Quality Assessment of CEUS in Individuals with Small Renal Masses-Which Individual Factors Are Associated with High Image Quality?
CEUS
contrast-enhanced ultrasound
image quality
renal ultrasound
small renal mass (3–5)
Journal
Journal of clinical medicine
ISSN: 2077-0383
Titre abrégé: J Clin Med
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101606588
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Dec 2020
17 Dec 2020
Historique:
received:
17
11
2020
revised:
09
12
2020
accepted:
13
12
2020
entrez:
22
12
2020
pubmed:
23
12
2020
medline:
23
12
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Obesity and bowel gas are known to impair image quality in abdominal ultrasound (US). The present study aims at identifying individual factors in B-mode US that influence contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) image quality to optimize further imaging workup of incidentally detected focal renal masses. We retrospectively analyzed renal CEUS of focal renal masses ≤ 4 cm performed at our center in 143 patients between 2016 and 2020. Patient and lesion characteristics were tested for their influence on focal and overall image quality assessed by two experienced radiologists using Likert scales. Effects of significant variables were quantified by receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analysis with area under the curve (AUC), and combined effects were assessed by binary logistic regression. Shrunken kidney, kidney depth, lesion depth, lesion size, and exophytic lesion growth were found to influence focal renal lesion image quality, and all factors except lesion size also influenced overall image quality. Combination of all parameters except kidney depth best predicted good CEUS image quality showing an AUC of 0.91 (
Identifiants
pubmed: 33348741
pii: jcm9124081
doi: 10.3390/jcm9124081
pmc: PMC7767001
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Références
Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006 Sep;32(9):1369-75
pubmed: 16965977
Biometals. 2016 Jun;29(3):365-76
pubmed: 27053146
Ultraschall Med. 2020 Feb;41(1):29-35
pubmed: 31362328
Eur Radiol. 2018 Jul;28(7):2845-2855
pubmed: 29426991
Urol Oncol. 2019 Aug;37(8):519-524
pubmed: 31202730
Eur J Radiol. 2012 Oct;81(10):2554-61
pubmed: 22177326
N Engl J Med. 2010 Feb 18;362(7):624-34
pubmed: 20164486
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2006 Sep 20;98(18):1331-4
pubmed: 16985252
Curr Urol Rep. 2019 Oct 17;20(11):73
pubmed: 31624973
Eur J Radiol. 2007 Feb;61(2):310-4
pubmed: 17097844
Clin Genitourin Cancer. 2019 Apr;17(2):e345-e355
pubmed: 30528378
Magn Reson Imaging. 2008 Oct;26(8):1081-8
pubmed: 18524527
Radiology. 2017 Mar;282(3):708-716
pubmed: 28076722
Urol Clin North Am. 2017 May;44(2):147-154
pubmed: 28411907
Lancet Neurol. 2017 Jul;16(7):564-570
pubmed: 28653648
Urology. 2006 Oct;68(4):737-40
pubmed: 17070344
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2019;71(2):267-276
pubmed: 30584135
Radiology. 2019 Aug;292(2):475-488
pubmed: 31210616
Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018 Apr;43(4):977-997
pubmed: 29198008
Eur J Radiol. 2013 Sep;82(9):e387-99
pubmed: 23711425
Radiology. 2000 May;215(2):353-7
pubmed: 10796907
World J Urol. 2018 Dec;36(12):1927-1942
pubmed: 29948048
J Urol. 2003 Dec;170(6 Pt 1):2217-20
pubmed: 14634382
Clin Radiol. 1983 Jul;34(4):437-9
pubmed: 6872451
Ultraschall Med. 2018 Apr;39(2):e2-e44
pubmed: 29510439
Radiographics. 2015 Sep-Oct;35(5):1419-30
pubmed: 26273994
Ultraschall Med. 2014 Apr;35(2):108-25; quiz 126-7
pubmed: 24477558