Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of typeⅠand type Ⅱ papillary renal cell carcinoma

田付丽,王丹丹,杨斌,朱梅梅,徐超丽
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2021.09.010
2021-01-01
Abstract:Objective:To assess the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination in the differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC).Methods:A total of 78 patients pathologically confirmed as having PRCC from December 2006 to November 2020 at the Eastern Theater General Hospital were enrolled. The conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings were retrospectively analyzed. There were 58 (74.0%) males and 20 (26.0%) females, aged 30-78 (54±12) years. Univariate analysis was used to compare the differences in imaging characteristics between the two types of PRCC patients, and binary logistic regression analysis was performed for variables with a statistically significant difference. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the value of conventional ultrasound and CEUS imaging features in the differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ PRCC.Results:Univariate analysis showed that the postoperative pathological maximum diameter of type Ⅱ PRCC lesions [4.0(3.0, 5.5) cm] was significantly larger than that of type Ⅰ PRCC lesions [3.1(2.1, 4.0) cm; U=555.500, P=0.043]. Radical nephrectomy (57.1%) was more commonly used for type Ⅱ PRCC, and partial nephrectomy (22.2%) was more commonly used for type Ⅰ PRCC, the difference between them was statistically significant (P<0.016 667). Type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ PRCC lesions had no statistically significant differences in conventional ultrasound imaging features (P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences in lesion enhancement pattern and ultrasonographic characteristics of the enhanced lesion edge between the two types of PRCC (P<0.05). After further regression analysis, the postoperative pathological size of the lesion and the surgical method were excluded as interfering factors (P>0.05), while the enhancement pattern and enhanced edge of the lesion were independent risk factors for the diagnosis of type Ⅱ PRCC (P<0.05, OR=3.854 and 4.388, respectively). ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve of the two indicators in combination to diagnose type Ⅱ PRCC was 0.724, with a sensitivity of 0.881 and specificity of 0.500.Conclusion:CEUS examination can provide valuable information for the differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ PRCC.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?