Advertisement

Current Urology Reports

, 20:73 | Cite as

Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in Renal Imaging and Intervention

  • Michael C. Olson
  • E. Jason Abel
  • Lori Mankowski GettleEmail author
New Imaging Techniques (S Rais-Bahrami and K Porter, Section Editors)
  • 107 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on New Imaging Techniques

Abstract

Purpose of Review

In recent years, there has been renewed interest in the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in abdominal imaging and intervention. The goal of this article is to review the practical applications of CEUS in the kidney, including renal mass characterization, treatment monitoring during and after percutaneous ablation, and biopsy guidance.

Recent Findings

Current evidence suggests that CEUS allows accurate differentiation of solid and cystic renal masses and is an acceptable alternative to either computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for characterization of indeterminate renal masses. CEUS is sensitive and specific for diagnosing residual or recurrent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) following percutaneous ablation. Furthermore, given its excellent spatial and temporal resolution, CEUS is well suited to demonstrate tumoral microvascularity associated with malignant renal masses and is an effective complement to conventional grayscale ultrasound (US) for percutaneous biopsy guidance.

Summary

Currently underutilized, CEUS is an important problem-solving tool in renal imaging and intervention whose role will continue to expand in coming years.

Keywords

Contrast-enhanced ultrasound Renal imaging Renal mass biopsy 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Michael C. Olson, E. Jason Abel, and Lori Mankowski Gettle each declare no potential conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    O'Connor SD, Pickhardt PJ, Kim DH, Oliva MR, Silverman SG. Incidental finding of renal masses at unenhanced CT: prevalence and analysis of features for guiding management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;197(1):139–45.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5920.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, Meyer AM, Wheeler SB, Kuo TM, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate. J Urol. 2015;193(1):30–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.07.102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, Hofmann F, Stewart F, Norrie J, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy. Eur Urol. 2016;69(4):660–73.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.07.072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Posielski NM, Bui A, Wells SA, Best SL, Gettle LM, Ziemlewicz TJ, et al. Risk factors for complications and nondiagnostic results following 1,155 consecutive percutaneous core renal mass biopsies. J Urol. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sutherland EL, Choromanska A, Al-Katib S, Coffey M. Outcomes of ultrasound guided renal mass biopsies. J Ultrasound. 2018;21(2):99–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-018-0299-0.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Richard PO, Jewett MA, Bhatt JR, Kachura JR, Evans AJ, Zlotta AR, et al. Renal tumor biopsy for small renal masses: a single-center 13-year experience. Eur Urol. 2015;68(6):1007–13.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2015.04.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Prince J, Bultman E, Hinshaw L, Drewry A, Blute M, Best S, et al. Patient and tumor characteristics can predict nondiagnostic renal mass biopsy findings. J Urol. 2015;193(6):1899–904.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2014.12.021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wilson SR, Greenbaum LD, Goldberg BB. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound: what is the evidence and what are the obstacles? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;193(1):55–60.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.2553.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Harvey CJ, Blomley MJ, Eckersley RJ, Cosgrove DO. Developments in ultrasound contrast media. Eur Radiol. 2001;11(4):675–89.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s003300000624.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    •• Huang DY, Yusuf GT, Daneshi M, Ramnarine R, Deganello A, Sellars ME, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in abdominal intervention. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(4):960–76.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-018-1473-8 Provides an excellent overview of the full spectrum of uses of contrast-enhanced ultrasound, particularly with respect to abdominal interventions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tang C, Fang K, Guo Y, Li R, Fan X, Chen P, et al. Safety of sulfur hexafluoride microbubbles in sonography of abdominal and superficial organs: retrospective analysis of 30,222 cases. J Ultrasound Med. 2017;36(3):531–8.  https://doi.org/10.7863/ultra.15.11075.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Piscaglia F, Bolondi L. Italian Society for Ultrasound in M, Biology Study Group on Ultrasound Contrast A. The safety of Sonovue in abdominal applications: retrospective analysis of 23188 investigations. Ultrasound Med Biol. 2006;32(9):1369–75.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2006.05.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung JW, Kang HR, Kim MH, Lee W, Min KU, Han MH, et al. Immediate hypersensitivity reaction to gadolinium-based MR contrast media. Radiology. 2012;264(2):414–22.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12112025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wang CL, Cohan RH, Ellis JH, Caoili EM, Wang G, Francis IR. Frequency, outcome, and appropriateness of treatment of nonionic iodinated contrast media reactions. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(2):409–15.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3421.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Weinstein S, Jordan E, Goldstein R, Yee J, Morgan T. How to set up a contrast-enhanced ultrasound service. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(4):808–18.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1278-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    • Huang DY, Yusuf GT, Daneshi M, Husainy MA, Ramnarine R, Sellars ME, et al. Contrast-enhanced US-guided interventions: improving success rate and avoiding complications using US contrast agents. Radiographics. 2017;37(2):652–64.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2017160123 An excellent introduction to the use of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in a variety of clinical settings.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Eknoyan G. A clinical view of simple and complex renal cysts. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;20(9):1874–6.  https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2008040441.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Nicolau C, Bunesch L, Sebastia C. Renal complex cysts in adults: contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging. 2011;36(6):742–52.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-011-9727-8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wood CG 3rd, Stromberg LJ 3rd, Harmath CB, Horowitz JM, Feng C, Hammond NA, et al. CT and MR imaging for evaluation of cystic renal lesions and diseases. Radiographics. 2015;35(1):125–41.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.351130016.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harvey CJ, Alsafi A, Kuzmich S, Ngo A, Papadopoulou I, Lakhani A, et al. Role of US contrast agents in the assessment of indeterminate solid and cystic lesions in native and transplant kidneys. Radiographics. 2015;35(5):1419–30.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2015140222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Israel GM, Hindman N, Bosniak MA. Evaluation of cystic renal masses: comparison of CT and MR imaging by using the Bosniak classification system. Radiology. 2004;231(2):365–71.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2312031025.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ascenti G, Mazziotti S, Zimbaro G, Settineri N, Magno C, Melloni D, et al. Complex cystic renal masses: characterization with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology. 2007;243(1):158–65.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2431051924.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Quaia E, Bertolotto M, Cioffi V, Rossi A, Baratella E, Pizzolato R, et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with unenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191(4):1239–49.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.07.3546.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Park BK, Kim B, Kim SH, Ko K, Lee HM, Choi HY. Assessment of cystic renal masses based on Bosniak classification: comparison of CT and contrast-enhanced US. Eur J Radiol. 2007;61(2):310–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2006.10.004.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clevert DA, Minaifar N, Weckbach S, Jung EM, Stock K, Reiser M, 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.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jonisch AI, Rubinowitz AN, Mutalik PG, Israel GM. Can high-attenuation renal cysts be differentiated from renal cell carcinoma at unenhanced CT? Radiology. 2007;243(2):445–50.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2432060559.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tappouni R, Kissane J, Sarwani N, Lehman EB. Pseudoenhancement of renal cysts: influence of lesion size, lesion location, slice thickness, and number of MDCT detectors. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(1):133–7.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.6057.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Al Harbi F, Tabatabaeefar L, Jewett MA, Finelli A, O’Malley M, Atri M. Enhancement threshold of small (< 4 cm) solid renal masses on CT. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2016;206(3):554–8.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.14806.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lan D, Qu HC, Li N, Zhu XW, Liu YL, Liu CL. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignant renal cystic lesions: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155857.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155857.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pierorazio PM, Hyams ES, Mullins JK, Allaf ME. Active surveillance for small renal masses. Rev Urol. 2012;14(1–2):13–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    • Kazmierski B, Deurdulian C, Tchelepi H, Grant EG. Applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the kidney. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2018;43(4):880–98.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1307-0 Provides a nice introduction to the various practical applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the kidney.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    • Bertolotto M, Bucci S, Valentino M, Curro F, Sachs C, Cova MA. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for characterizing renal masses. Eur J Radiol. 2018;105:41–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2018.05.015 A cutting edge, well-written overview of the current state of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in renal imaging and intervention.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Craig WD, Wagner BJ, Travis MD. Pyelonephritis: radiologic-pathologic review. Radiographics. 2008;28(1):255–77; quiz 327-8.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.281075171.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mitterberger M, Pinggera GM, Colleselli D, Bartsch G, Strasser H, Steppan I, et al. Acute pyelonephritis: comparison of diagnosis with computed tomography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. BJU Int. 2008;101(3):341–4.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-410X.2007.07280.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Fontanilla T, Minaya J, Cortes C, Hernando CG, Aranguena RP, Arriaga J, et al. Acute complicated pyelonephritis: contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging. 2012;37(4):639–46.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-011-9781-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Xu ZF, Xu HX, Xie XY, Liu GJ, Zheng YL, Liang JY, et al. Renal cell carcinoma: real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings. Abdom Imaging. 2010;35(6):750–6.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-009-9583-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    King KG, Gulati M, Malhi H, Hwang D, Gill IS, Cheng PM, et al. Quantitative assessment of solid renal masses by contrast-enhanced ultrasound with time-intensity curves: how we do it. Abdom Imaging. 2015;40(7):2461–71.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0468-y.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wei SP, Xu CL, Zhang Q, Zhang QR, Zhao YE, Huang PF, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differentiating benign from malignant solid small renal masses: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT. Abdom Radiol (NY). 2017;42(8):2135–45.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-017-1111-x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Atwell TD, Schmit GD, Boorjian SA, Mandrekar J, Kurup AN, Weisbrod AJ, et al. Percutaneous ablation of renal masses measuring 3.0 cm and smaller: comparative local control and complications after radiofrequency ablation and cryoablation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):461–6.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8618.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hinshaw JL, Lubner MG, Ziemlewicz TJ, Lee FT Jr, Brace CL. Percutaneous tumor ablation tools: microwave, radiofrequency, or cryoablation--what should you use and why? Radiographics. 2014;34(5):1344–62.  https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.345140054.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sidhu PS, Cantisani V, Dietrich CF, Gilja OH, Saftoiu A, Bartels E, et al. The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations for the clinical practice of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in non-hepatic applications: update 2017 (long version). Ultraschall Med. 2018;39(2):e2–e44.  https://doi.org/10.1055/a-0586-1107.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dechet CB, Zincke H, Sebo TJ, King BF, LeRoy AJ, Farrow GM, et al. Prospective analysis of computerized tomography and needle biopsy with permanent sectioning to determine the nature of solid renal masses in adults. J Urol. 2003;169(1):71–4.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ju.0000042211.18318.ba.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Khan AA, Shergill IS, Quereshi S, Arya M, Vandal MT, Gujral SS. Percutaneous needle biopsy for indeterminate renal masses: a national survey of UK consultant urologists. BMC Urol. 2007;7:10.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2490-7-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Maturen KE, Nghiem HV, Caoili EM, Higgins EG, Wolf JS Jr, Wood DP Jr. Renal mass core biopsy: accuracy and impact on clinical management. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2007;188(2):563–70.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.06.0220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Abel EJ, Heckman JE, Hinshaw L, Best S, Lubner M, Jarrard DF, et al. Multi-quadrant biopsy technique improves diagnostic ability in large heterogeneous renal masses. J Urol. 2015;194(4):886–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.03.106.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Wittmann TA, Abel EJ. Percutaneous biopsy in large, locally advanced or metastatic renal tumors. Urol Oncol. 2017;35(3):87–91.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urolonc.2016.10.003.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sainani NI, Arellano RS, Shyn PB, Gervais DA, Mueller PR, Silverman SG. The challenging image-guided abdominal mass biopsy: established and emerging techniques ‘if you can see it, you can biopsy it’. Abdom Imaging. 2013;38(4):672–96.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-013-9980-0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Bang N, Bachmann Nielsen M, Vejborg I, Mellon MA. Clinical report: contrast enhancement of tumor perfusion as a guidance for biopsy. Eur J Ultrasound. 2000;12(2):159–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Partovi S, Lu Z, Kessner R, Yu A, Ahmed Y, Patel IJ, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound guided biopsies of liver lesions not visualized on standard B-mode ultrasound-preliminary experience. J Gastrointest Oncol. 2017;8(6):1056–64.  https://doi.org/10.21037/jgo.2017.08.17.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Yoon SH, Lee KH, Kim SY, Kim YH, Kim JH, Lee SH, et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound-guided biopsy of focal hepatic lesions not localised on B-mode ultrasound. Eur Radiol. 2010;20(8):2047–56.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-010-1757-z.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Wu W, Chen MH, Yin SS, Yan K, Fan ZH, Yang W, et al. The role of contrast-enhanced sonography of focal liver lesions before percutaneous biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2006;187(3):752–61.  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.0535.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    McDonald JS, McDonald RJ, Carter RE, Katzberg RW, Kallmes DF, Williamson EE. Risk of intravenous contrast material-mediated acute kidney injury: a propensity score-matched study stratified by baseline-estimated glomerular filtration rate. Radiology. 2014;271(1):65–73.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130775.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    McDonald RJ, McDonald JS, Carter RE, Hartman RP, Katzberg RW, Kallmes DF, et al. Intravenous contrast material exposure is not an independent risk factor for dialysis or mortality. Radiology. 2014;273(3):714–25.  https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.14132418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Hinson JS, Ehmann MR, Fine DM, Fishman EK, Toerper MF, Rothman RE, et al. Risk of acute kidney injury after intravenous contrast media administration. Ann Emerg Med. 2017;69(5):577–86 e4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annemergmed.2016.11.021.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Chang EH. An introduction to contrast-enhanced ultrasound for nephrologists. Nephron. 2018;138(3):176–85.  https://doi.org/10.1159/000484635.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Hajj P, Ferlicot S, Massoud W, Awad A, Hammoudi Y, Charpentier B, et al. Prevalence of renal cell carcinoma in patients with autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease and chronic renal failure. Urology. 2009;74(3):631–4.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urology.2009.02.078.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Chang EH, Chong WK, Kasoji SK, Fielding JR, Altun E, Mullin LB, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for characterization of kidney lesions in patients with and without chronic kidney disease. BMC Nephrol. 2017;18(1):266.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12882-017-0681-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Pan FS, Liu M, Luo J, Tian WS, Liang JY, Xu M, et al. Transplant renal artery stenosis: evaluation with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Eur J Radiol. 2017;90:42–9.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2017.02.031.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Zeisbrich M, Kihm LP, Druschler F, Zeier M, Schwenger V. When is contrast-enhanced sonography preferable over conventional ultrasound combined with Doppler imaging in renal transplantation? Clin Kidney J. 2015;8(5):606–14.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ckj/sfv070.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Michael C. Olson
    • 1
  • E. Jason Abel
    • 2
  • Lori Mankowski Gettle
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of RadiologyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Department of UrologyUniversity of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public HealthMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations