Ultrasound findings and clinical characteristics in differentiating renal urothelial carcinoma from endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.

Dong-Dong Jin, Jin-Hua Lin, Shi-Hui Li, Bo-Wen Zhuang, Xiao-Yan Xie, Xiao-Hua Xie, Yan Wang
{"title":"Ultrasound findings and clinical characteristics in differentiating renal urothelial carcinoma from endophytic clear cell renal cell carcinoma.","authors":"Dong-Dong Jin, Jin-Hua Lin, Shi-Hui Li, Bo-Wen Zhuang, Xiao-Yan Xie, Xiao-Hua Xie, Yan Wang","doi":"10.3233/CH-242119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":93943,"journal":{"name":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical hemorheology and microcirculation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3233/CH-242119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

鉴别肾尿路上皮癌和内生透明细胞肾细胞癌的超声检查结果和临床特征。
研究目的本研究旨在评估常规超声(CUS)和对比增强超声(CEUS)在区分肾尿路上皮癌(RUC)和内生透明细胞肾细胞癌(EccRCC)方面的临床特点和特征:方法: 对经病理证实的 72 例 RUC 和 120 例 EccRCC 进行了回顾性评估。CUS和CEUS均在手术前4周内进行。采用逻辑回归分析法从临床、CUS和CEUS特征中选择对区分RUC和EccRCC有统计学意义的变量。对诊断性能的敏感性(SEN)、特异性(SPE)和接收者工作特征曲线下面积(AUC)进行了评估。使用类内相关系数(ICC)评估了CUS和CEUS特征的观察者之间和观察者内部的一致性:多重逻辑回归分析表明,临床特征(年龄大于 50 岁和血尿)、CUS 特征(大小 结论:CUS 和 CEUS 的临床特征与年龄、血尿和血尿的临床特征结合在一起,诊断率更高:将年龄、血尿等临床特征与 CUS 和 CEUS 的影像学特征相结合,有助于鉴别 RUC 和 EccRCC。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信