Ultrasound is the most used interdisciplinary imaging technique in clinical routine for assessment of renal pathologies. This includes the monitoring of cystic renal lesions, which can be classified as non-complicated or complicated and by means of occurrence as solitary or multifocal lesions. The Bosniak-classification (I–IV) classifies renal cysts in 5 different categories and is used for decisions of further clinical treatment. This classification was developed for computed tomography and has been adopted for magnetic resonance imaging as well as contrast-enhanced ultrasound. In the following review article, cystic kidney lesions and their differentiation using contrast-enhanced ultrasound are presented and an overview of the therapy options is given. In interventional procedures, CEUS can make a valuable contribution in histological sampling, reduce radiation exposure and, under certain circumstances, the number of interventions for the patient.
SchwarzeV, et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) for the Evaluation of Bosniak III Complex Renal Cystic Lesions-A 10-Year Specialized European Single-Center Experience with Histopathological Validation. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56(12).
2.
CantisaniV, et al. EFSUMB 2020 Proposal for a Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound-Adapted Bosniak Cyst Categorization – Position Statement. Ultraschall Med. 2021;42(2):154–66.
3.
GeyerT, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Evaluation of Solid Renal Masses. Medicina (Kaunas). 2020;56(11).
4.
SchwarzeV, et al. Advanced Fusion Imaging and Contrast-Enhanced Imaging (CT/MRI-CEUS) in Oncology. Cancers (Basel). 2020;12(10).
5.
SchwarzeV, et al. Single-center study: the diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for assessing renal oncocytoma. Scand J Urol. 2020;54(2):135–40.
6.
GassertF, et al. Comparison of Magnetic Resonance Imaging and Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound as Diagnostic Options for Unclear Cystic Renal Lesions: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. Ultraschall Med. 2021;42(4):411–7.
7.
RübenthalerJ, WilsonS, ClevertDA, Multislice computed tomography/contrast-enhanced ultrasound image fusion as a tool for evaluating unclear renal cysts. Ultrasonography2019;38(2):181–7.
8.
MarschnerCA, et al. Benefits of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for interventional procedures. Ultrasonography. 2021;40(2):207–16.
9.
PiscagliaF, BolondiL. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32(9):1369–75.
10.
DargeK, et al. Safety of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in children for non-cardiac applications: a review by the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR) and the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS). Pediatr Radiol. 2013;43(9):1063–73.
11.
SchwarzeV, et al. SonoVue® Does Not Appear to Cross the Placenta as Observed During an Examination Aimed at Confirming a Diagnosis of Liver Echinococcosis in a Pregnant Woman. Ultraschall Med. 2020;41(2):146–7.
12.
NtouliaA, et al. Applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the pediatric abdomen. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(4):948–59.
13.
SidhuPS, et al. Role of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in Paediatric Practice: An EFSUMB Position Statement. Ultraschall Med. 2017;38(1):33–43.
14.
GreisC. Ultrasound contrast agents as markers of vascularity and microcirculation. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2009;43(1-2):1–9.
15.
GreisC. Summary of technical principles of contrast sonography and future perspectives. Radiologe. 2011;51(6):456–61.
16.
ter HaarG. Safety and bio-effects of ultrasound contrast agents. Med Biol Eng Comput. 2009;47(8):893–900.
17.
WilsonSR, BurnsPN, Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: what role?Radiology. 2010;257(1):24–39.
18.
HorngA, ReiserM, ClevertDA, Current developments in vascular ultrasound. Radiologe. 2009;49(11):998–1004.
19.
GreisC. Technical aspects of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) examinations: tips and tricks. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2014;58(1):89–95.
20.
ClevertDA, D’AnastasiM, JungEM. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound and microcirculation: efficiency through dynamics–current developments. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2013;53(1-2):171–86.
WarrenKS, McFarlaneJ. The Bosniak classification of renal cystic masses. BJU Int. 2005;95(7):939–42.
23.
RübenthalerJ, et al. CEUS-diagnostic workup of cystic renal lesions. Radiologe. 2018;58(6):545–52.
24.
ClevertDA, et al. Modern imaging of kidney tumors. Urologe A. 2013;52(4):515–26.
25.
MenselB, et al. Prevalence of renal cysts and association with risk factors in a general population: an MRI-based study. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(11):3068–74.
26.
NicolauC, et al. Imaging Characterization of Renal Masses. Medicina (Kaunas). 2021;57(1).
27.
SilvermanSG, et al. Bosniak Classification of Cystic Renal Masses, Version 2019: An Update Proposal and Needs Assessment. Radiology. 2019;292(2):475–88.
28.
BosniakMA, The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology. 1986;158(1):1–10.
ClevertDA, et al. Multislice computed tomography versus contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluation of complex cystic renal masses using the Bosniak classification system. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2008;39(1-4):171–8.
31.
WeiblP, et al. Management, pathology and outcomes of Bosniak category IIF and III cystic renal lesions. World J Urol. 2015;33(3):295–300.
32.
IsraelGM, BosniakMA. Follow-up CT of moderately complex cystic lesions of the kidney (Bosniak category IIF). AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2003;181(3):627–33.
33.
ClevertDA, et al. Diagnostic algorithm in cystic renal masses. Urologe A. 2010;49(3):421–31; quiz 432.
34.
GraserA, et al. Imaging renal cell carcinoma. Urologe A. 2009;48(4):427–36; quiz 437-8.
35.
IsraelGM, BosniakMA. Calcification in cystic renal masses: is it important in diagnosis?Radiology. 2003;226(1):47–52.
36.
SmithAD, et al. Bosniak category IIF and III cystic renal lesions: outcomes and associations. Radiology. 2012;262(1):152–60.
37.
BukavinaL, et al. Epidemiology of Renal Cell Carcinoma: 2022 Update. Eur Urol. 2022;82(5):529–42.
OnishiT, et al. Cyst-associated renal cell carcinoma: clinicopathologic characteristics and evaluation of prognosis in 27 cases. Int J Urol. 2001;8(6):268–74.
SilvermanSG, et al. Renal masses in the adult patient: the role of percutaneous biopsy. Radiology. 2006;240(1):6–22.
43.
CampbellSC, et al. Guideline for management of the clinical T1 renal mass. J Urol. 2009;182(4):1271–9.
44.
HindmanNM. Imaging of Cystic Renal Masses. Urol Clin North Am. 2018;45(3):331–49.
45.
HuangY, WangY, LiuL, ZhuL, QiuY, ZuoD, LuX, DongY, JungEM, WangW. VueBox perfusion analysis of dynamic contrast enhanced ultrasound provides added value in the diagnosis of small thyroid nodules. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2023;83(4):409–20.
46.
EscudierB, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up. Ann Oncol. 2014;25(Suppl 3):49–56.
47.
RübenthalerJ, et al. Parametric imaging of clear cell and papillary renal cell carcinoma using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2015;63(2):89–97.
48.
XuZF, et al. Renal cell carcinoma and renal angiomyolipoma: differential diagnosis with real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(5):709–17.
49.
AlbaniJM, NovickAC. Renal artery pseudoaneurysm after partial nephrectomy: three case reports and a literature review. Urology. 2003;62(2):227–31.
50.
AstonW, et al. Pseudoaneurysm formation after flexible ureterorenoscopy and electrohydraulic lithotripsy. Int J Clin Pract. 2004;58(3):310–1.
51.
BuiBT, et al. Correction of deteriorating renal function by superselective embolization of an arcuate renal artery pseudoaneurysm. J Urol. 1994;152(6 Pt 1):2087–8.
52.
ChatziioannouA, et al. Embolization of a segmental renal artery pseudo-aneurysm after partial nephrectomy in a solitary kidney. Urol Int. 2000;64(4):223–5.
53.
SasakiH, et al. Follow-up of a self-resolving renal pseudoaneurysm using contrast-enhanced power Doppler ultrasonography. Emerg Med J. 2009;26(3):223–4.
54.
MooreCJ, RozenSM, FishmanEK. Two cases of pseudoaneurysm of the renal artery following laparoscopic partial nephrectomy for renal cell carcinoma: CT angiographic evaluation. Emerg Radiol. 2004;10(4):193–6.
55.
RashidM, et al. Intrarenal post-traumatic pseudoaneurysm-USG colour Doppler diagnosis: a case report with review of literature. Emerg Radiol. 2007;14(4):257–60.
56.
HeyeS, et al. Hemorrhagic complications after nephron-sparing surgery: angiographic diagnosis and management by transcatheter embolization. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2005;184(5):1661–4.
57.
HorwitzMD, HanburyDC, KingCM. Renal artery pseudoaneurysm following partial nephrectomy treated with stent-graft. Br J Radiol. 2005;78(926):161–3.
58.
HelckA, et al. Diagnosis, therapy monitoring and follow up of renal artery pseudoaneurysm with contrast-enhanced ultrasound in three cases. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2010;46(2-3):127–37.
59.
StroblFF, et al. Renal Pseudoaneurysms and Arteriovenous Fistulas as a Complication of Nephron-Sparing Partial Nephrectomy: Technical and Functional Outcomes of Patients Treated With Selective Microcoil Embolization During a Ten-Year Period. Rofo. 2016;188(2):188–94.
60.
ClevertDA, JungEM. Interventional sonography of the liver and kidneys. Radiologe. 2013;53(11):962–73.
61.
HelckA, et al. Benefit of contrast enhanced ultrasound for detection of ischaemic lesions and arterio venous fistulas in renal transplants – a feasibility study. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2011;48(1):149–60.
62.
SevcencoS, SpickC, HelbichTH, HeinzG, ShariatSF, KlinglerHC, RauchenwaldM, BaltzerPA. Malignancy rates and diagnostic performance of the Bosniak classification for the diagnosis of cystic renal lesions in computed tomography – a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Radiol. 2017;27(6):2239–47.
63.
MochH, CubillaAL, HumphreyPA, ReuterVE., UlbrightTM. The 2016 WHO classification of tumours of the urinary system and male genital organs—part A: renal, penile, and testicular tumours. Eur Urol. 2016;70, 93–105.
64.
BukavinaL, et al. Epidemiology of Renal Cell Carcinoma: 2022 Update. Eur Urol. 2022;82(5):529–42.
