Affiliations: Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, Guangzhou, China
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding authors: Xiao-Hua Xie and Yan Wang, Department of Medical Ultrasonics, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Ultrasound, The First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University, NO.58 Zhongshan Road 2, Guangzhou, 510080, People’s Republic of China. Tel./Fax: +86 020 87765183; E-mail: [email protected] (X.-H. Xie), E-mail: [email protected] (Y. Wang).
Note: [1] Dong-Dong Jin and Jin-Hua Lin contributed equally to this article.
Abstract: OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and features of conventional ultrasound (CUS) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in differentiating between renal urothelial carcinomas (RUC) and endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinomas (EccRCC). METHODS:A total of 72 RUCs and 120 EccRCCs confirmed by pathology were assessed retrospectively. Both CUS and CEUS were performed within 4 weeks before the surgery. Logistic regression analyses were used to select statistically significant variables of clinical, CUS, and CEUS features for the differentiation of RUC and EccRCC. Sensitivity (SEN), specificity (SPE), and the area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) were assessed for diagnostic performance. Inter- and intra-observer agreements of CUS and CEUS features were evaluated using the intra-class correlation coefficient(ICC). RESULTS:Multiple logistic regression analysis demonstrated that clinical (age >50 years old and hematuria), CUS (size <4.0 cm, hypo-echogenicity, irregular shape, hydronephrosis) and CEUS (absence of non-enhancement area, iso- /hypo-enhancement in cortical phase and absence of rim-like enhancement) features were independent factors for RUC diagnosis. When combining clinical characters with CUS and CEUS features into an integrated diagnostic criterion, the AUC reached 0.917 (95% CI 0.873–0.961), with a sensitivity of 95.8% and specificity of 87.5%. ICC ranged from 0.756 to 0.907 for inter-observer agreement and 0.791 to 0.934 for intra-observer agreement for CUS and CEUSfeatures. CONCLUSIONS:The combination of clinical features of age and hematuria with imaging features of CUS and CEUS can be useful for the differentiation between RUC and EccRCC.
