High-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound to differentiate between clear cell renal cell carcinoma and angiomyolipoma

Background: To investigate the diagnostic efficacy of high-frame-rate contrast-enhanced ultrasound (H-CEUS) in differentiating between clear cell renal cell carcinoma (CCRCC) and angiomyolipoma (AML). Methods: A retrospective study was performed on the clinical data of 79 patients diagnosed with CCRCC and 31 patients diagnosed with AML at the First Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University between October 2022 and December 2023. Conventional ultrasound (US) and H-CEUS examinations were conducted on all patients prior to surgery, dynamic images were recorded from the US, and the qualitative and quantitative parameters of H-CEUS were collected. The χ² test and U test were employed to assess differences in clinical data, US characteristics, and qualitative and quantitative parameters of H-CEUS between the CCRCC and AML groups. The independent risk factors of CCRCC were identified using binary logistic regression. The receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to evaluate the diagnostic effectiveness of clinical + US and H-CEUS in differentiating between CCRCC and AML. Results: The CCRCC group and the AML group exhibited significant differences in patient gender, operation mode, nodular echo, and nodule blood flow (χ²=11.698, -, -,=10.582； P＜0.001，＜0.001，＜0.001， and =0.014, respectively). In addition, the H-CEUS qualitative analysis demonstrated significant differences between the AML group and the CCRCC group with respect to enhancement mode, regression mode, peak intensity, enhancement uniformity, no enhancement, and presence or absence of pseudocapsule (χ²=41.614，-，-，=2.758，=42.099，-； P＜0.001，＜0.001，＜0.001，0.097，＜0.001， and ＜0.001, respectively). The AT in the CCRCC group was significantly shorter than that in the AML group, as determined by quantitative analysis of H-CEUS (Z=-3.266, P=0.001). Furthermore, the PI, AS, and AUC exhibited significantly higher values in the CCRCC group compared to the AML group (Z=-2.043,=-2.545,=-3.565； P=0.041，=0.011, and ＜0.001, respectively). Logistic regression analysis indicated that only gender, nodule echo, the pseudocapsule, AS, and AUC of H-CEUS were independent risk factors of CCRCC. The ROC curve revealed that combining gender and nodule echo yielded a sensitivity of 92.4%, specificity of 64.5%, and an AUC of 0.847 in distinguishing between CCRCC and AML. When combining the H-CEUS parameters of pseudocapsule, AS, and AUC, the sensitivity, specificity, and AUC for distinguishing between CCRCC and AML were 84.8%, 96.8%, and 0.918, respectively. No statistically significant difference was observed in the diagnostic effectiveness of the two methods (Z=-1.286, P=0.198). However, H-CEUS demonstrated better AUC and specificity. Conclusions: H-CEUS enhances the sensitivity and specificity of differentiating between CCRCC and AML by improving the temporal resolution, offering a more precise diagnostic foundation for identifying the most appropriate therapy for patients.