• Something wrong with this record ?

Die Rolle von kontrastmittelverstärktem „pulse inversion harmonic imaging“ (CEUS) und kontrastmittelverstärkter Computertomographie (CECT) bei der präoperativen Diagnose von renalen Raumforderungen [The role of contrast-enhanced pulse inversion harmonic imaging (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in the preoperative diagnosis of renal lesions]

P. Klezl, M. Kaspar, J. Klecka, R. Richterova, O. Stanc, A. Burgetova, D. Fischerova, L. Dusek, G. Popken, F. Zatura,

. 2018 ; 57 (2) : 181-190. [pub] -

Language German Country Germany

Document type Journal Article

Persistent link   https://www.medvik.cz/link/bmc19035422
E-resources Online Full text

NLK ProQuest Central from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Medline Complete (EBSCOhost) from 1996-09-01 to 2022-05-31
Nursing & Allied Health Database (ProQuest) from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago
Health & Medicine (ProQuest) from 1997-01-01 to 1 year ago

Links

PubMed 29387906
DOI 10.1007/s00120-018-0572-z
Knihovny.cz E-resources

OBJECTIVE: The preoperative assessment of structural and functional changes in renal tumors using contrast-enhanced pulse inversion harmonic imaging (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to two tertiary hospitals for surgery on suspicion of a malignant renal lesion, who had been examined under the predefined study protocol using CEUS and CECT, were prospectively included in the study. All renal lesions suspected of being malignant were subjected to histopathological examination. Lesions expected to be benign were followed up according to the study protocol. The accuracy of CEUS and CECT with the final histology or follow-up results and the statistically significant difference between the two imaging techniques was calculated. RESULTS: Over a period of 3 years (2008-2011), 68 of 93 patients examined met the study criteria. The prevalence of malignant tumors in the study was 72%. Fifty four (79%) patients underwent surgery and had a histologically confirmed renal tumor (clear cell carcinoma 45, urothelial papillocarcinoma 4, angiomyolipoma 1, oncytoma 3, xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis 1) and 14 (21%) patients underwent regular follow-up. Specificity, sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) reached 57.9%, 98% and 0.779 for CEUS and 52.6%, 98% and 0.753 for CECT. CONCLUSION: The results show that both imaging methods can reliably rule out malignant disease due to absence of enhancement. Taking into consideration that CEUS can be carried out without severe risk or discomfort, it is time to reconsider CEUS as the method of choice for diagnosis, while CECT should be reserved for staging.

The role of contrast-enhanced pulse inversion harmonic imaging (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in the preoperative diagnosis of renal lesions

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc19035422
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20191011112103.0
007      
ta
008      
191007s2018 gw f 000 0|ger||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1007/s00120-018-0572-z $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)29387906
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a ger
044    __
$a gw
100    1_
$a Klezl, P $u Department of Urology Faculty teaching Hospital, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prag, Tschechien.
245    14
$a Die Rolle von kontrastmittelverstärktem „pulse inversion harmonic imaging“ (CEUS) und kontrastmittelverstärkter Computertomographie (CECT) bei der präoperativen Diagnose von renalen Raumforderungen / $c P. Klezl, M. Kaspar, J. Klecka, R. Richterova, O. Stanc, A. Burgetova, D. Fischerova, L. Dusek, G. Popken, F. Zatura,
246    31
$a [The role of contrast-enhanced pulse inversion harmonic imaging (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in the preoperative diagnosis of renal lesions].
520    9_
$a OBJECTIVE: The preoperative assessment of structural and functional changes in renal tumors using contrast-enhanced pulse inversion harmonic imaging (CEUS) and contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: All consecutive patients referred to two tertiary hospitals for surgery on suspicion of a malignant renal lesion, who had been examined under the predefined study protocol using CEUS and CECT, were prospectively included in the study. All renal lesions suspected of being malignant were subjected to histopathological examination. Lesions expected to be benign were followed up according to the study protocol. The accuracy of CEUS and CECT with the final histology or follow-up results and the statistically significant difference between the two imaging techniques was calculated. RESULTS: Over a period of 3 years (2008-2011), 68 of 93 patients examined met the study criteria. The prevalence of malignant tumors in the study was 72%. Fifty four (79%) patients underwent surgery and had a histologically confirmed renal tumor (clear cell carcinoma 45, urothelial papillocarcinoma 4, angiomyolipoma 1, oncytoma 3, xanthogranulomatous pyelonephritis 1) and 14 (21%) patients underwent regular follow-up. Specificity, sensitivity and area under the curve (AUC) reached 57.9%, 98% and 0.779 for CEUS and 52.6%, 98% and 0.753 for CECT. CONCLUSION: The results show that both imaging methods can reliably rule out malignant disease due to absence of enhancement. Taking into consideration that CEUS can be carried out without severe risk or discomfort, it is time to reconsider CEUS as the method of choice for diagnosis, while CECT should be reserved for staging.
650    _2
$a kontrastní látky $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D003287
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a ledviny $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D007668
650    _2
$a nádory ledvin $x diagnóza $x diagnostické zobrazování $7 D007680
650    _2
$a předoperační péče $7 D011300
650    _2
$a předoperační období $7 D057234
650    _2
$a senzitivita a specificita $7 D012680
650    _2
$a počítačová rentgenová tomografie $x metody $7 D014057
650    _2
$a ultrasonografie $7 D014463
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
700    1_
$a Kaspar, M $u Department of Radiology, Hospital Na Bulovce, Prag, Tschechien.
700    1_
$a Klecka, J $u Department of Urology Faculty teaching Hospital, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Srobarova 50, Prag, Tschechien. jirka.klecka@email.cz.
700    1_
$a Richterova, R $u Department of Urology, Hospital Na Bulovce, Prag, Tschechien.
700    1_
$a Stanc, O $u Department of Urology, Hospital Na Bulovce, Prag, Tschechien.
700    1_
$a Burgetova, A $u Department of Radiology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prag, Tschechien.
700    1_
$a Fischerova, D $u Gynecologic Oncology Centre, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, First Faculty of Medicine and General University Hospital, Charles University, Prag, Tschechien.
700    1_
$a Dusek, L $u Institute of Biostatistics and Analysis, Masaryk University, Brno, Tschechien.
700    1_
$a Popken, G $u Department of Urology, Hospital Ernst von Bergmann, Potsdam, Deutschland.
700    1_
$a Zatura, F $u Department of Radiology, University Hospital Olomouc and Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Palacky University Oloumoc, Oloumoc, Tschechien.
773    0_
$w MED00004613 $t Der Urologe. Ausg. A $x 1433-0563 $g Roč. 57, č. 2 (2018), s. 181-190
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29387906 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20191007 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20191011112523 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1452082 $s 1073972
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2018 $b 57 $c 2 $d 181-190 $e - $i 1433-0563 $m Der Urologe (Ausg. A) $n Urologe (Ausg. A) $x MED00004613
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20191007

Find record

Citation metrics

Archiving options