Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for differentiating benign from malignant solid small renal masses: comparison with contrast-enhanced CT.

PURPOSE: The study aimed to compare the diagnostic efficiency of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) with that of contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in the evaluation of benign and malignant small renal masses (SRMs) (<4 cm) confirmed by pathology. METHODS: A total of 118 patients with 118 renal masses smaller than 4 cm diagnosed by both CEUS and CECT were enrolled in this study, including 25 benign lesions and 93 malignant lesions. All lesions were confirmed by histopathologic diagnosis after surgical resection. The diagnostic imaging studies of the patients were retrospectively reviewed by two independent ultrasonologists and two independent radiologists blinded to the CT or ultrasound findings and final histological results. All lesions on both CEUS and CECT were independently scored on a 3-point scale (1: benign, 2: equivocal, and 3: malignant). The concordance between interobserver agreement was interpreted using a weighted kappa statistic. The diagnostic efficiency of the evaluation of benign and malignant lesions was compared between CEUS and CECT. RESULTS: All the 118 included lesions were detected by both CEUS and CECT. In CEUS and CECT imaging evaluation of the 118 lesions, the weighted kappa value interpreting the concordance between interobserver agreement was 0.89 (95% CI 0.79-0.98) and 0.93 (95% CI 0.87-0.99), respectively. Both CEUS and CECT demonstrated good diagnostic performance in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant SRMs with sensitivity of 93.5% and 89.2%, specificity of 68% and 76%, PPV of 91.6% and 93.3%, NPV of 73.9% and 65.5%, and AUC of 0.808 and 0.826, respectively. There was no statistically significant difference in any of the diagnostic performance indices between these two methods (P > 0.05). However, the qualitative diagnosis of small papillary renal cell carcinoma (RCC) by CEUS was significantly better than that by CECT (P < 0.05), while there was no significant difference in qualitative diagnostic accuracy on other histotypes of SRMs between CEUS and CECT (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both CEUS and CECT imaging modalities are effective for the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant SRMs. Furthermore, CEUS may be more effective than CECT for the qualitative diagnosis of small papillary RCC.

[Analyses of super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with congestive heart failure: a multiple center trial].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence of super-response and the potential predictors related to super-response after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with congestive heart failure. METHODS: 190 patients [145 men and 45 women;age: (60.48 ± 11.91) years] underwent CRT between March 2001 and March 2012 were enrolled in this multi-center trial, of which, 54 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and 136 patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. These patients were followed up from 6 months to 11 years (mean 58 months) post CRT. RESULTS: Ten patients died within 6 months post CRT, the others were followed up for more than 6 months. At 6-month follow-up, 51 patients were identified as CRT super-responders (28.33%), 75 patients were CRT responders (41.67%) and 29 patients were CRT non-responders (16.11%), and 25 patients were CRT negative responders (13.89%). Super-response occurred more frequently in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients, while non-response most commonly occurred in ischemic cardiomyopathy patients (P < 0.05); patients in the negative response group had higher serum creatinine level than other groups (P < 0.05) , and patients in the non-response group and negative response group had higher pulmonary artery pressure than patients in the super-response group (P < 0.05); the average QRS duration was ≥ 160 ms before CRT, and the mean decrease was around 30 ms after CRT in the super-response group while the average QRS duration was 139 ms before CRT, and the mean reduction was around 8 ms after CRT in the negative response group (P < 0.05). LV lead position in the super-response group was usually in the middle and base of the heart, while in the negative response group it was more commonly located in the apex of the heart (P < 0.01) . CONCLUSIONS: LV lead located at the middle and pre-CRT ORS duration ≥ 160 ms are associated with super-response post CRT procedure in this patient cohort.