MP12-12 CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND FOR SMALL RENAL MASSES

You have accessJournal of UrologyImaging/Radiology III1 Apr 2014MP12-12 CONTRAST-ENHANCED ULTRASOUND FOR SMALL RENAL MASSES Tae Hoon Oh, Seong Hoon Ahn, Whi An Kwon, Jea Whan Lee, Dong Youp Han, Seung Chul Park, Hee Jong Jeong, and Ill Young Seo Tae Hoon OhTae Hoon Oh More articles by this author , Seong Hoon AhnSeong Hoon Ahn More articles by this author , Whi An KwonWhi An Kwon More articles by this author , Jea Whan LeeJea Whan Lee More articles by this author , Dong Youp HanDong Youp Han More articles by this author , Seung Chul ParkSeung Chul Park More articles by this author , Hee Jong JeongHee Jong Jeong More articles by this author , and Ill Young SeoIll Young Seo More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.02.447AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES Introduction : Ultrasonography (US) is highly sensitive in the detection of the renal mass. However, it may not show characterized findings to differentiate benign and malignant in small masses. The purpose of this study is to determine the diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), US using contrast media, for small renal masses. METHODS Materials and Methods: From January 2011 to September 2013, 71 patients underwent CEUS for evaluation of renal masses. Among of them, CEUS findings of small renal masses, renal cell carcinoma (RCC) cases (n = 25) and angiomyolipoma (AML) cases (n = 10) were retrospectively analyzed. The tumor echogenicity and enhancement patterns and degrees were evaluated. The diagnostic efficacy of CEUS in differentiating the two diseases was compared. RESULTS Results: On CEUS of small renal tumors with less than 4 cm diameter, the findings of diffuse heterogeneous enhancement (observed in 76.0% of RCC and 30.0% of AML; p = 0.020), wash-out from hyper-enhancement or isoenhancement to hypo-enhancement in late phase (64.0% of RCC and 20.0% of AML; p = 0.027), and perilesional rim-like enhancement (60.0% of RCC and 10.0% of AML; p = 0.010) achieved significant difference between AML and RCC cases. The corresponding sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy were 80.0% (20 of 25), 70.0% (7 of 10), 87.0% (20 of 23), 58.3% (7 of 12), and 77.1% (27 of 35), respectively. CONCLUSIONS Conclusion: Our results suggest that the characteristic findings of CEUS features could have a potential diagnostic factor in evaluation of small renal mass. It showed a better diagnostic efficacy than US for differentiating RCC and AML. © 2014FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 191Issue 4SApril 2014Page: e109-e110 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2014MetricsAuthor Information Tae Hoon Oh More articles by this author Seong Hoon Ahn More articles by this author Whi An Kwon More articles by this author Jea Whan Lee More articles by this author Dong Youp Han More articles by this author Seung Chul Park More articles by this author Hee Jong Jeong More articles by this author Ill Young Seo More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...