Home    中文  
 
  • Search
  • lucene Search
  • Citation
  • Fig/Tab
  • Adv Search
Just Accepted  |  Current Issue  |  Archive  |  Featured Articles  |  Most Read  |  Most Download  |  Most Cited
Genitourinary Ultrasound

Causes of missed diagnosis of small renal masses by ultrasound

  • Yan Zhang 1 ,
  • Shaoling Yuan , 2, ,
  • Zehong Shi 3 ,
  • Xinyang Guo 1 ,
  • Jinghua Niu 1
Expand
  • 1.Department of Medical Imaging, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, China;Department of Ultrasound, Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital, Shanxi Hospital Affiliated to Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030013, China
  • 2.Department of Ultrasound, Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital, Shanxi Hospital Affiliated to Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030013, China
  • 3.Department of Ultrasound, Shanxi Province Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Taiyuan 030012, China
Corresponding author: Yuan Shaoling, Email:

Received date: 2023-10-06

  Online published: 2024-08-05

Copyright

Copyright by Chinese Medical Association No content published by the journals of Chinese Medical Association may be reproduced or abridged without authorization. Please do not use or copy the layout and design of the journals without permission. All articles published represent the opinions of the authors, and do not reflect the official policy of the Chinese Medical Association or the Editorial Board, unless this is clearly specified.

Abstract

Objective

To explore the causes of missed diagnosis of small renal masses (SRM) by ultrasound.

Methods

A total of 917 patients with SRM underwent resection at Shanxi Province Cancer Hospital from January 2013 to September 2022 and had complete medical records, in which 25 cases of SRM missed by ultrasound (missed group) and 50 cases of SRM accurately detected by ultrasound (detection group) were included in this study. The differences in sex, age, and body mass index (BMI) between the two groups were compared. Taking the anatomical position of lesions on CT imaging as the standard, the differences in nodule size, laterality, polarity, location, and growth pattern were compared between the two groups. The ultrasonic manifestations and pathological types of the lesions were summarized. The tumor size of the two groups, with a skewed distribution, was compared by the Mann-Whitney U test. The comparison of categorical variables between the two groups was performed using the χ2 test or Fisher's exact test.

Results

The missed diagnosis rate of SRM by ultrasound was 2.7% (25/917). Compared with the non-missed group, patients of the missed group were more likely to be obese (44.0% vs 18.0%, Z=-3.793, P<0.001), had small-sized lesions [2.05 (1.47, 2.70) cm vs 2.90 (2.27, 3.52) cm, χ2=6.171, P=0.046], had a high proportion of ≤ 2.5 cm SRM (73.1% vs 26.0%, χ2=9.412, P=0.002), and lesions with deep location (dorsal or medial) (76.9% vs 52.0%, χ2=4.447, P=0.035), and had a high proportion of endophytic masses (26.9% vs 0, χ2=13.946, P=0.001).

Conclusion

Factors such as obesity, tumor size especially ≤ 2.5 cm, deep location, and endophytic growth pattern may interfere with US examination, thus leading to missed diagnosis. When performing renal ultrasound examination, anatomical factors of the lesion should be fully considered to reduce missed diagnosis.

Cite this article

Yan Zhang , Shaoling Yuan , Zehong Shi , Xinyang Guo , Jinghua Niu . Causes of missed diagnosis of small renal masses by ultrasound[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2024 , 21(05) : 500 -504 . DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2024.05.008

近年来无症状肾肿瘤检出率呈上升趋势1,其中60%~70%为小肾肿瘤(small renal mass,SRM),SRM定义为最大径≤4.0 cm的T1a期肾肿瘤2,肾部分切除术是SRM首选手术方式,早期发现SRM能增加保留肾单位的机会3。超声是肾肿瘤首选筛查方法4,检测SRM准确率达90%以上,然而,超声检查SRM仍存在漏诊,漏诊率为1.8%5。本研究通过对照临床资料、CT/MRI图像及术后病理结果,对超声漏诊及检出病例进行对比,探讨造成超声漏诊SRM的原因。

资料与方法

一、对象

回顾2013年1月至2022年9月于山西医科大学附属山西省肿瘤医院泌尿外科经手术治疗的917例SRM患者的病历资料,以CT/MRI为病灶检出“金标准”,其中超声漏诊SRM 25例共26个病灶(漏诊组),按1∶2比例选取同期性别、年龄匹配的超声检出SRM 50例共50个病灶(检出组),共纳入75例76个病灶,其中男性40例,女性35例,年龄(59.2±7.3)岁(范围46~75岁)。本研究经山西医科大学附属山西省肿瘤医院伦理委员会批准(伦理编号:KY2023146),知情同意豁免。
纳入标准:临床资料完整;经CT/MRI测量病灶最大径≤4.0 cm;患者术前于本院行超声、CT/MRI检查,且2种检查间隔时间<1个月;患者术后病理结果为肾实质肿瘤。排除标准:患者行肾肿瘤穿刺术确诊;术后病理结果为单纯性肾囊肿或尿路上皮性肿瘤。

二、仪器与方法

1. 超声检查:采用GE Logiq E9、Philips EPIQ7超声诊断仪,配备凸阵探头,频率1.0~5.0 MHz。不同品牌超声仪器图像质量无显著差异6,可排除超声设备不同造成的误差。患者取仰卧位及侧卧位,充分暴露腹部,由具有5年以上工作经验的超声医师进行检查,若检出病灶,评估病灶大小、回声。
2. CT/MRI检查:CT检查选用宝石能谱CT(GE Discovery CT 750HD)扫描仪,MRI检查选用Philips Achieva 3.0T TX MR扫描仪。在影像归档和通信系统上阅片,根据肾肿瘤评分(R.E.N.A.L评分系统)方法评估病灶的以下解剖学特征:最大径(按最大截面的长径将病灶分为≤2.5 cm组及>2.5且≤4.0 cm组),侧别(左肾、右肾),极性(上极、中部、下极),内、外侧,腹、背侧,生长模式(内生性和外凸性,外凸性又分为外凸率<50%和外凸率≥50%)。病灶位于背侧或内侧定义为位置较深,腹侧或外侧则为表浅。图像分析由2位从事放射诊断工作5年以上的医师独立进行,如2位医师分析结果意见不一致,则由第3位高年资医师独立分析,并将其作为最终结果。
3. 临床资料:回顾患者病历,记录患者年龄、性别、身高、体质量,计算体质量指数(body mess index,BMI):正常,18.5~23.9 kg/m2;超重,24.0~27.9 kg/m2;肥胖,≥28.0 kg/m27

三、统计学分析

使用SPSS 25.0软件完成统计分析,患者年龄为符合正态分布的计量资料,以表示,采用独立样本t检验进行2组间差异比较,病灶大小为符合偏态分布的计量资料,以MQR)表示,采用曼-惠特尼U检验进行2组间差异比较;计数资料以例(%)表示,采用χ2检验比较2组间性别、BMI、病灶最大径、位置、侧别和极性的差异,采用Fisher确切概率法比较2组间病灶生长模式和病理类型的差异。超声与CT/MRI测量病灶大小一致性分析采用组内相关系数(intra-class correlation coefficient,ICC)分析。双侧检验,检验水准α=0.05,P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。

结果

一、SRM漏诊率及2组患者一般临床资料比较

本组≤4.0 cm SRM共917例,超声漏诊25例,漏诊率为2.7%(25/917);其中≤2.5 cm SRM共284例,超声漏诊19例,漏诊率为6.7%(19/284)。
漏诊组与检出组患者年龄、性别比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05),漏诊组体型肥胖者比例高于检出组,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05,表1)。
表1 2组小肾肿瘤患者一般临床资料比较
组别 例数 年龄(岁, 性别[例(%)] 体质量指数[例(%)]
正常 超重 肥胖
漏诊组 25 59.6±6.7 12(48.0) 13(52.0) 9(36.0) 5(20.0) 11(44.0)
检出组 50 59.0±7.7 28(56.0) 22(44.0) 22(44.0) 19(38.0) 9(18.0)
统计值 t=0.311 χ2=0.429 χ2=6.171
P 0.757 0.513 0.046

二、2组病灶解剖学特征比较

1. 大小:漏诊组病灶最大径范围0.6~3.5 cm,检出组病灶最大径范围1.4~4.0 cm,漏诊组较检出组病灶最大径更小,≤2.5 cm SRM占比更高,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05,表2)。
表2 超声漏诊组与检出组小肾肿瘤病灶解剖学表现比较
项目 漏诊组(n=26个) 检出组(n=50个) 统计值 P
大小[cm,MQR)] 2.05(1.47,2.70) 2.90(2.27,3.52) Z=-3.793 <0.001
最大径[个(%)] χ2=9.412 0.002
≤2.5 cm 19(73.1) 18(36.0)
>2.5且≤4.0 cm 7(26.9) 32(64.0)
位置[个(%)] χ2=4.447 0.035
20(76.9) 26(52.0)
6(23.1) 24(48.0)
生长模式[个(%)] χ2=13.946 0.001
内生性 7(26.9) 0(0)
外凸率<50% 11(42.3) 28(56.0)
外凸率≥50% 8(30.8) 22(44.0)
侧别[个(%)] χ2=0.089 0.766
左肾 16(61.5) 29(58.0)
右肾 10(38.5) 21(42.0)
极性[个(%)] χ2=0.218 0.897
上极 8(30.8) 18(36.0)
中极 11(42.3) 20(40.0)
下极 7(26.9) 12(24.0)
2. 位置:漏诊组较检出组病灶位置深,其中位于肾背侧者8例,位于肾内侧者12例,差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组病灶侧别、极性差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05,表2)。
3. 生长模式:漏诊组病灶生长模式表现为外凸性19例(73.1%,19/26),内生性7例(26.9%,7/26),7例最大径为(1.8±0.4)cm(范围0.8~2.3 cm);检出组病灶生长模式均表现为外凸性,2组比较差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05,表2图1)。
图1 超声漏诊小肾肿瘤CT图。图a、b:最大径约1.6 cm右肾肿瘤。图a为横断面,病灶位于腹侧外侧,完全内生性,图b为冠状面,病灶位于中部。图c、d:最大径约1.2 cm左肾肿瘤。图c为横断面,病灶位于背侧内侧,外凸率≥50%,图d为冠状面,病灶位于上极

注:白色箭头指向病灶,红色实线将肾划分为腹/背侧,红色虚线将肾划分为内/外侧,蓝色实线为上、下极线

三、病灶超声表现及病理类型

2组SRM病理类型均以肾透明细胞癌多见,2组病灶病理类型比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05,表3)。检出组50个SRM病灶超声表现:最大径为3.25(2.60,3.62)cm,低回声病灶27个(54.0%,27/50),高回声病灶11个(22.0%,11/50),等回声病灶7个(14.0%,7/50),混合回声病灶5个(10.0%,5/50);检出组中≤2.5 cm病灶18个,其中高回声病灶9个(50.0%,9/18),低回声病灶5个(27.8%,5/18),等回声病灶2个(11.1%,2/18),混合回声病灶2个(11.1%,2/18)。
表3 超声漏诊组与检出组小肾肿瘤病灶病理类型比较
病理类型 漏诊组(n=26个) 检出组(n=50个) χ2 P
肾透明细胞癌 19(73.1) 42(84.0) 4.018 0.574
肾嗜酸细胞腺瘤 2(7.7) 2(4.0)
肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤 1(3.8) 3(6.0)
乳头状肾细胞癌 1(3.8) 1(2.0)
肾嫌色细胞癌 2(7.7) 2(4.0)
肾转移癌 1(3.8) 0(0)
CT/MRI测量检出组病灶最大径为2.90(2.27,3.52)cm,超声与CT/MRI成像测量SRM大小具有良好一致性(ICC=0.829,P<0.001)。

讨论

肾肿瘤发病率逐年升高,SRM约占其发病率的8.7%~25.4%,超声是肾肿瘤检测及初步评估的首选影像学方法8。SRM属于惰性肿瘤,但≤2.5 cm的SRM中60%~80%是恶性的9,因此,早期发现可提示临床早期治疗。
超声检测SRM敏感度与大小密切相关,病灶直径越小越易漏诊。本研究纳入山西省肿瘤医院连续十年≤4.0 cm SRM病例917例,超声漏诊率为2.7%,卢畅等5整理9篇文献回顾919例≤4.0 cm SRM,总结超声漏诊率为1.8%;本研究≤2.5 cm SRM超声漏诊率为6.7%,Jamis-Dow等10报道169例≤2.5 cm肾肿瘤,超声漏诊率为22%,结果差异考虑与样本量不同有关。另外本研究结果显示超声与CT/MRI在测量SRM大小方面存在良好一致性,与Kim等11研究结果一致。
通常来说,患者腹型肥胖、腹部脂肪层厚会对超声图像质量造成干扰,临床常以BMI值代表身体肥胖度,本研究发现超声对SRM的检出与患者BMI值有关,当患者BMI≥28.0 kg/m2时,超声检查易遗漏病灶,与既往研究结果一致12,分析其原因:患者皮下脂肪组织厚度增加,导致超声声束穿透差及声衰减严重,进而无法清晰成像。
临床医师术前利用CT/MRI横断面成像评估肿瘤分期和解剖结构13,而超声报告对肿瘤解剖学特征的不完整描述使肿瘤解剖位置成为影响超声检出SRM的重要因素14。(1)内生性肾肿瘤即完全被肾实质包裹的肿瘤,临床中较为少见,仅占SRM的8%15。有研究显示超声会漏诊<2 cm的内生性肾肿瘤16。本研究漏诊组26.9%的SRM为内生性,其最大径范围0.8~2.3 cm,CT/MRI图像显示未突出肾表面;检出组病灶均为外凸性,其最大径范围1.4~4.0 cm。分析漏诊原因可能是内生性瘤灶体积较小,假包膜未形成或较薄,因此瘤灶超声表现为边缘模糊17,与周围肾实质分界不清,占位效应不明显;另一方面内生性肿瘤位于肾实质深面,同时未引起局部肾轮廓的改变而更易漏诊。(2)本组资料中超声漏诊肾背侧或内侧病灶20例,占漏诊组的76.9%,与文献报道(85%,17/20)结果较一致18。分析其原因:肾是腹膜后位器官,肾背侧及近肾门部肿瘤位置深在,超声仅从侧腹部纵切及横切扫查,受观察切面限制易造成漏诊19
根据临床超声工作经验,如果已经从CT/MRI三维重建成像中获得病灶位置,那么病灶在超声上更易被扫查到20。Stock等21指出超声在肾横断面、冠状面及矢状面上定位瘤灶十分重要。具体来说,将探头置于侧腹部纵切从前到后扫查肾,显示肾冠状面,探头旋转90°经侧腹部横切从上到下扫查显示肾横断面,俯卧位或坐位经背部纵切从内到外扫查,显示肾矢状面。进行肾三个层面的超声扫查使平面的二维图像立体化,可能有助于减少SRM的超声漏诊。另外,超声对肾的仔细评估费时费力,检查时间过短也是漏诊SRM的影响因素,对于体积小、内生性、位置深的病灶,超声对肾扫查时间少于5 min将导致扫查不完整,增加瘤灶漏诊概率22。因此,熟悉易漏诊病灶解剖位置及三维切面扫查,在超声检出及定位SRM中起重要作用。
本研究SRM病理类型以肾透明细胞癌为主,检出组≤4.0 cm SRM中54.0%的病灶超声表现为低回声,22.0%表现为高回声,≤2.5 cm SRM中50.0%的病灶表现为高回声,27.8%表现为低回声。与相关研究结果较为一致,肾透明细胞癌声像图多表现为低回声,高回声次之,且肿瘤越小越易表现为高回声23,尤其当小的高回声病灶位于肾实质深方时,难以与肾窦回声区分而被遗漏。
本研究存在一定局限性,本文为回顾性单中心研究,未来还需要多中心数据加以证实。本文未评估操作者经验、超声图像质量等因素对超声检出SRM造成的影响。
综上所述,SRM超声漏诊因素包括患者体型肥胖、病灶体积小尤其是≤2.5 cm、位于肾背侧或内侧、呈内生性生长等,重视病灶解剖特征,通过横切面、冠状面及矢状面三维切面扫查肾,充分显示病灶解剖位置,可减少SRM的超声漏诊。
1
Capitanio U, Bensalah K, Bex A, et al. Epidemiology of renal cell carcinoma[J]. Eur Urol, 2019, 75(1): 74-84.

2
Gill IS, Aron M, Gervais DA, et al. Clinical practice. Small renal mass[J]. N Engl J Med, 2010, 362(7): 624-634.

3
Klatte T, Patard JJ, de Martino M, et al. Tumor size does not predict risk of metastatic disease or prognosis of small renal cell carcinomas[J]. J Urol, 2008, 179(5): 1719-1726.

4
Tsili AC, Andriotis E, Gkeli MG, et al. The role of imaging in the management of renal masses[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2021, 141: 109777.

5
卢畅, 赵佳琦, 张正委. 超声漏诊小肾癌1例并国内文献复习[J]. 第二军医大学学报, 2021, 42(12): 1438-1443.

6
李丛, 黄备建, 李艺, 等. 医用超声设备腹部基础成像图像质量对比评价[J]. 中国医疗设备, 2020, 35(2): 5-11.

7
中国肥胖问题工作组. 中国成人超重和肥胖症预防与控制指南(节录)[J]. 营养学报, 2004(1): 1-4.

8
Burgan CM, Sanyal R, Lockhart ME. Ultrasound of renal masses[J]. Radiol Clin North Am, 2019, 57(3): 585-600.

9
Johnson DC, Vukina J, Smith AB, et al. Preoperatively misclassified, surgically removed benign renal masses: a systematic review of surgical series and United States population level burden estimate[J]. J Urol, 2015, 193(1): 30-35.

10
Jamis-Dow CA, Choyke PL, Jennings SB, et al. Small (< or = 3-cm) renal masses: detection with CT versus US and pathologic correlation[J]. Radiology, 1996, 198(3): 785-788.

11
Kim SSY, Breau R, Mallick R, et al. Ultrasound correlates highly with cross sectional imaging for small renal masses in a contemporary cohort[J]. Urology, 2022, 165: 212-217.

12
Maar M, Lee J, Tardi A, et al. Inter-transducer variability of ultrasound image quality in obese adults: qualitative and quantitative comparisons[J]. Clin Imaging, 2022, 92: 63-71.

13
Singla N, Huang C, Benfante NE, et al. Open partial nephrectomy with kidney split: effective surgical approach to resect completely endophytic tumors[J]. Urol Oncol, 2021, 39(6): 371.e1-371.e5.

14
Tao L, Fan J, Zhan W, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound manifestations of renal masses undetectable on conventional ultrasound[J]. Front Oncol, 2022, 12: 943960.

15
Ficarra V, Novara G, Secco S, et al. Preoperative aspects and dimensions used for an anatomical (PADUA) classification of renal tumours in patients who are candidates for nephron-sparing surgery[J]. Eur Urol, 2009, 56(5): 786-793.

16
Marconi L, Dabestani S, Lam TB, et al. Systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy of percutaneous renal tumour biopsy[J]. Eur Urol, 2016, 69(4): 660-673.

17
蒋珺, 陈亚青, 周永昌. 不同大小肾透明细胞癌的超声造影声像图特征[J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2008, 5(2): 295-302.

18
王元元, 朱嘉宁, 李静波, 等. 常规超声及超声造影诊断小肾肿瘤的价值[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2022, 38(7): 803-806.

19
Chen AF, McGahan JP, Wilson MD, et al. Are There Ultrasound Features to Distinguish Small (<3 cm) Peripheral Renal Angiomyolipomas From Renal Cell Carcinomas?[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2023, 42(9): 2083-2094.

20
Wylie B, Necas M, Heaney A. Visualisation of focal renal lesions on ultrasound: a review of 518 lesions with contrast CT correlation[J]. Australas J Ultrasound Med, 2020, 23(4): 248-254.

21
Stock KF, Slotta-Huspenina J, Kübler H, et al. Innovative Ultraschalldiagnostik bei Nierentumoren[J]. Urologe A, 2019, 58(12): 1418-1428.

22
Szopiński T, Keller E, Záťura F. Kidney ultrasound - what is important for a urologist?[J]. J Ultrason, 2016, 16(67): 371-377.

23
Sidhar K, McGahan JP, Early HM, et al. Renal cell carcinomas: sonographic appearance depending on size and histologic type[J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2016, 35(2): 311-320.

Outlines

/

Copyright © Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), All Rights Reserved.
Tel: 010-51322630、2632、2628 Fax: 010-51322630 E-mail: csbjb@cma.org.cn
Powered by Beijing Magtech Co. Ltd