Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study
Purpose To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ–CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE–CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE–MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses. Materials and...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | World journal of urology 2024-05, Vol.42 (1), p.302, Article 302 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 302 |
| container_title | World journal of urology |
| container_volume | 42 |
| creator | Zhao, Qin-xian Wu, Chong Tan, Shuilian Yang, Yongfeng Cui, Xin-Wu Dietrich, Christoph F. Yang, Bin Xu, Chao-li Gao, Yong-yan Xie, Ming-xing Wu, Chang-jun Liu, Li-ping Wang, Xing-hua Ling-hu, Run-ze Wang, Ning Wang, Fei Wang, Xiu-li Liu, Guo-yan Yu, Xiao-ling Yu, Jie Cheng, Zhi-gang Liang, Ping |
| description | Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ–CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE–CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE–MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.
Materials and methods
306 consecutive patients (from 7 centers) with renal masses (40 benign tumors, 266 malignant tumors) diagnosed by both SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT or CE–MRI were enrolled between September 2020 and February 2021. The examinations were performed within 7 days, but the sequence was not fixed. Histologic results were available for 301 of 306 (98.37%) lesions and 5 lesions were considered benign after at least 2 year follow-up without change in size and image characteristics. The diagnostic performances were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and compared by McNemar’s test.
Results
In the head-to-head comparison, SNZ–CEUS and CE–MRI had comparable sensitivity (95.60 vs. 94.51%,
P
= 0.997), specificity (65.22 vs. 73.91%,
P
= 0.752), positive predictive value (91.58 vs. 93.48%) and negative predictive value (78.95 vs. 77.27%); SNZ–CEUS and CE–CT showed similar sensitivity (97.31 vs. 96.24%,
P
= 0.724); however, SNZ–CEUS had relatively lower than specificity than CE–CT (59.09 vs. 68.18%,
P
= 0.683). For nodules > 4 cm, CE–MRI demonstrated higher specificity than SNZ–CEUS (90.91 vs. 72.73%,
P
= 0.617) without compromise the sensitivity.
Conclusions
SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT, and CE–MRI demonstrate desirable and comparable sensitivity for the differentiation of renal mass. However, the specificity of all three imaging modalities is not satisfactory. SNZ–CEUS may be a suitable alternative modality for patients with renal dysfunction and those allergic to gadolinium or iodine-based agents.
Key Points
This prospective multicenter study demonstrated that the diagnostic performance of SNZ–CEUS was comparable to CE–CT and CE–MRI.
The three imaging modalities displayed desirable sensitivity, while the specificity needs to be further improved.
CE–MRI may have better specificity than SNZ–CEUS for differentiating renal masses bigger than 4 cm |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3053136116</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>3053136116</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-d0f001d932ceadd5589aacbef732fef32017ed101f15da664df54f2d741a18b63</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxq0KREvhBXpAlrj0kuI_cZLlhlalVCpCgnK2Zu1xcZXYwU4qLc_Sh63TLaVCiJM9M7-Z8eePkCPOTjhj7bvMmKxVxURdsbrrVNXukQNeS1l1rWiePbnvk5c5XzPG24apF2RflmSJ2AG5XcdhhOTDFf0WA_yK3lITw5QgTxWGHxAMWjr3SyLOwdIp_qO-vqRQap-_nlMXE7XeOUwYJg99vy0hXIWYlx0lCT3tMfsY8nsKdEwxj2gmf4N0KGu8KW2YaJ5mu31FnjvoM75-OA_J94-nl-tP1cWXs_P1h4vKSNFMlWWuiLErKQyCtUp1KwCzQddK4dBJUXSj5Yw7riw0TW2dqp2wbc2Bd5tGHpLj3dzymp8z5kkPPhvsewgY56wlU5LLhvMFffsXeh3nVETdU0KsyseqQokdZYq8nNDpMfkB0lZzphfv9M47XbzT997ptjS9eRg9bwa0jy2_zSqA3AF5XAzD9Gf3f8beAYpvqBc</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>3052297205</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Zhao, Qin-xian ; Wu, Chong ; Tan, Shuilian ; Yang, Yongfeng ; Cui, Xin-Wu ; Dietrich, Christoph F. ; Yang, Bin ; Xu, Chao-li ; Gao, Yong-yan ; Xie, Ming-xing ; Wu, Chang-jun ; Liu, Li-ping ; Wang, Xing-hua ; Ling-hu, Run-ze ; Wang, Ning ; Wang, Fei ; Wang, Xiu-li ; Liu, Guo-yan ; Yu, Xiao-ling ; Yu, Jie ; Cheng, Zhi-gang ; Liang, Ping</creator><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qin-xian ; Wu, Chong ; Tan, Shuilian ; Yang, Yongfeng ; Cui, Xin-Wu ; Dietrich, Christoph F. ; Yang, Bin ; Xu, Chao-li ; Gao, Yong-yan ; Xie, Ming-xing ; Wu, Chang-jun ; Liu, Li-ping ; Wang, Xing-hua ; Ling-hu, Run-ze ; Wang, Ning ; Wang, Fei ; Wang, Xiu-li ; Liu, Guo-yan ; Yu, Xiao-ling ; Yu, Jie ; Cheng, Zhi-gang ; Liang, Ping</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ–CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE–CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE–MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.
Materials and methods
306 consecutive patients (from 7 centers) with renal masses (40 benign tumors, 266 malignant tumors) diagnosed by both SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT or CE–MRI were enrolled between September 2020 and February 2021. The examinations were performed within 7 days, but the sequence was not fixed. Histologic results were available for 301 of 306 (98.37%) lesions and 5 lesions were considered benign after at least 2 year follow-up without change in size and image characteristics. The diagnostic performances were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and compared by McNemar’s test.
Results
In the head-to-head comparison, SNZ–CEUS and CE–MRI had comparable sensitivity (95.60 vs. 94.51%,
P
= 0.997), specificity (65.22 vs. 73.91%,
P
= 0.752), positive predictive value (91.58 vs. 93.48%) and negative predictive value (78.95 vs. 77.27%); SNZ–CEUS and CE–CT showed similar sensitivity (97.31 vs. 96.24%,
P
= 0.724); however, SNZ–CEUS had relatively lower than specificity than CE–CT (59.09 vs. 68.18%,
P
= 0.683). For nodules > 4 cm, CE–MRI demonstrated higher specificity than SNZ–CEUS (90.91 vs. 72.73%,
P
= 0.617) without compromise the sensitivity.
Conclusions
SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT, and CE–MRI demonstrate desirable and comparable sensitivity for the differentiation of renal mass. However, the specificity of all three imaging modalities is not satisfactory. SNZ–CEUS may be a suitable alternative modality for patients with renal dysfunction and those allergic to gadolinium or iodine-based agents.
Key Points
This prospective multicenter study demonstrated that the diagnostic performance of SNZ–CEUS was comparable to CE–CT and CE–MRI.
The three imaging modalities displayed desirable sensitivity, while the specificity needs to be further improved.
CE–MRI may have better specificity than SNZ–CEUS for differentiating renal masses bigger than 4 cm</description><identifier>ISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 0724-4983</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1433-8726</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7</identifier><identifier>PMID: 38720010</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Computed tomography ; Contrast Media ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Female ; Ferric Compounds ; Gadolinium ; Humans ; Iodine ; Iron ; Kidney Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging ; Kidney Neoplasms - pathology ; Lesions ; Magnetic resonance imaging ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods ; Male ; Medicine ; Medicine & Public Health ; Middle Aged ; Nephrology ; Oncology ; Original Article ; Oxides ; Prospective Studies ; Renal function ; Sensitivity analysis ; Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods ; Tumors ; Ultrasonic imaging ; Ultrasonography - methods ; Ultrasound ; Urology</subject><ispartof>World journal of urology, 2024-05, Vol.42 (1), p.302, Article 302</ispartof><rights>The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2024 corrected publication 2024 Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.</rights><rights>2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.</rights><rights>Copyright Springer Nature B.V. Dec 2024</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-d0f001d932ceadd5589aacbef732fef32017ed101f15da664df54f2d741a18b63</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-0303-9686</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27901,27902,41464,42533,51294</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38720010$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qin-xian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Shuilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Yongfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Xin-Wu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietrich, Christoph F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Chao-li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yong-yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Ming-xing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chang-jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Li-ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xing-hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ling-hu, Run-ze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiu-li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Guo-yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xiao-ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Jie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Zhi-gang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Ping</creatorcontrib><title>Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study</title><title>World journal of urology</title><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><description>Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ–CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE–CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE–MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.
Materials and methods
306 consecutive patients (from 7 centers) with renal masses (40 benign tumors, 266 malignant tumors) diagnosed by both SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT or CE–MRI were enrolled between September 2020 and February 2021. The examinations were performed within 7 days, but the sequence was not fixed. Histologic results were available for 301 of 306 (98.37%) lesions and 5 lesions were considered benign after at least 2 year follow-up without change in size and image characteristics. The diagnostic performances were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and compared by McNemar’s test.
Results
In the head-to-head comparison, SNZ–CEUS and CE–MRI had comparable sensitivity (95.60 vs. 94.51%,
P
= 0.997), specificity (65.22 vs. 73.91%,
P
= 0.752), positive predictive value (91.58 vs. 93.48%) and negative predictive value (78.95 vs. 77.27%); SNZ–CEUS and CE–CT showed similar sensitivity (97.31 vs. 96.24%,
P
= 0.724); however, SNZ–CEUS had relatively lower than specificity than CE–CT (59.09 vs. 68.18%,
P
= 0.683). For nodules > 4 cm, CE–MRI demonstrated higher specificity than SNZ–CEUS (90.91 vs. 72.73%,
P
= 0.617) without compromise the sensitivity.
Conclusions
SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT, and CE–MRI demonstrate desirable and comparable sensitivity for the differentiation of renal mass. However, the specificity of all three imaging modalities is not satisfactory. SNZ–CEUS may be a suitable alternative modality for patients with renal dysfunction and those allergic to gadolinium or iodine-based agents.
Key Points
This prospective multicenter study demonstrated that the diagnostic performance of SNZ–CEUS was comparable to CE–CT and CE–MRI.
The three imaging modalities displayed desirable sensitivity, while the specificity needs to be further improved.
CE–MRI may have better specificity than SNZ–CEUS for differentiating renal masses bigger than 4 cm</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Aged, 80 and over</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Contrast Media</subject><subject>Diagnosis, Differential</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Ferric Compounds</subject><subject>Gadolinium</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Iodine</subject><subject>Iron</subject><subject>Kidney Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Kidney Neoplasms - pathology</subject><subject>Lesions</subject><subject>Magnetic resonance imaging</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Medicine & Public Health</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Nephrology</subject><subject>Oncology</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Oxides</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>Renal function</subject><subject>Sensitivity analysis</subject><subject>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</subject><subject>Tumors</subject><subject>Ultrasonic imaging</subject><subject>Ultrasonography - methods</subject><subject>Ultrasound</subject><subject>Urology</subject><issn>1433-8726</issn><issn>0724-4983</issn><issn>1433-8726</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2024</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kc9u1DAQxq0KREvhBXpAlrj0kuI_cZLlhlalVCpCgnK2Zu1xcZXYwU4qLc_Sh63TLaVCiJM9M7-Z8eePkCPOTjhj7bvMmKxVxURdsbrrVNXukQNeS1l1rWiePbnvk5c5XzPG24apF2RflmSJ2AG5XcdhhOTDFf0WA_yK3lITw5QgTxWGHxAMWjr3SyLOwdIp_qO-vqRQap-_nlMXE7XeOUwYJg99vy0hXIWYlx0lCT3tMfsY8nsKdEwxj2gmf4N0KGu8KW2YaJ5mu31FnjvoM75-OA_J94-nl-tP1cWXs_P1h4vKSNFMlWWuiLErKQyCtUp1KwCzQddK4dBJUXSj5Yw7riw0TW2dqp2wbc2Bd5tGHpLj3dzymp8z5kkPPhvsewgY56wlU5LLhvMFffsXeh3nVETdU0KsyseqQokdZYq8nNDpMfkB0lZzphfv9M47XbzT997ptjS9eRg9bwa0jy2_zSqA3AF5XAzD9Gf3f8beAYpvqBc</recordid><startdate>20240508</startdate><enddate>20240508</enddate><creator>Zhao, Qin-xian</creator><creator>Wu, Chong</creator><creator>Tan, Shuilian</creator><creator>Yang, Yongfeng</creator><creator>Cui, Xin-Wu</creator><creator>Dietrich, Christoph F.</creator><creator>Yang, Bin</creator><creator>Xu, Chao-li</creator><creator>Gao, Yong-yan</creator><creator>Xie, Ming-xing</creator><creator>Wu, Chang-jun</creator><creator>Liu, Li-ping</creator><creator>Wang, Xing-hua</creator><creator>Ling-hu, Run-ze</creator><creator>Wang, Ning</creator><creator>Wang, Fei</creator><creator>Wang, Xiu-li</creator><creator>Liu, Guo-yan</creator><creator>Yu, Xiao-ling</creator><creator>Yu, Jie</creator><creator>Cheng, Zhi-gang</creator><creator>Liang, Ping</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7T5</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0303-9686</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>20240508</creationdate><title>Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study</title><author>Zhao, Qin-xian ; Wu, Chong ; Tan, Shuilian ; Yang, Yongfeng ; Cui, Xin-Wu ; Dietrich, Christoph F. ; Yang, Bin ; Xu, Chao-li ; Gao, Yong-yan ; Xie, Ming-xing ; Wu, Chang-jun ; Liu, Li-ping ; Wang, Xing-hua ; Ling-hu, Run-ze ; Wang, Ning ; Wang, Fei ; Wang, Xiu-li ; Liu, Guo-yan ; Yu, Xiao-ling ; Yu, Jie ; Cheng, Zhi-gang ; Liang, Ping</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c326t-d0f001d932ceadd5589aacbef732fef32017ed101f15da664df54f2d741a18b63</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2024</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Aged, 80 and over</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Contrast Media</topic><topic>Diagnosis, Differential</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Ferric Compounds</topic><topic>Gadolinium</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Iodine</topic><topic>Iron</topic><topic>Kidney Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Kidney Neoplasms - pathology</topic><topic>Lesions</topic><topic>Magnetic resonance imaging</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Medicine & Public Health</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Nephrology</topic><topic>Oncology</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Oxides</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>Renal function</topic><topic>Sensitivity analysis</topic><topic>Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods</topic><topic>Tumors</topic><topic>Ultrasonic imaging</topic><topic>Ultrasonography - methods</topic><topic>Ultrasound</topic><topic>Urology</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zhao, Qin-xian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chong</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tan, Shuilian</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Yongfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cui, Xin-Wu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Dietrich, Christoph F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yang, Bin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xu, Chao-li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gao, Yong-yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Xie, Ming-xing</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wu, Chang-jun</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Li-ping</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xing-hua</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ling-hu, Run-ze</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Ning</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Fei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Xiu-li</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liu, Guo-yan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Xiao-ling</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Yu, Jie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cheng, Zhi-gang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Ping</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Immunology Abstracts</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zhao, Qin-xian</au><au>Wu, Chong</au><au>Tan, Shuilian</au><au>Yang, Yongfeng</au><au>Cui, Xin-Wu</au><au>Dietrich, Christoph F.</au><au>Yang, Bin</au><au>Xu, Chao-li</au><au>Gao, Yong-yan</au><au>Xie, Ming-xing</au><au>Wu, Chang-jun</au><au>Liu, Li-ping</au><au>Wang, Xing-hua</au><au>Ling-hu, Run-ze</au><au>Wang, Ning</au><au>Wang, Fei</au><au>Wang, Xiu-li</au><au>Liu, Guo-yan</au><au>Yu, Xiao-ling</au><au>Yu, Jie</au><au>Cheng, Zhi-gang</au><au>Liang, Ping</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study</atitle><jtitle>World journal of urology</jtitle><stitle>World J Urol</stitle><addtitle>World J Urol</addtitle><date>2024-05-08</date><risdate>2024</risdate><volume>42</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>302</spage><pages>302-</pages><artnum>302</artnum><issn>1433-8726</issn><issn>0724-4983</issn><eissn>1433-8726</eissn><abstract>Purpose
To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced (CE) ultrasound using Sonazoid (SNZ–CEUS) by comparing with contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CE–CT) and contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (CE–MRI) for differentiating benign and malignant renal masses.
Materials and methods
306 consecutive patients (from 7 centers) with renal masses (40 benign tumors, 266 malignant tumors) diagnosed by both SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT or CE–MRI were enrolled between September 2020 and February 2021. The examinations were performed within 7 days, but the sequence was not fixed. Histologic results were available for 301 of 306 (98.37%) lesions and 5 lesions were considered benign after at least 2 year follow-up without change in size and image characteristics. The diagnostic performances were evaluated by sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and compared by McNemar’s test.
Results
In the head-to-head comparison, SNZ–CEUS and CE–MRI had comparable sensitivity (95.60 vs. 94.51%,
P
= 0.997), specificity (65.22 vs. 73.91%,
P
= 0.752), positive predictive value (91.58 vs. 93.48%) and negative predictive value (78.95 vs. 77.27%); SNZ–CEUS and CE–CT showed similar sensitivity (97.31 vs. 96.24%,
P
= 0.724); however, SNZ–CEUS had relatively lower than specificity than CE–CT (59.09 vs. 68.18%,
P
= 0.683). For nodules > 4 cm, CE–MRI demonstrated higher specificity than SNZ–CEUS (90.91 vs. 72.73%,
P
= 0.617) without compromise the sensitivity.
Conclusions
SNZ–CEUS, CE–CT, and CE–MRI demonstrate desirable and comparable sensitivity for the differentiation of renal mass. However, the specificity of all three imaging modalities is not satisfactory. SNZ–CEUS may be a suitable alternative modality for patients with renal dysfunction and those allergic to gadolinium or iodine-based agents.
Key Points
This prospective multicenter study demonstrated that the diagnostic performance of SNZ–CEUS was comparable to CE–CT and CE–MRI.
The three imaging modalities displayed desirable sensitivity, while the specificity needs to be further improved.
CE–MRI may have better specificity than SNZ–CEUS for differentiating renal masses bigger than 4 cm</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>38720010</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7</doi><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0303-9686</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1433-8726 |
| ispartof | World journal of urology, 2024-05, Vol.42 (1), p.302, Article 302 |
| issn | 1433-8726 0724-4983 1433-8726 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_3053136116 |
| source | MEDLINE; Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Adult Aged Aged, 80 and over Computed tomography Contrast Media Diagnosis, Differential Female Ferric Compounds Gadolinium Humans Iodine Iron Kidney Neoplasms - diagnostic imaging Kidney Neoplasms - pathology Lesions Magnetic resonance imaging Magnetic Resonance Imaging - methods Male Medicine Medicine & Public Health Middle Aged Nephrology Oncology Original Article Oxides Prospective Studies Renal function Sensitivity analysis Tomography, X-Ray Computed - methods Tumors Ultrasonic imaging Ultrasonography - methods Ultrasound Urology |
| title | Comparing Sonazoid contrast-enhanced ultrasound to contrast-enhanced CT and MRI for differentially diagnosing renal lesions: a prospective multicenter study |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-13T14%3A23%3A44IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparing%20Sonazoid%20contrast-enhanced%20ultrasound%20to%20contrast-enhanced%20CT%20and%20MRI%20for%20differentially%20diagnosing%20renal%20lesions:%20a%20prospective%20multicenter%20study&rft.jtitle=World%20journal%20of%20urology&rft.au=Zhao,%20Qin-xian&rft.date=2024-05-08&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=302&rft.pages=302-&rft.artnum=302&rft.issn=1433-8726&rft.eissn=1433-8726&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00345-024-04885-7&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E3053136116%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=3052297205&rft_id=info:pmid/38720010&rfr_iscdi=true |