title: Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with unenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  The objective of our study was to evaluate contrast-enhanced sonography in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses.
  
  
  METHODS
  We analyzed a series of 40 cystic renal masses (diameter, 2-8 cm) with a complex pattern at contrast-enhanced CT in 40 consecutive subjects (18 men, 22 women; mean age +/- SD, 62 +/- 11 years). Each renal mass was scanned using sonography without contrast material and after IV injection of sulfur hexafluoride-filled microbubbles during the arterial (15-40 seconds) and venous (40-120 seconds from injection) phases. Two radiologists in consensus assessed onsite the enhancement patterns in the peripheral wall and intracystic septa and the evidence of solid endocystic components. Three blinded readers with 2, 6, and 10 years of experience in renal imaging performed a retrospective off-site interpretation of unenhanced sonography, contrast-enhanced sonography, and CT images and made a benign or malignant diagnosis according to refer ence diagnostic criteria for contrast-enhanced sonography and to the Bosniak classification for CT.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Final diagnoses comprised two multilocular cystic nephromas, two inflammatory and seven hemorrhagic cysts, and eight uncomplicated benign cysts and 21 cystic renal cell carcinomas. The overall diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced sonography was better than unenhanced sonography and CT (contrast-enhanced sonography vs unenhanced sonography vs CT: reader 1, 83% vs 30% vs 75%; reader 2, 83% vs 30% vs 63%; reader 3, 80% vs 30% vs 70%; p < 0.05, McNemar test).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Contrast-enhanced sonography was found to be better than unenhanced sonography and CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses.
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Cattinara Hospital, University of Trieste, Strada di Fiume 447, 34149 Trieste, Italy. quaia@units.it
authors.forename: Emilio
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Quaia
authors.forename: Michele
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Bertolotto
authors.forename: Vincenzo
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Cioffi
authors.forename: Alexia
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Rossi
authors.forename: Elisa
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Baratella
authors.forename: Riccardo
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Pizzolato
authors.forename: Maria Assunta
authors.initials: MA
authors.lastname: Cov
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D003287:Contrast Media; D003937:Diagnosis, Differential; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007090:Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted; D007479:Iopamidol / Q000031:analogs & derivatives; D052177:Kidney Diseases, Cystic / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D007680:Kidney Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging*; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010743:Phospholipids; D012372:ROC Curve; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride; D036542:Tomography, Spiral Computed; D014463:Ultrasonography
chemical_list: D003287:Contrast Media; D010743:Phospholipids; C420843:contrast agent BR1; C057937:iomeprol; D007479:Iopamidol; D013459:Sulfur Hexafluoride