European Radiology

, Volume 20, Issue 8, pp 1812–1821

Radiofrequency ablation of renal tumours: diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for early detection of residual tumour

  • Christine Hoeffel
  • Maud Pousset
  • Marc-Olivier Timsit
  • Caroline Elie
  • Arnaud Méjean
  • Samuel Merran
  • François Tranquart
  • Ahmed Khairoune
  • Dominique Joly
  • Stéphane Richard
  • Olivier Hélénon
  • Jean-Michel Correas
Urogenital

DOI: 10.1007/s00330-010-1742-6

Cite this article as:
Hoeffel, C., Pousset, M., Timsit, MO. et al. Eur Radiol (2010) 20: 1812. doi:10.1007/s00330-010-1742-6

Abstract

Objective

To evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the early detection of residual tumour after radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of renal tumours.

Methods

Patients referred to our institution for RFA of renal tumours prospectively underwent CEUS and computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) before, within 1 day and 6 weeks after treatment. Identification of residual tumour was assessed by three blinded radiologists. Reference standard was CT/MRI performed at least 1 year after RFA.

Results

A total of 66 renal tumours in 43 patients (median age 62 years; range 44–71.5) were studied. Inter-reader agreement (κ value) was 0.84 for CEUS. Prevalence of residual disease was 19%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV), respectively, were as follows: 64% [confidence interval (CI) 39–84], 98% [CI 91–100], 82% [CI 52–95] and 92% [CI 83–97] on 24-h CEUS; 79% [CI 52–92], 100% [CI 94–100], 100% [CI 74–100] and 95% [CI 87–100] on 6-week CEUS; 79% [CI 52–92], 95% [CI 86–98], 79% [CI 52–92] and 95% [CI 86–98] on 24-h CT/MRI; and 100% [CI 72–100], 98% [CI 90–100], 91% [CI 62–98] and 100% [CI 93–100] on 6-week CT/MRI.

Conclusion

CEUS has high specificity for the early diagnosis of residual tumour after renal RFA.

Keywords

KidneyTumourRadiofrequency ablationContrast-enhanced ultrasoundCTMRI

Copyright information

© European Society of Radiology 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christine Hoeffel
    • 1
  • Maud Pousset
    • 2
  • Marc-Olivier Timsit
    • 3
  • Caroline Elie
    • 2
  • Arnaud Méjean
    • 3
  • Samuel Merran
    • 4
  • François Tranquart
    • 5
  • Ahmed Khairoune
    • 6
  • Dominique Joly
    • 10
  • Stéphane Richard
    • 7
    • 8
    • 9
  • Olivier Hélénon
    • 6
  • Jean-Michel Correas
    • 6
  1. 1.CHU de Reims, Hôpital Robert Debré, Pôle d’imagerieService de RadiologieReims CedexFrance
  2. 2.Département de Biostatistiques, Hôpital NeckerUniversité Paris-Descartes, AP-HPParis Cedex 15France
  3. 3.Service d’urologie, Hôpital NeckerUniversité Paris-Descartes, AP-HPParis Cedex 15France
  4. 4.Service d’imagerie médicaleFédération mutualiste parisienneParisFrance
  5. 5.Bracco ResearchPlan les OuatesSwitzerland
  6. 6.Service de radiologie adultes, Hôpital NeckerUniversité Paris-Descartes, AP-HPParis Cedex 15France
  7. 7.Centre Pilote Tumeurs rares INCa, AP-HPService d’urologie, Hôpital de BicêtreLe Kremlin-BicêtreFrance
  8. 8.Service de NéphrologieHôpital NeckerParis Cedex 15France
  9. 9.Génétique oncologique, CNRS FRE 2939, Faculté de médecine Paris-SudLe Kremlin-Bicêtre et Institut de Cancérologie Gustave RoussyVillejuifFrance
  10. 10.Service de Néphrologie, Hôpital NeckerUniversité Paris-Descartes, AP-HPParis Cedex 15France