The quantitative evaluation of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the differentiation of small renal cell carcinoma subtypes and angiomyolipoma.

Background: Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) has been widely used for renal lesion diagnosis and differential diagnosis. However, qualitative analysis of CEUS is subject to examinations with low reproducibility. This study aims to investigate the diagnostic value of CEUS quantitative parameters in differentiating small renal cell carcinoma (RCC) subtypes and angiomyolipoma (AML).

Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 97 cases of a small renal mass undergoing a CEUS before a radical or partial nephrectomy procedure. A region of interest (ROI) was placed in the tumor's maximum enhanced region (ROI) as much as possible, and adjacent renal cortex (ROI) was selected from normal renal tissue around a mass of the same depth. The time-intensity curve (TIC) was used to analyze the ROI and the ROI of the tumors quantitatively. Then the parameters of the ROI and the ROI, including the differences between the parameters of the ROI and the ROI, were analyzed statistically.

Results: In RCC and clear cell renal cell carcinoma (ccRCC), the peak intensity (PI), slope (SL), area under the curve (AUC), area under the wash-in curve (AWI), area under the wash-out curve (AWO), time to peak intensity (TTP) and the mean transit time (MTT) were statistically significant between ROI and ROI (all P=0.000). The △PI (△PI = PI - PI), △SL (△SL = SL - SL), △AUC (△AUC = AUC - AUC), △AWI (△AWI = AWI - AWI) and △AWO (△AWO = AWO - AWO) of RCC were significantly higher than in AML (P=0.007, 0.000, 0.003, 0.048, 0.009, respectively), while the TTP (△TTP = TTP - TTP) and △MTT (△MTT = MTT - MTT) of RCC were significantly lower (both P=0.000). In comparison with papillary renal cell carcinoma (pRCC) and chromophobe renal cell carcinoma (chRCC), the △PI, △SL, △AUC and △AWO of ccRCC were all larger (all P<0.05). The sensitivity, specificity, and AUC of the combination of parameter difference for differentiating RCC from AML were 100%, 81.2%, and 0.965, respectively, and for differentiating ccRCC from pRCC and chRCC, 85.71%, 85.92% and 0.911, respectively.

Conclusions: CEUS quantitative parameters have value in differentiating small RCC from AML and distinguishing ccRCC from pRCC and chRCC.