Experience of the use of Sonovyu Ultrasound Contrast Agents in Differential Diagnosis of Kidney Tumours. Part 1

Sufficient experience of differential diagnostics of focal renal lesions according to contrast-enhanced ultrasound is accumulated in the world now, however, only the own experience of use of this agent gives the chance of accumulation of the corresponding knowledge and skills.

Objective: to estimate the possibilities of SonoVue contrast agent for differential ultrasonic diagnostics of focal renal lesions and to compare the obtained data with results of morphology.

Materials and methods. During the period from March, 2015 to September, 2016 at A.V. Vishnevsky Institute of surgery 47 patient with focal renal lesdions have been surveyed and were operated on. There were 27 (57.4%) men and 20 (42.6%) women aged from 19 up to 66 years. All patient carried out ultrasonography in B-mode, duplex scanning, threedimensional reconstruction of the ultrasonic image, and contrast-enhanced research with SonoVue agent was carried out also. All neoplasms were morphologically verified: clear cell carcinoma – 34 (72.4%); papillary cancer – 4 (8.5%); chromophobe cancer – 1 (2.1%); juxtaglomerular cell tumor – 1 (2.1%); oncocytoma – 1 (2.1%); neurogenic tumor – 1 (2.1%); adenoma – 2 (4.3%); chronic inflammatory infiltrate – 1 (2.1%); a cyst – 2 (4.3%). We consider to take up expedient separately questions of diagnosis of lightcellular cancer and rare forms of kidney and cellular cancer.

Results. Part 1. Assessment of opportunities of SonoVue contrast agent at differential diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma. Ultrasonography in the B-mode, duplex scanning, three-dimensional reconstruction, doesn’t always allow to obtain accurate information on localization of renal tumor, and the nature of the lesion, therefore contrastenhanced ultrasonography with SonoVue agent was applied. Sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of сontrast-enhanced ultrasonography at diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma were 92%, 100%, 92%, respectively.

Conclusion. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography with SonoVue agent is rather cheap, doesn't bear beam load of the patient and isn't nephrotoxic owing to what it is expedient to include it in the protocol of inspection of patients with suspicion of renal cancer.

1. Фомина С.В., Завадовская В.Д., Юсубов М.С. и др. Контрастные препараты для ультразвукового исследования. Бюллетень сибирской медицины. 2011; 6: 137–142.

2. Fomina S.V., Zavadovskaya V.D., Yusubov M.S. et al. Contrast agents for ultrasonography. Bulluten Siberskoy meditsini. 2011; 6: 137–142. (In Russian)

3. Gramiak R., Shah P. Echocardiography of the aortic root. Invest. Radiol. 1968; 3: 356–366.

4. Greis C. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound in General Imaging. Springer-Verlag, 2005. 213 p.

5. Lencioni R. Enhancing the role of ultrasound with contrast Agents. Springer-Verlag Italia, 2009. 248 p.

6. Quaia E. Microbubble ultrasound contrast agents: an update. Eur. Radiol. 2007; 17 (8): 1995–2008.

7. SonoVue International non-proprietary name: sulfur hexafluoride. Assessment report. Ed. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP). UK: EMA, 2014: 1–33.

8. Соновью. Научная монография. Динамическое контрастное усиление в режиме реального времени. М.: Bracco Imaging, 2013. 48 с. SonoVue. Scientific monograph. Dynamic contrast strengthening in real time. M.: Bracco Imaging, 2013; 48 p. (In Russian)

9. Wei K., Le E., Bin J. et al. Quantification of renal blood flow with contrast-enhanced ultrasound. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2001; 37 (4): 1135–1140.

10. Tranquart F., Correas J., Martegani A. et al. Feasability of real time contrast enhanced ultrasound in renal disease. J. Radiol. 2004; 85 (1): 31–36.

11. Tranquart F., Le Gouge A., Correas J. et al. Role of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the blinded assessment of focal liver lesions in comparison with MDCT and CEMRI: Results from a multicentre clinical trial. EJC. 2008; 6: 9–15.

12. Seitz K., Bernatik T., Strobel D. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the characterization of focal liver lesions in clinical practice (DEGUM Multicenter Trial): CEUS vs. MRI-a prospective comparison in 269 patients. Ultraschall Med. 2010; 31 (5): 492–429.

13. Dong X.Q., Shen Y., Xu L.W. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detection and diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma. Chin. Med. J. (Engl.). 2009; 122 (10): 1179–1183.

14. Zhou X., Yan F., Luo Y. et al. Characterization and diagnostic confidence of contrast-enhanced ultrasound for solid renal tumors. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2011; 37 (6): 845–853.

15. Li X., Liang P., Guo M. et al. Real-time contrast-enhanced ultrasound in diagnosis of solid renal lesions. Discov. Med. 2013; 16 (86): 15–25.

16. Zhang S., Wang X.Q., Xin X.J., Xu Y. Value of contrastenhanced ultrasound (CEUS) in the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant renal neoplasms. Zhonghua Zhong Liu Za Zhi. 2013; 35 (5): 382–385.

17. Cai Y., Du L., Li F. et al. Quantification of enhancement of renal parenchymal masses with contrast-enhanced ultra sound. Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2014; 40 (7): 1387–1393.

18. Li X., Liang P., Yu X. et al. Value of real-time contrastenhanced ultrasound in diagnosis of solid renal lesions. Nan Fang Yi Ke Da Xue Xue Bao. 2014; 34 (6): 890–895.

19. Oh T.H., Lee Y.H., Seo I.Y. Diagnostic efficacy of contrastenhanced ultrasound for small renal masses. Korean J. Urol. 2014; 55 (9): 587–592.

20. Harvey C.J., Alsafi A., Kuzmich S. et al. Role of US Contrast Agents in the Assessment of Indeterminate Solid and Cystic Lesions in Native and Transplant Kidneys. Radiographics. 2015; 35 (5): 1419–1430.

21. Ховари Л.Ф., Шаназаров Н.А. Диагностика рака почки: современные тенденции. Фундаментальные исследования. 2011; 7: 256–261. Khovari L.F., Shanazarov N.A. Diagnosis of cancer of kidney: current trends. Fundamentalnie issledovaniya. 2011; 7: 256–261. (In Russian)

22. Novick A.C., Campbell S.С. Renal tumors. Campbell's Urology. Eds. Walsh P.C., Retik А.В., Vaughan E.D. Philadelphia: Saunders, 2002: 2672–2731.

23. Tamai H., Takiguchi Y., Oka M. et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the diagnosis of solid renal tumors. J. Ultrasound. Med. 2005; 24:1635–1640.

24. Митина Л.А., Казакевич В.И., Степанов С.О. Ультразвуковая онкоурология; Под ред. В.И. Чисова, И.Г. Руса кова. М.: Медиа Сфера, 2005. 182 с. Mitina L.A., Kazakevich V.I., Stepanov S.O. Ultrasonic onkourologiya. Ed. V.I. Chissov, I.G. Rusakov. M.: Media Sphera, 2005. 182 p. (In Russian)

25. Ignee A., Straub B., Schuessler G. et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound of renal masses. Wld J. Radiol. 2010; 2 (1): 15–31.

26. Quaia E., Bertolotto M., Cioffi V. et al. Comparison of contrast-enhanced sonography with unenhanced sonography and contrast-enhanced CT in the diagnosis of malignancy in complex cystic renal masses. Am. J. Roentgenol. 2008; 191: 1239–1249.

27. Harvey C.J., Alsafi A., Kuzmich S. et al. Role of US Contrast Agents in the Assessment of Indeterminate Solid and Cystic Lesions in Native and Transplant Kidneys. Radiographics. 2015; 35 (5): 1419–1430.

28. Sun D., Wei C., Li Y. et al. Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasonography with Quantitative Analysis allows Differentiation of Renal Tumor Histotypes. Sci. Rep. 2016; 6: 35081. Published online 2016 Oct 11.

29. Kim T.J., Kim S.H. Radiologic Findings of Renal Inflammatory Pseudotumor: A Case Report. Korean J. Radiol. 2000; 1 (4): 219–222.

30. Granata A., Floccari F., Logias F. et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasound in renal diseases. G. Ital. Nefrol. 2012; 29, Suppl. 57: S25–35.

31. Di Vece F., Tombesi P., Ermili F., Sartori S. Management of incidental renal masses: Time to consider contrastenhanced ultrasonography. Ultrasound. 2016; 24 (1): 34–40.

32. Bosniak M.A. The Bosniak renal cyst classification: 25 years later. Radiology. 2012; 262 (3): 781–785.

33. Park B.K., Kim B., Kim S.H. et al. Assessment of cystic renal masses based on Bosniak classification: comparison of CT and contrast-enhanced US. Eur. J. Radiol. 2007; 61: 310–314.

34. Clevert D.A., Minaifar N., Weckbach S. 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: 171–178.

35. Fuhrman S.A., Lasky L.C., Limas C. Prognostic significance of morphologic parameters in renal cell carcinoma. Am. J. Surg. Pathol. 1982; 6 (7): 655–656.