Abstract
Indeterminate renal masses are a common clinical problem. CEUS has several advantages to characterize both cystic and solid renal masses including thin slice thickness, excellent background subtraction, and real-time imaging with a high frame rate. The ultrasound contrast agents are not nephrotoxic and can be used in patients with renal insufficiency and obstruction. The Bosniak classification has been developed for use in CT and MRI. A CEUS Bosniak classification has not yet been developed. This meta-analysis reviews the results of renal mass characterization using Lumason/Sonovue in characterizing renal solid and cystic masses. For complex cystic renal lesions (419 patients; 436 lesions), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS were 95% (95% CI: 91%, 99%) and 84% (95% CI: 77%, 90%) and for solid lesions (331 patients; 341 lesions), the pooled sensitivity and specificity of CEUS were 98% (95% CI: 95%, 100%) and 78% (95% CI: 68%, 88%), respectively.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Not applicable.
Code availability
Not applicable.
References
1.Barr, R.G., C. Peterson, and A. Hindi, Evaluation of indeterminate renal masses with contrast-enhanced US: a diagnostic performance study. Radiology, 2014. 271(1): p. 133-42.
2.Tada, S., et al., The incidence of simple renal cyst by computed tomography. Clin Radiol, 1983. 34(4): p. 437-9.
3.Silverman, S.G., et al., Management of the incidental renal mass. Radiology, 2008. 249(1): p. 16-31.
4.Bosniak, M.A., The current radiological approach to renal cysts. Radiology, 1986. 158(1): p. 1-10.
5.Silverman, S.G., et al., Bosniak Classification of Cystic Renal Masses, Version 2019: An Update Proposal and Needs Assessment. Radiology, 2019. 292(2): p. 475-488.
6.Bosniak, M.A., Diagnosis and management of patients with complicated cystic lesions of the kidney. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 1997. 169(3): p. 819-21.
7.Israel, G.M. and M.A. Bosniak, Follow-up CT of moderately complex cystic lesions of the kidney (Bosniak category IIF). AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003. 181(3): p. 627-33.
8.Barr, R.G., et al., Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound-State of the Art in North America: Society of Radiologists in Ultrasound White Paper. Ultrasound Q, 2020. 36(4S Suppl 1): p. S1-S39.
10.Wilson, S.R. and P.N. Burns, Microbubble-enhanced US in body imaging: what role? Radiology, 2010. 257(1): p. 24-39.
11.Piscaglia, F., et al., The EFSUMB Guidelines and Recommendations on the Clinical Practice of Contrast Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS): update 2011 on non-hepatic applications. Ultraschall Med, 2012. 33(1): p. 33-59.
12.Robbin, M.L., M.E. Lockhart, and R.G. Barr, Renal imaging with ultrasound contrast: current status. Radiol Clin North Am, 2003. 41(5): p. 963-78.
13.Sanchez, K. and R.G. Barr, Contrast-enhanced ultrasound detection and treatment guidance in a renal transplant patient with renal cell carcinoma. Ultrasound Q, 2009. 25(4): p. 171-3.
14.Tamai, H., et al., Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors. J Ultrasound Med, 2005. 24(12): p. 1635-40.
15.Correas, J.M., et al., The kidney: imaging with microbubble contrast agents. Ultrasound Q, 2006. 22(1): p. 53-66.
16.Mazziotti, S., et al., Usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of renal pseudotumors. Abdom Imaging, 2010. 35(2): p. 241-5.
17.Ignee, A., et al., The value of contrast enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the characterisation of patients with renal masses. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2010. 46(4): p. 275-90.
18.Quaia, E., 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): p. 1239-49.
19.Clevert, D.A., 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): p. 171-8.
20.Park, B.K., et al., Assessment of cystic renal masses based on Bosniak classification: comparison of CT and contrast-enhanced US. Eur J Radiol, 2007. 61(2): p. 310-4.
21.Ascenti, G., et al., Complex cystic renal masses: characterization with contrast-enhanced US. Radiology, 2007. 243(1): p. 158-65.
22.Egger, M., et al., Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 1997. 315(7109): p. 629-34.
23.Lu, Q., et al., Minimal fat renal angiomyolipoma: the initial study with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2012. 38(11): p. 1896-901.
24.Li, X., et al., Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis of solid renal lesions. Discov Med, 2013. 16(86): p. 15-25.
25.Xue, L.Y., et al., Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography for evaluation of cystic renal mass: in comparison to contrast-enhanced CT and conventional ultrasound. Abdom Imaging, 2014. 39(6): p. 1274-83.
26.Wei, S.P., 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): p. 2135-2145.
27.Tian, W., et al., An evaluation of the clinical diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with contrast-enhanced computed tomography in space-occupying lesions of the kidney. Onco Targets Ther, 2017. 10: p. 3493-3499.
28.Yuan, X., et. al., Comparison of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced computed tomography in the diagnosis of cystic renal cell carcinoma. Int J Clin Exp Med, 2017. 10(7): p. 10820-10826.
29.Rubenthaler, J., et al., Evaluation of renal lesions using contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS); a 10-year retrospective European single-centre analysis. Eur Radiol, 2018. 28(11): p. 4542-4549.
30.Nicolau, C., et al., Prospective evaluation of CT indeterminate renal masses using US and contrast-enhanced ultrasound. Abdom Imaging, 2015. 40(3): p. 542-51.
31.Bertolotto, M., et al., Renal Masses With Equivocal Enhancement at CT: Characterization With Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015. 204(5): p. W557-65.
32.Chen, Y., et al., Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with MRI in the diagnosis of complex cystic renal masses. J Clin Ultrasound, 2015. 43(4): p. 203-209.
33.Sanz, e., Hevia V., Gomez, V. et. al., Renal complex cystic masses: usefulness of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in their assessment and its agreement with computed tomography. Curr Urol Rep, 2016. 17: p. 89.
34.Yong, C., Y.M. Teo, and K. Jeevesh, Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the evaluation of renal masses in patients with renal impairment. Med J Malaysia, 2016. 71(4): p. 193-198.
35.Defortescu, G., et al., Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging for the assessment of complex renal cysts: A prospective study. Int J Urol, 2017. 24(3): p. 184-189.
36.Barr, R.G., Is There a Need to Modify the Bosniak Renal Mass Classification With the Addition of Contrast-Enhanced Sonography? J Ultrasound Med, 2017. 36(5): p. 865-868.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
RGB: Research Grants: Siemens Ultrasound, Philips Ultrasound, Samsung Ultrasound, Mindray Ultrasound, GE Medical; Speakers Bureau: Siemens Ultrasound, Philips Ultrasound, Mindray, Canon Medical Systems; Royalties: Thieme Publishers; Advisory Panels: Hologic.
Ethical approval
Not required for meta-analysis.
Consent to participate
Not required for meta-analysis.
Consent for publication
All authors agree to sole publication of this manuscript in Abdominal Radiology. The manuscript or patient data has not been previously published or presently under review by any other publication.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Barr, R.G. Use of lumason/sonovue in contrast-enhanced ultrasound of the kidney for characterization of renal masses—a meta-analysis. Abdom Radiol 47, 272–287 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03295-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00261-021-03295-2