men (64%) and 17 women (36%). The median age was dard US has a low contrast resolution combined with high
64.7 years (range 3776 years) with a median follow up of acoustic disturbance, and Doppler is too limited for the detec-
36 months (range 1748 months). tion of microvessels. This explains the need to use CT and

186 2017 The Japanese Urological Association


Imaging assessment of complex renal cyst

Table 2 Imagung results and diagnostic value of CT scan, MRI and CEUS for complex renal cysts assessment

Imaging Final diagnosis Diagnostic value of imaging exams

Type Diagnostic Benign Malignant Total Sensitivity Specificity PPV NPV Accuracy Missed cancers j (Cohen)
CT scan Bosniak 2F 25 9 34 36% 76% 38% 74% 64% 64% 0.11 (00.4)
Bosniak 3 8 5 13
Total 33 14 47
MRI Bosniak 2F 30 4 34 71% 91% 77% 88% 85% 29% 0.64 (0.390.88)
Bosniak 3 3 10 13
Total 33 14 47
CEUS Benign 32 0 32 100% 97% 93% 100% 98% 0% 0.95 (0.851)
Malignant 1 14 15
Total 33 14 47

Sensitivity on the results of CEUS in the present study. CEUS might be


100% too sensitive, as it can detect only a few microbubbles travel-
80% ing in thin septa with a superior time and spatial resolution
(Cohen) Specificity compared with any other imaging modalities, leading to over-
60%
classifying certain cases of benign cysts.
40%
The ndings in the present study were close to those
20% already reported in the literature, showing the high diagnostic
0% CT-scan performance of CEUS. Indeed, we found a sensitivity and
1-missed
PPV MRI specicity of 100% and 97%, respectively. These ndings are
cancers close to those reported by Bertolotto et al. in a study also
CEUS including 47 patients, and in which they used the same de-
nition for the nal diagnosis. Their two radiologists found a
sensitivity of 96.7% and 93.3%, respectively, and a speci-
Accuracy NPV
city of 94.1%.8 Furthermore, Chen et al. in their study on
Fig. 2 Radar chart of diagnostic performances of the different types of radi-
59 patients, reported a sensitivity of 97.2% and a specicity
ological examinations. of 71.4% using the same denition for the nal diagnosis.9
Furthermore, similar to the present ndings, Chen et al.
also reported a high rate of diagnostic accuracy (84.5%), a
MRI to assess or characterize the nature of cysts.13,14 How- low rate of undetected cancers (2.8%) and a high kappa coef-
ever, these two examinations might not be completely help- cient (0.7).9 The values we found were greater than those
ful, because the phenomenon of partial volume is high, and already reported in the literature. These differences might be
the contrast resolutions of CT and the spatial resolutions of explained by the operator-dependent variation of US even
MRI are poor. Indeed, they are too limited for assessment of though Bertolotto et al. reported a good match between the
small renal lesions, whereas the spatial resolution of US is results of their two operators (j = 0.7). Also, in the present
optimal for this category of lesion.1517 Using contrast during study, surgical treatment was guided mainly by MRI and US
US enables enhancement of this examination. This method examination, which could lead to a potential selection bias
requires intravenous injections of microbubbles, allowing among tumors with histological analysis.8 Finally, Barr et al.,
exclusive intravascular marking when detecting microbubbles in a large retrospective study of 721 patients with indetermi-
in cyst walls or septa. There is neither enhancement of the nate renal mass on CT, found similar results to ours on
urinary route nor accumulation in the renal parenchyma, CEUS with 100% sensitivity, 95% specicity, 94.7% positive
which eases exploration.15 CEUS is a valuable tool to iden- predictive value and a 100% negative predictive value.16 That
tify contrast enhancement in the cysts septa or wall, or septal study did not include only cystic tumors; however, Aoki
or mural nodules. This is due to the high sensitivity of the et al. reported similar results for both solid and cystic tumors
contrast-specic mode to the harmonic signals produced by on CEUS.16,18
microbubbles, which probably makes CEUS even more effec- Recently, Graumann et al. reported different results in a
tive than contrast material-enhanced CT and MR in the detec- prospective study including 46 patients. Indeed they found
tion of contrast enhancement in cystic renal tumors. that CEUS and MRI results were both in agreement with CT
However, some limitations inherent to the technique have to diagnosis with a high kappa score (0.86 and 0.91, respec-
be considered: back shadowing from calcication, bowel gas tively), and they concluded that enhanced CT should remain
interposition and US beam attenuation in cases of deep lesion the gold standard for the Bosniak classication.19 However,
location can obscure contrast enhancement after microbubble these discrepancies with the present results could be
injection. Although we enrolled several obese patients, they explained by different methods. First, in their study, they
were too rare to assess the impact of a high body mass index included a majority of Bosniak 2 (n = 27), which are less

2017 The Japanese Urological Association 187


G DEFORTESCU ET AL.

(a) Bosniak category 3, from 20% to more than 50% of malig-


nancies have been reported.4,6 In the present series, 26% of
Bosniak category 2F cysts and 39% of Bosniak category 3
cysts according to initial CT corresponded to malignant
tumors. These ndings were close to those expected, even
though the rate of malignant tumors for category 2F lesions
was superior to that reported in the literature.
One of the main limitations of the present study was the
low number of patients included. However, the population
samples found in the literature for prospective studies on this
topic were also low. Despite exclusion of low-quality CT,
included examinations had heterogeneous slice thickness, up
to 2.5 mm, that could have affected the CT results. Further-
more, CEUS is operator dependent. In the present study, as
(b) in other series, only an expert radiologist carried out these
examinations. The present ndings are also representative of
the value of CEUS in expert hands, but not necessarily rele-
vant in daily practice. However, this point underlines the
need to refer such types of lesions to tertiary care referral
centers, which are used to carrying out these examinations.
This is indeed recommended in some guidelines.21 Finally,
our primary end-point, for 28 patients, was based on lesion
progression during imaging follow up, and in the absence of
histological evidence. This was less reliable than histology
diagnosis, and might also be limited because of the relatively
short follow up, which was less than the 5-year observation
period recommended for Bosniak 2F cysts.6,22
In conclusion, the present results suggested the diagnostic
Fig. 3 Sample of MRI and CEUS for one patient. (a) MRI showed a measur-
able enhancement of the wall of the cyst (Bosniak 3). (b) CEUS also found a
performance of CEUS in improving the characterization of
tissue element inside the cyst (arrow), not described on the MRI, making this complex renal cysts, which can be limited in some cases if
lesion probably malignant. A clear cell renal cell carcinoma, Fuhrman 2, was using only CT scan or MRI. CEUS appeared to be a relevant
found after surgery in this patient. examination to achieve accurate diagnosis and to optimize
treatment strategy of complex renal cysts.
problematic for CT diagnosis than Bosniak 2F or 3 cysts,
representing just 19 cases, whereas we included only such
cysts. Furthermore, they chose the CT diagnosis as the stan-
Acknowledgments
dard for the CEUS and MRI accuracy assessment, and histo- The authors are grateful to Nikki Sabourin Gibbs for editing
logical data were available for just six patients. In the present the manuscript.
study, we used the nal diagnosis as previously described
using histological data, when available, or follow-up data.
This method provided an accuracy assessment independently Conflict of interest
from the CT results, that could be more relevant. None declared.
MRI has already been reported to be more accurate than
CT for the evaluation of renal cysts.3 Indeed, applied to
MRI, the Bosniak classication leads to an increase in the References
number of lesion categories detecting more septa, by thor- 1 McGuire BB, Fitzpatrick JM. The diagnosis and management of complex
oughly analyzing the thickness of the septa or walls and their renal cysts. Curr. Opin. Urol. 2010; 20: 34954.
enhancement.3 The present study has also suggested the supe- 2 Ascenti G, Mazziotti S, Zimbaro G et al. Complex cystic renal masses: char-
rior diagnostic performance of MRI compared with CT. Fur- acterization with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology 2007; 243: 15865.
3 Israel GM, Hindman N, Bosniak MA. Evaluation of cystic renal masses:
thermore, the diagnostic performance of MRI we found was
comparison of CT and MR imaging by using the Bosniak classication sys-
close to that reported by Chen et al.: sensitivity of 80.6%, a tem. Radiology 2004; 231: 36571.
specicity of 77.1%, a PPV of 78.4%, a NVP of 79.4% and 4 Israel GM, Bosniak MA. An update of the Bosniak renal cyst classication
a kappa coefcient of 0.58.9 Thus, MRI is a more accurate system. Urology 2005; 66: 4848.
examination compared with CT, but nevertheless potentially 5 Bosniak MA. The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology
1986; 158: 110.
inferior to CEUS.3,16,20
6 Ljungberg B, Bensalah K, Bex A et al. Guidelines on renal cell carcinoma
Cystic tumors represent up to 10% of renal cell cancers.2 Arnhem: European Association of Urology, 2014.
As far as a CT diagnosis is concerned, Bosniak category 2F 7 Veltri A, Garetto I, Tosetti I et al. Diagnostic accuracy and clinical impact of
cysts are associated with malignant tumors in 520% of imaging-guided needle biopsy of renal masses. Retrospective analysis on 150
cases, and with a high disparity between the series.6 For cases. Eur. Radiol. 2011; 21: 393401.

188 2017 The Japanese Urological Association


Imaging assessment of complex renal cyst

8 Bertolotto M, Cicero C, Perrone R, Degrassi F, Cacciato F, Cova MA. Renal 16 Barr RG, Peterson C, Hindi A. Evaluation of indeterminate renal masses with
masses with equivocal enhancement at CT: characterization with contrast- contrast-enhanced US: a diagnostic performance study. Radiology 2014; 271:
enhanced ultrasound. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2015; 204: W55765. 13342.
9 Chen Y, Wu N, Xue T, Hao Y, Dai J. Comparison of contrast-enhanced 17 McArthur C, Baxter GM. Current and potential renal applications of contrast-
sonography with MRI in the diagnosis of complex cystic renal masses. enhanced ultrasound. Clin. Radiol. 2012; 67: 90922.
J. Clin. Ultrasound 2014; doi: 10.1002/jcu.22232. 18 Aoki S, Hattori R, Yamamoto T et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using a
10 Xue L-Y, Lu Q, Huang B-J et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for time-intensity curve for the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int. 2011;
evaluation of cystic renal mass: in comparison to contrast-enhanced CT and 108: 34954.
conventional ultrasound. Abdom. Imaging 2014; 39: 127483. 19 Graumann O, Osther SS, Karstoft J, Hrlyck A, Osther PJ. Bosniak classi-
11 Gerst S, Hann LE, Li D et al. Evaluation of renal masses with contrast- cation system: a prospective comparison of CT, contrast-enhanced US, and
enhanced ultrasound: initial experience. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2011; 197: MR for categorizing complex renal cystic masses. Acta Radiol. 2016; 57:
897906. 140917.
12 Nicolau C, Bu~ nesch L, Pa~no B et al. Prospective evaluation of CT indetermi- 20 Nicolau C, Bunesch L, Sebastia C. Renal complex cysts in adults: contrast-
nate renal masses using US and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom. Imag- enhanced ultrasound. Abdom. Imaging 2011; 36: 74252.
ing 2015; 40: 54251. 21 Patard J-J, Mejean A, Richard S et al. CCAFU recommendations 2013: renal
13 Bosniak MA. Diagnosis and management of patients with complicated cystic cancer. Prog. Urol. 2013; 23(Suppl 2): S177204.
lesions of the kidney. AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 1997; 169: 81921. 22 Israel GM, Bosniak MA. Follow-up CT of moderately complex cystic lesions
14 Robbin ML, Lockhart ME, Barr RG. Renal imaging with ultrasound contrast: of the kidney (Bosniak category IIF). AJR Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003; 181:
current status. Radiol. Clin. North Am. 2003; 41: 96378. 62733.
15 Lassau N, Koscielny S, Opolon P et al. Evaluation of contrast-enhanced color
Doppler ultrasound for the quantication of angiogenesis in vivo. Invest.
Radiol. 2001; 36: 505.

Editorial Comment

Editorial Comment to Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography


and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of complex renal cysts: A
prospective study
Clinical application documented with data from the literature obese patients were examined. As with gray scale ultrasound
justies the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) as examination, CEUS is more sensitive to differentiate surgical
the most sensitive method for the detection of low ow micro- from non-surgical kidney cysts that are small in size com-
circulation. Because of the dimensions of its particles and pared with CT examination (partial volume effect) and MRI
short lifetime (57 min) before disintegration occurs, ultra- examination (lower spatial resolution).5
sonic contrast media is the only true intravascular contrast The authors conrmed in the present study, as literature
used in modern imaging. Therefore, because of this, guidelines data have previously suggested, that the lack of enhancement
have included CEUS in the diagnostic evaluation algorithm of during CEUS excludes the surgery for kidney cysts.6 It is jus-
complex kidney cysts.1 The Bosniak classication of renal tied to incorporate the CEUS examination in the diagnostic
cysts is modied for CEUS, with a distinct denition of per- evaluation and monitoring of complex renal cysts instead of
ceptive (IIF category cysts) with respect to measurable, contin- CT and MRI examination, when CT and MRI are contraindi-
uous (category III category cysts) contrast enhancement.2 cated or inconclusive.
Computed tomography (CT) is still a sovereign method in The main limitation of this prospective study was the small
the diagnosis of kidney cysts I, II and IV categories by Bos- number of patients enrolled and an even smaller number of
niak. CT is also a standard for staging purposes of category surgically-treated cysts that are documented with histopathol-
III and IV cysts. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in com- ogy. Standardized, prospective studies are necessary, and
parison with CT is signicantly more sensitive and insigni- should include a larger number of lesions and a longer period
cantly more specic in distinguishing category IIF from the of monitoring.
category III kidney cyst with a documented tendency to fal-
sely upgrade kidney cysts.3 In this article by Defortescu Biljana Markovic Vasiljkovic M.D., Ph.D.1,2
1
et al., the authors showed that CEUS has higher sensitivity Uroradiology Department, Center for Radiology and MRI,
and similar specicity compared with MRI, and that the accu- Clinical Center of Serbia, and 2Medical Faculty, University
racy of CEUS tends to grow with the operators experience of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
and knowledge of the examination limits.4 Complex cysts biljanamarkovicvasiljkovic@yahoo.com
analyzed in this article did not have calcications, were not
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13301
localized in the medial aspect of the kidney and no extremely

2017 The Japanese Urological Association 189

Potrebbero piacerti anche