Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Quantitative assessment of solid renal masses by contrast-enhanced ultrasound with time–intensity curves: how we do it

  • Review Article
  • Published:
Abdominal Imaging Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

To discuss the evaluation of the enhancement curve over time of the major renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes, oncocytoma, and lipid-poor angiomyolipoma, to aid in the preoperative differentiation of these entities. Differentiation of these lesions is important, given the different prognoses of the subtypes, as well as the desire to avoid resecting benign lesions.

Methods

We discuss findings from CT, MR, and US, but with a special emphasis on contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS). CEUS technique is described, as well as time–intensity curve analysis.

Results

Examples of each of the major RCC subtypes (clear cell, papillary, and chromophobe) are shown, as well as examples of oncocytoma and lipid-poor angiomyolipoma. For each lesion, the time–intensity curve of enhancement on CEUS is reviewed, and correlated with the enhancement curve over time reported for multiphase CT and MR.

Conclusions

Preoperative differentiation of the most common solid renal masses is important, and the time–intensity curves of these lesions show some distinguishing features that can aid in this differentiation. The use of CEUS is increasing, and as a modality it is especially well suited to the evaluation of the time–intensity curve.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. American Cancer Society (2014) Cancer facts and figures 2014. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@research/documents/webcontent/acspc-042151.pdf. Accessed 20 Aug 2014

  2. Kutikov A, Fossett LK, Ramchandani P, et al. (2006) Incidence of benign pathologic findings at partial nephrectomy for solitary renal mass presumed to be renal cell carcinoma on preoperative imaging. Urology 68(4):737–740

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Remzi M, Ozsoy M, Klingler HC, et al. (2006) Are small renal tumors harmless? Analysis of histopathological features according to tumors 4 cm or less in diameter. J Urol 176(3):896–899

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Fujii Y, Komai Y, Saito K, et al. (2008) Incidence of benign pathologic lesions at partial nephrectomy for presumed RCC renal masses: Japanese dual-center experience with 176 consecutive patients. Urology 72(3):598–602

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Jeon HG, Lee SR, Kim KH, et al. (2010) Benign lesions after partial nephrectomy for presumed renal cell carcinoma in masses 4 cm or less: prevalence and predictors in Korean patients. Urology 76(3):574–579

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Sasiwimonphan K, Takahashi N, Leibovich BC, et al. (2012) Small (<4 cm) renal mass: differentiation of angiomyolipoma without visible fat from renal cell carcinoma utilizing MR imaging. Radiology 263(1):160–168

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Hindman N, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. (2012) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: can it be differentiated from clear cell renal cell carcinoma by using standard MR techniques? Radiology 265(2):468–477

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Prasad SR, Humphrey PA, Catena JR, et al. (2006) Common and uncommon histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma: imaging spectrum with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 26(6):1795–1806

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Crumley SM, Divatia M, Truong L, et al. (2013) Renal cell carcinoma: Evolving and emerging subtypes. World J Clin Cases 1(9):262–275

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Shuch B, Amin A, Armstrong AJ, et al. (2015) Understanding pathologic variants of renal cell carcinoma: distilling therapeutic opportunities from biologic complexity. Eur Urol 67(1):85–97

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ng CS, Wood CG, Silverman PM, et al. (2008) Renal cell carcinoma: diagnosis, staging, and surveillance. Am J Roentgenol 191(4):1220–1232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Gerst S, Hann LE, Li D, et al. (2011) Evaluation of renal masses with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: initial experience. Am J Roentgenol 197(4):897–906

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Mukai M, et al. (2000) Double-phase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis. J Comput Assist Tomogr 24(6):835–842

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. MacLennan GT, Bostwick DG (1995) Microvessel density in renal cell carcinoma: lack of prognostic significance. Urology 46(1):27–30

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Piscaglia F, Nolsøe C, Dietrich CF, et al. (2011) The EFSUMB guidelines and recommendations on the clinical practice of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. https://www.thieme-connect.de/DOI/DOI?10.1055/s-0031-1281676. Accessed 8 Aug 2014

  16. Lantheus Medical Imaging. Definity prescribing information. http://www.definityimaging.com/pdf/DEFINITY%20Prescribing%20Information%20515987-0413.pdf. Accessed 9 Aug 2014

  17. Correas JM, Bridal L, Lesavre A, et al. (2001) Ultrasound contrast agents: properties, principles of action, tolerance, and artifacts. Eur Radiol 11(8):1316–1328

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. McArthur C, Baxter GM (2012) Current and potential renal applications of contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Clin Radiol 67(9):909–922

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Wei K, Mulvagh SL, Carson L, et al. (2008) The safety of definity and optison for ultrasound image enhancement: a retrospective analysis of 78,383 administered contrast doses. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 21(11):1202–1206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Main ML, Goldman JH, Grayburn PA (2007) Thinking outside the “box”—the ultrasound contrast controversy. J Am Coll Cardiol 50(25):2434–2437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Main ML, Hibberd MG, Ryan A, et al. (2014) Acute mortality in critically ill patients undergoing echocardiography with or without an ultrasound contrast agent. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 7(1):40–48

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Xue LY, Lu Q, Huang BJ, et al. (2014) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of cystic renal mass: in comparison to contrast-enhanced CT and conventional ultrasound. Abdom Imaging 39(6):1274–1283

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Aoki S, Hattori R, Yamamoto T, et al. (2011) Contrast-enhanced ultrasound using a time–intensity curve for the diagnosis of renal cell carcinoma. BJU Int 108(3):349–354

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cai Y, Du L, Li F, Gu J, Bai M (2014) Quantification of enhancement of renal parenchymal masses with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 40(7):1387–1393

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Young JR, Margolis D, Sauk S, et al. (2013) Clear cell renal cell carcinoma: discrimination from other renal cell carcinoma subtypes and oncocytoma at multiphasic multidetector CT. Radiology 267(2):444–453

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Cheville JC, Lohse CM, Zincke H, Weaver AL, Blute ML (2003) Comparisons of outcome and prognostic features among histologic subtypes of renal cell carcinoma. Am J Surg Pathol 27(5):612–624

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Olshan AF, Kuo TM, Meyer AM, et al. (2013) Racial difference in histologic subtype of renal cell carcinoma. Cancer Med 2(5):744–749

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen HT, McGovern FJ (2005) Renal-cell carcinoma. N Engl J Med 353(23):2477–2490

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hagenkord JM, Gatalica Z, Jonasch E, Monzon FA (2011) Clinical genomics of renal epithelial tumors. Cancer Genet 204(6):285–297

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Reuter VE (2006) The pathology of renal epithelial neoplasms. Semin Oncol 33(5):534–543

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Polascik TJ, Bostwick DG, Cairns P (2002) Molecular genetics and histopathologic features of adult distal nephron tumors. Urology 60(6):941–946

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sheir KZ, El-Azab M, Mosbah A, El-Baz M, Shaaban AA (2005) Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes by multislice computerized tomography. J Urol 174(2):451–455

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et al. (2002) Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans. Am J Roentgenol 178(6):1499–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sun MR, Ngo L, Genega EM, et al. (2009) Renal cell carcinoma: dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging for differentiation of tumor subtypes–correlation with pathologic findings. Radiology 250(3):793–802

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Fan L, Lianfang D, Jinfang X, Yijin S, Ying W (2008) Diagnostic efficacy of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in solid renal parenchymal lesions with maximum diameters of 5 cm. J Ultrasound Med 27(6):875–885

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Xu ZF, Xu HX, Xie XY, et al. (2010) Renal cell carcinoma and renal angiomyolipoma: differential diagnosis with real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. J Ultrasound Med 29(5):709–717

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Lu Q, Xue L, Huang B, et al. (2014) Histotype differentiation of hypo-echoic renal tumors on CEUS: usefulness of enhancement homogeneity and intensity. Abdom Imaging. doi:10.1007/s00261-014-0340-5

  38. Lu Q, Li CX, Huang BJ, Xue LY, Wang WP (2015) Triphasic and epithelioid minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma: qualitative and quantitative CEUS characteristics and distinguishing features. Abdom Imaging 40(2):333–342

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vikram R, Ng CS, Tamboli P, et al. (2009) Papillary renal cell carcinoma: radiologic–pathologic correlation and spectrum of disease. Radiographics 29(3):741–754

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Ruppert-Kohlmayr AJ, Uggowitzer M, Meissnitzer T, Ruppert G (2004) Differentiation of renal clear cell carcinoma and renal papillary carcinoma using quantitative CT enhancement parameters. Am J Roentgenol 183(5):1387–1391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Herts BR, Coll DM, Novick AC, et al. (2002) Enhancement characteristics of papillary renal neoplasms revealed on triphasic helical CT of the kidneys. Am J Roentgenol 178(2):367–372

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Zhang J, Lefkowitz RA, Ishill NM, et al. (2007) Solid renal cortical tumors: differentiation with CT. Radiology 244(2):494–504

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Scialpi M, Di Maggio A, Midiri M, et al. (2000) Small renal masses: assessment of lesion characterization and vascularity on dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging with fat suppression. Am J Roentgenol 175(3):751–757

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Vera-Badillo FE, Conde E, Duran I (2012) Chromophobe renal cell carcinoma: a review of an uncommon entity. Int J Urol 19(10):894–900

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Kim JI, Cho JY, Moon KC, Lee HJ, Kim SH (2009) Segmental enhancement inversion at biphasic multidetector CT: characteristic finding of small renal oncocytoma. Radiology 252(2):441–448

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Rosenkrantz AB, Hindman N, Fitzgerald EF, et al. (2010) MRI features of renal oncocytoma and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 195(6):W421–W427

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. O’Malley ME, Tran P, Hanbidge A, Rogalla P (2012) Small renal oncocytomas: is segmental enhancement inversion a characteristic finding at biphasic MDCT? Am J Roentgenol 199(6):1312–1315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Woo S, Cho JY, Kim SH, et al. (2013) Segmental enhancement inversion of small renal oncocytoma: differences in prevalence according to tumor size. Am J Roentgenol 200(5):1054–1059

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Schieda N, Al-Subhi M, Flood TA, El-Khodary M, McInnes MD (2014) Diagnostic accuracy of segmental enhancement inversion for the diagnosis of renal oncocytoma using biphasic computed tomography (CT) and multiphase contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Eur Radiol 24(11):2787–2794

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Gakis G, Kramer U, Schilling D, et al. (2011) Small renal oncocytomas: differentiation with multiphase CT. Eur J Radiol 80(2):274–278

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Tamai H, Takiguchi Y, Oka M, et al. (2005) Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors. J Ultrasound Med 24(12):1635–1640

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Wu Y, Du L, Li F, et al. (2013) Renal oncocytoma: contrast-enhanced sonographic features. J Ultrasound Med 32(3):441–448

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Halpenny D, Snow A, McNeill G, Torreggiani WC (2010) The radiological diagnosis and treatment of renal angiomyolipoma-current status. Clin Radiol 65(2):99–108

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Froemming AT, Boland J, Cheville J, Takahashi N, Kawashima A (2013) Renal epithelioid angiomyolipoma: imaging characteristics in nine cases with radiologic-pathologic correlation and review of the literature. Am J Roentgenol 200(2):W178–W186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Jinzaki M, Silverman SG, Akita H, et al. (2014) Renal angiomyolipoma: a radiological classification and update on recent developments in diagnosis and management. Abdom Imaging 39(3):588–604

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Chaudhry HS, Davenport MS, Nieman CM, Ho LM, Neville AM (2012) Histogram analysis of small solid renal masses: differentiating minimal fat angiomyolipoma from renal cell carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 198(2):377–383

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Kim JK, Park SY, Shon JH, Cho KS (2004) Angiomyolipoma with minimal fat: differentiation from renal cell carcinoma at biphasic helical CT. Radiology 230(3):677–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Yang CW, Shen SH, Chang YH, et al. (2013) Are there useful CT features to differentiate renal cell carcinoma from lipid-poor renal angiomyolipoma? Am J Roentgenol 201(5):1017–1028

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by a seed grant from the Radiological Society of North America, and a grant from GE Healthcare.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Radiology, Keck USC School of Medicine, 1500 San Pablo St, 2nd Floor Imaging, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Kevin G. King, Mittul Gulati, Harshawn Malhi, Darryl Hwang, Phillip M. Cheng, Edward G. Grant & Vinay A. Duddalwar

  2. Department of Urology, Keck USC School of Medicine, 1500 San Pablo St, Los Angeles, CA, 90033, USA

    Inderbir S. Gill

Authors
  1. Kevin G. King
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mittul Gulati
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Harshawn Malhi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Darryl Hwang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Inderbir S. Gill
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Phillip M. Cheng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Edward G. Grant
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Vinay A. Duddalwar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kevin G. King.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

King, K.G., Gulati, M., Malhi, H. et al. Quantitative assessment of solid renal masses by contrast-enhanced ultrasound with time–intensity curves: how we do it. Abdom Imaging 40, 2461–2471 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0468-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-015-0468-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation