Introduction: The aim of this study was to analyze the histological subtypes of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) examined by means of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) and a second generation blood pool agent (SonoVue®, Bracco, Milan, Italy) during the pre-operative phase.
Materials and Methods: 29 patients with histologically proven subtypes of clear cell RCC were examined. A total of three patients were diagnosed with highly differentiated clear cell RCC, 21 out of 29 cases with moderately differentiated clear cell RCC and five out of 29 patients had insufficiently differentiated clear cell RCC. An experienced radiologist examined the patients with CEUS. The following parameters were analyzed: maximum signal intensity (PEAK), time elapsed until PEAK is reached (MTT), local blood flow (RBF), area under the time intensity curve (AUC) and the signal intensity (SI) during the course of time. For the groups all comparisons are made based on healthy renal parenchyma.
Results: In the clear cell RCC significant differences (significance level p < 0.05) between cancerous tissue and the healthy renal parenchyma were noticed in all four parameters. Therefore, the clear cell RCC stands out due to its reduced blood volume. However, it reached the PEAK reading relatively rapidly and its signal intensity was always lower than that of the healthy renal parenchyma. In the arterial phase retarded absorption of the contrast agent was observed, followed by fast washing out of the contrast agent bubbles.
In all three histological subgroups no significant differences were noticed in PEAK and SI. However, the diagrams showed the possible bias, that the group of the insufficiently differentiated clear cell RCC had the highest PEAK-value and the highest signal intensity when compared with highly and moderately differentiated clear cell RCC.
Conclusion: Our study suggests that CEUS may be an additional tool for non-invasive characterisation and differentiation of the three histological subtypes of clear cell RCC. Furthermore, it seems to have an additional diagnostic value in daily clinical.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AokiS., HattoriR., YamamotoT., FunahashiY., MatsukawaY., GotohM., YamadaY. and HondaN., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using a time-intensity curve for the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma, BJU Int108(3) (2011), 349–354.
2.
AscentiG., ZimbaroG., MazziottiS., GaetaM., SettineriN. and ScribanoE., Usefulness of power Doppler and contrast-enhanced sonography in the differentiation of hyperechoic renal masses, Abdom Imaging26(6) (2001), 654–660.
3.
CaiY., DuL., LiF., GuJ. and BaiM., Quantification of enhancement of renal parenchymal masses with contrast-enhanced ultrasound, Ultrasound Med Biol40(7) (2014), 1387–1393.
4.
CarriziosaD. and GodleyP., Epidemiology and screening of renalcell carcinoma. In:
RiniB.I.,
CambellS.C. and EscudierB., editor Renal cell carcinoma. Elsevier; 2009, pp. 15–24.
5.
ChibaY., Enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal tumors, Nihon Rinsho56(4) (1998), 1030–1034.
6.
ChowW.H., DevesaS.S., WarrenJ.L. and FraumeniJ.F., Rising incidence of renal cell cancer in the United States, JAMA281(17) (1999), 1628–1631.
7.
ClevertD.A., BenslerS., StickelM., HorngA., StrautzT., FlachP., JungE.M., ReiserM. and StaehlerM., Contrast enhanced ultrasound eases interpretation of an unclear renal tumor in addition to CT, MRI and histological findings–a case report in a young patient, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc36(4) (2007), 313–318.
8.
ClevertD.A., D’AnastasiM. and JungE.M., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and microcirculation: Efficiency through dynamics–current developments, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc53(1-2) (2013), 171–186.
9.
ClevertD.A., MinaifarN., WeckbachS., JungE.M., StockK., ReiserM. and StaehlerM., Multislice computed tomography versus contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluation of complex cystic renal masses using the Bosniak classification system, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc39(1-4) (2008), 171–178.
10.
ClevertD.A., SterzikA., BraunagelM., NotohamiprodjoM. and GraserA., Modern imaging of kidney tumors, Urologe A52(4) (2013), 515–526.
11.
ClevertD.A., StickelM., KoppR., WeidenhagenR., FinkC., JauchK.W. and ReiserM., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus CT and operative findings in evaluation of renal vein aneurysm with AV fistula, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc39(1-4) (2008), 147–154.
12.
ClevertD.A., StockK., KleinB., Slotta-HuspeninaJ., PrantlL., HeemannU. and ReiserM., Evaluation of Acoustic Radiation Force Impulse (ARFI) imaging and contrast-enhanced ultrasound in renal tumors of unknown etiology in comparison to histological findings, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc43(1-2) (2009), 95–107.
13.
ClevertD.A., WeckbachS., MinaifarN., ClevertD.A., StickelM. and ReiserM., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound versus MS-CT in blunt abdominal trauma, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc39(1-4) (2008), 155–169.
14.
DecastroG.J. and McKiernanJ.M., Epidemiology, clinical staging, and presentation of renal cell carcinoma, Urol Clin North Am35(4) (2008), 581–592; vi.
15.
DongX.Q., ShenY., XuL.W., XuC.M., BiW. and WangX.M., Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detection and diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma, Chin Med J (Engl)122(10) (2009), 1179–1183.
16.
FanL., LianfangD., JinfangX., YijinS. and YingW., Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in solid renal parenchymal lesions with maximum diameters of 5cm, J Ultrasound Med27(6) (2008), 875–885.
17.
GerstS., HannL.E., LiD., GonenM., TickooS., SohnM.J. and RussoP., Evaluation of renal masses with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Initial experience, AJR Am J Roentgenol197(4) (2011), 897–906.
GreenleeR.T., MurrayT., BoldenS. and WingoP.A., Cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin50(1) (2000), 7–33.
20.
GreisC., Technical aspects of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations: Tips and tricks, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc58(1) (2014), 89–95.
21.
HaendlT., StrobelD., LegalW., FrieserM., HahnE.G. and BernatikT., Renal cell cancer does not show a typical perfusion pattern in contrast-enhanced ultrasound, Ultraschall Med30(1) (2009), 58–63.
22.
HelckA., D’AnastasiM., NotohamiprodjoM., ThiemeS., ReiserM. and ClevertD.A., Improved visualization of renal lesions using three-dimensional ultrasound–a feasibility study, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc49(1-4) (2011), 537–550.
23.
HelckA., D’AnastasiM., NotohamiprodjoM., ThiemeS., SommerW., ReiserM. and ClevertD.A., Multimodality imaging using ultrasound image fusion in renal lesions, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc50(1-2) (2012), 79–89.
24.
HelckA., HoffmannR.T., SommerW.H., NotohamiprodjoM., AlbyaaH., ReiserM. and ClevertD.A., Diagnosis, therapy monitoring and follow up of renal artery pseudoaneurysm with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in three cases, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc46(2-3) (2010), 127–137.
25.
HelckA., NotohamiprodjoM., DanastasiM., MeinelF., ReiserM. and ClevertD.A., Ultrasound image fusion - clinical implementation and potential benefits for monitoring of renal transplants, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc52(2-4) (2012), 179–186.
26.
HelckA., SommerW.H., WesselyM., NotohamiprodjoM., ReiserM. and ClevertD.A., Benefit of contrast enhanced ultrasound for detection of ischaemic lesions and arterio venous fistulas in renal transplants - a feasibility study, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc48(1) (2011), 149–160.
27.
HockL.M., LynchJ. and BalajiK.C., Increasing incidence of all stages of kidney cancer in the last 2 decades in the United States: An analysis of surveillance, epidemiology and end results program data, J Urol167(1) (2002), 57–60.
28.
IgneeA., StraubB., BrixD., SchuesslerG., OttM. and DietrichC.F., The value of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the characterisation of patients with renal masses, Clin Hemorheol Microcirc46(4) (2010), 275–290.
29.
JiangJ., ChenY., ZhouY. and ZhangH., Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound features relation to tumor size, Eur J Radiol73(1) (2010), 162–167.
30.
LandisS.H., MurrayT., BoldenS. and WingoP.A., Cancer statistics, CA Cancer J Clin49(1) (1999), 8–31, 1.
31.
LiX., LiangP., GuoM., YuJ., YuX., ChengZ. and HanZ., Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis of solid renal lesions, Discov Med16(86) (2013), 15–25.
OhT.H., LeeY.H. and SeoI.Y., Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for small renal masses, Korean J Urol55(9) (2014), 587–592.
34.
PiscagliaF. and BolondiL., and Italian Society for Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology (SIUMB) Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast Agents, The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: Retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations, Ultrasound Med Biol32(9) (2006), 1369–1375.
35.
SetolaS.V., CatalanoO., SandomenicoF. and SianiA., Contrast-enhanced sonography of the kidney, Abdom Imaging32(1) (2007), 21–28.
36.
ShenD., YangB., FuN., MengQ., DuanX. and LiuP., The contrast ultrosonography and contrast CT of renal cell carcinoma, Chin J Ultrasonogr16 (2007), 1061–1063.
37.
StockK.F., KleinB.S., Vo CongM.T.,
SarkarO.,
RömischM.,
RegenbogenC.,
BüttnerM.,
SchusterT.,
MatevossianE.,
AmannK.,
ClevertD.A.,
HeemannU. and KüchleC., ARFI-based tissue elasticity quantification in comparison to histology for the diagnosis of renal transplant fibrosis, Clin Hemorheol Microcir46(2-3) (2010), 139–148.
38.
TerG., Haar, Safety and bio-effects of ultrasound contrast agents, Med Biol Eng Comput47(8) (2009), 893–900.
39.
WallenE.M., PruthiR.S., JoyceG.F. and WiseM., and Urologic Diseases in America Project. Kidney cancer, J Urol177(6) (2007), 2006–2018; discussion 2018–2019.
40.
WeiS., FuN., YaoC., LiuP. and YangB., Two- and three-dimensional contrast-enhanced sonography for assessment of renal tumor vasculature: Preliminary observations, J Ultrasound Med32(3) (2013), 429–437.
41.
WoldrichJ.M., MallinK., RitcheyJ., CarrollP.R. and KaneC.J., Sex differences in renal cell cancer presentation and survival: An analysis of the National Cancer Database, 1993-2004, J Urol179(5) (2008), 1709–1713.
ZhouX., YanF., LuoY., PengY.L., ParajulyS.S., WenX.R., CaiD.M. and LiY.Z., Characterization and diagnostic confidence of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for solid renal tumors, Ultrasound Med Biol37(6) (2011), 845–853.
