切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (05) : 495 -500. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2021.05.010

所属专题: 文献

生殖泌尿超声影像学

超声造影结合Bosniak分级对肾囊性病变的诊断价值
王兰1, 聂芳1,(), 王佩华1, 王国娟1, 范潇1   
  1. 1. 730030 兰州大学第二医院超声医学中心
  • 收稿日期:2020-09-30 出版日期:2021-05-01
  • 通信作者: 聂芳

Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography combined with Bosniak classification in diagnosis of renal cystic lesions

Lan Wang1, Fang Nie1(), Peihua Wang1, Guojuan Wang1, Xiao Fan1   

  1. 1. Medical Center of Ultrasound, Lanzhou University Second Hospital, Lanzhou 730030, China
  • Received:2020-09-30 Published:2021-05-01
  • Corresponding author: Fang Nie
引用本文:

王兰, 聂芳, 王佩华, 王国娟, 范潇. 超声造影结合Bosniak分级对肾囊性病变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(05): 495-500.

Lan Wang, Fang Nie, Peihua Wang, Guojuan Wang, Xiao Fan. Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography combined with Bosniak classification in diagnosis of renal cystic lesions[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2021, 18(05): 495-500.

目的

探讨超声造影结合Bosniak分级对肾囊性病变的诊断价值。

方法

回顾性分析2015年8月至2020年8月于兰州大学第二医院诊断为肾囊性病变的62例患者(共62个病灶,均经手术病理证实)的超声造影图像,并结合Bosniak分级标准对其进行分类,评价超声造影技术结合Bosniak分级对肾囊性病变的诊断及鉴别诊断价值。采用χ2检验比较良、恶性肾囊性病变的超声造影特征的差异;采用四格表计算超声造影结合Bosniak分级标准对病灶良恶性诊断的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值和阴性预测值;采用χ2检验或Fisher确切概率检验比较不同病理类型囊性肾细胞癌的超声造影特征。

结果

超声造影结合Bosniak分级标准,以Bosnaik分级≥Ⅲ级诊断恶性病灶的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为83%、58%、73%、71%,其中,多房囊性肾细胞癌(MCRCC)多为Bosniak Ⅲ级(83%,5/6),超声造影表现为多囊结构,无实性增强结节;囊性肾透明细胞癌(CCRCC)及囊性乳头状肾细胞癌(PRCC)Bosniak分级多为IV级(86%,6/7;76%,13/17),而囊性CCRCC超声造影常表现为多囊结构(65%,11/17),71%(12/17)囊性CCRCC囊内实性成分表现为高增强,囊性PRCC超声造影常为单囊(86%,6/7),囊性PRCC囊内实性成分多表现为低增强(71%,5/7)。

结论

超声造影结合Bosniak分级对肾囊性病变的良恶性诊断及不同类型囊性肾细胞癌的鉴别诊断有重要意义。

Objective

To assess the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) combined with the Bosniak classification in the diagnosis of renal cystic lesions.

Methods

The CEUS manifestations of 62 patients diagnosed with renal cystic lesions by conventional ultrasound and confirmed by surgical pathology at Lanzhou University Second Hospital from August 2015 to August 2020 were retrospectively analyzed and categorized by the Bosniak classification system according to the CEUS features. The value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography combined with Bosniak classification in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of cystic renal carcinoma was evaluated. The CEUS features of benign and malignant renal cystic lesions were compared by the Chi-square test. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of CEUS combined with Bosniak classification in the diagnosis of benign and malignant lesions were calculated. The CEUS imaging features of different subtypes of malignant cystic renal masses were analyzed and compared by the Chi-square test or Fisher's exact test.

Results

For predicting multilocular cystic renal cell carcinomas (MCRCC), Bosniak classification ≥ Ⅲ had a sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of 83%, 58%, 73%, and 71%, respectively. MCRCC were more likely to have Bosniak classification Ⅲ (83%, 5/6), and CEUS often showed a multilocular cystic tumor without any enhancing solid nodule. Cystic clear cell renal cell carcinomas (CCRCC) and cystic papillary renal cell carcinomas (PRCC) were more likely to have Bosniak classification Ⅳ (86%, 6/7; 76%, 13/17). Cystic CCRCC were significantly more likely to show a multilocular pattern (65%, 11/17), and the intracystic solid components demonstrated a higher frequency of hyperenhancement (71%, 12/17). Cystic PRCC were significantly more likely to show a unilocular cystic pattern (86%, 6/7), and the intracystic solid components demonstrated a higher frequency of hypoenhancement (71%, 5/7).

Conclusion

CEUS combined with the Bosniak classification system is of great value in the diagnosis of benign and malignant cystic renal lesions and in the differential diagnosis of different types of cystic renal carcinoma.

表1 良、恶性肾囊性病灶超声造影表现比较(例)
表2 超声造影对肾囊性病变良、恶性的诊断结果(个)
图1 不同类型囊性肾细胞超声造影表现。图a,b示左肾下极囊性病灶,超声造影囊壁及分隔强化且不规则(囊壁可见多个≤3 mm的凸起,与壁呈钝角),囊内可见多条分隔(>4条),Bosniak分级为Ⅲ级,术后病理提示为多房囊性肾细胞癌;图c,d示左肾中部囊性病灶,超声造影内可见高增强的实性结节(图c箭头所示),与囊壁呈锐角,囊内无分隔,呈单囊结构,Bosniak分级为Ⅵ级,术后病理结果提示肾透明细胞癌;图e,f示左肾窦边缘病灶,超声造影内可见略低增强的实性结节(图e箭头所示),与囊壁呈锐角,囊内无分隔,呈单囊结构,Bosniak分级为Ⅵ级,术后病理提示乳头状肾细胞癌;图g,h示左肾中部囊性病灶,超声造影内可见高增强的实性结节(图g箭头所示),与囊壁呈锐角,囊内可见增强分隔,呈多囊结构,Bosniak分级为Ⅵ级,术后病理提示肾透明细胞癌
表3 不同病理类型囊性肾细胞癌超声造影表现比较(例)
1
Freire M, Remer EM. Clinical and radiologic features of cystic renal masses[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2009, 192(5): 1367-1372.
2
Gerst S, Hann LE, Li D, et al. Evaluation of renal masses with contrast-enhanced ultrasound: Initial experience [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2011, 197(4): 897-906.
3
吴磊, 查云飞, 陈文, 等. 超声造影诊断肾囊性病变价值的 Meta分析 [J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志, 2013, 24(11): 780-783.
4
Rübenthaler J, Wilson S, Clevert DA. Multislice computed tomography/contrast-enhanced ultrasound image fusion as a tool for evaluating unclear renal cysts [J]. Ultrasonography, 2019, 38(2): 181-187.
5
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 [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 191(4): 1239-1249.
6
Silverman SG, Pedrosa I, Ellis JH, et al. Bosniak classification of cystic renal masses, version 2019: an update proposal and needs assessment [J]. Radiology, 2019, 292(2): 475-488.
7
顾方六. 肾肿瘤 [M]//吴阶平. 吴阶平泌尿外科学. 济南: 山东科学技术出版社, 2004: 889-917.
8
陆明园, 温淑英, 郑鹏宇, 等. 囊性肾癌的CT诊断 [J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2008, 24(S1): 143-144.
9
Robbin ML, Lockhart ME, Barr RG. Renal imaging with ultrasound contrast: current status [J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2003, 41(5): 963-978.
10
Clevert DA, 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 [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2008, 39(1-4): 171-178.
11
曾红春, 王晓荣, 王玉杰, 等. 囊内分隔在超声鉴别诊断复杂性肾囊肿中的应用价值 [J]. 新疆医科大学学报, 2012, 35(7): 971-974.
12
Kuroda N, Ohe C, Mikami S, et al. Multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma with focus on clinical and pathobiological aspects [J]. Histol Histopathol, 2012, 27(8): 969-974.
13
Suzigan S, López-Beltrán A, Montironi R, et al. Multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma: a report of 45 cases of a kidney tumor of low malignant potential [J]. Am J Clin Pathol, 2006, 125(2): 217-222.
14
Prasad SR, Humphrey PA, Catena JR, et al. Common and uncommon histological subtypes of renal cell carcinoma:Imaging spectrum with pathologic correlation [J]. Radio Graphics, 2006, 26(6): 1795-1810.
15
Truong LD, Choi YJ, Shen SS, et al. Renal cystic neoplasms and renal neoplasms associated with cystic renal diseases:Pathogenetic and molecular links [J]. Adv Anat Pathol, 2003, 10(3): 135-159.
16
Aubert S, Zini L, Delomez J, et al. Cystic renal cell carcinomas in adults. Is preoperative recognition of multilocular cystic renal cell carcinoma possible? [J]. J Urol, 2005, 174(6): 2115-2119.
17
Brinker DA, Amin MB, de Peralta-Venturina M, et al. Extensively necrotic cystic renal cell carcinoma: a clinicopathologic study with comparison to other cystic and necrotic renal cancers [J]. Am J Surg Pathol, 2000, 24(7): 988-995.
18
Hartman DS, Davis CJJr, Johns T, et al. Cystic renal cell carcinoma [J]. Urology, 1986, 28(2): 145-153.
19
Xu Y, Zhang S, Wei X, et al. Contrast enhanced ultrasonography prediction of cystic renal mass in comparison to histopathology [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2014, 58(3): 429-438.
20
Lu Q, Huang BJ, Xue LY, et al. Differentiation of renal tumor histotypes: usefulness of quantitative analysis of contrast-enhanced ultrasound [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 205(3): W335-W342.
21
Xue LY, Lu Q, Huang BJ, et al. Papillary renal cell carcinoma and clear cell renal cell carcinoma: differentiation of distinct histological types with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2015, 84(10): 1849-1856.
[1] 李国新, 陈新华. 全腹腔镜下全胃切除术食管空肠吻合的临床研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 1-4.
[2] 陈方鹏, 杨大伟, 金从稳. 腹腔镜近端胃癌切除术联合改良食管胃吻合术重建His角对术后反流性食管炎的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 15-18.
[3] 许杰, 李亚俊, 韩军伟. 两种入路下腹腔镜根治性全胃切除术治疗超重胃癌的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 19-22.
[4] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[5] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[6] 任佳, 马胜辉, 王馨, 石秀霞, 蔡淑云. 腹腔镜全胃切除、间置空肠代胃术的临床观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 31-34.
[7] 赵丽霞, 王春霞, 陈一锋, 胡东平, 张维胜, 王涛, 张洪来. 内脏型肥胖对腹腔镜直肠癌根治术后早期并发症的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 35-39.
[8] 吴晖, 佴永军, 施雪松, 魏晓为. 两种解剖入路下行直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫的效果比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 40-43.
[9] 周世振, 朱兴亚, 袁庆港, 刘理想, 王凯, 缪骥, 丁超, 汪灏, 管文贤. 吲哚菁绿荧光成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫中的应用效果分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 44-47.
[10] 常小伟, 蔡瑜, 赵志勇, 张伟. 高强度聚焦超声消融术联合肝动脉化疗栓塞术治疗原发性肝细胞癌的效果及安全性分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 56-59.
[11] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[12] 徐逸男. 不同术式治疗梗阻性左半结直肠癌的疗效观察[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 72-75.
[13] 王露, 周丽君. 全腹腔镜下远端胃大部切除不同吻合方式对胃癌患者胃功能恢复、并发症发生率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 92-95.
[14] 李代勤, 刘佩杰. 动态增强磁共振评估中晚期低位直肠癌同步放化疗后疗效及预后的价值[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 100-103.
[15] 陈浩, 王萌. 胃印戒细胞癌的临床病理特征及治疗选择的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 108-111.
阅读次数
全文


摘要