Characteristics of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound for diagnosis of solid clear cell renal cell carcinomas ≤4 cm: A meta‐analysis
Abstract Now solid renal tumors ≤4 cm is the most common, especially the subtype of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) of malignant kidney tumors in clinical. However, there is not specific characteristics of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) be recommended by the EFSUMB Guidelines in disting...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
Wiley
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/2ef7f129e6914fd2af06dcf9d35ee35b |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Abstract Now solid renal tumors ≤4 cm is the most common, especially the subtype of clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC) of malignant kidney tumors in clinical. However, there is not specific characteristics of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) be recommended by the EFSUMB Guidelines in distinguish the essence of the kidney tumor with different sizes. Therefore, this meta‐analysis aimed to assess the ability of CEUS to diagnose solid ccRCC (sccRCC) ≤4 cm. We comprehensively searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, and Web of Science databases from their inception to 28 July 2020, for studies reporting the CEUS features of sccRCC lesions ≤4 cm. Additional articles were identified through the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure database. Studies were selected independently by two investigators and the relevant data were extracted. Discrepancies were resolved via discussion with the senior author. Study quality was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies‐2 tool, and the sensitivity and specificity of each study were determined and plotted as a receiver operating characteristic curve. Ten studies were included in this meta‐analysis. Hyperenhancement showed medium sensitivity (67%–89%) and specificity (42%–75%) for diagnosing sccRCC ≤4 cm, fast‐in contrast agent and heterogeneous enhancement showed high diagnostic abilities (area under curve (AUC) 0.74–0.84), but the presence of a pseudocapsule and fast‐out contrast agent had poor diagnostic ability (AUC <0.70). The combination of hyperenhancement and iso‐enhancement showed high sensitivity (98%) for diagnosing sccRCC ≤4 cm. Hyperenhancement, fast‐in contrast agent, and heterogeneous enhancement may be specific features that could help to identify sccRCC ≤4 cm, while the presence of a pseudocapsule and fast‐out of contrast agent may have low diagnostic values. The combination of multiple indexes may improve the diagnostic value of CEUS for sccRCC ≤4 cm. |
|---|