Etiology of Small Echogenic Renal Masses

Kwong, Austin; Mitchell, Ana; Wang, Danielle; McGahan, John P.

doi:10.1002/jum.15946

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Doshi 21 studied 161 hyperechoic renal masses and found 1 presumed RCC among this group on follow‐up examination. Kwong 22 found that of 70 hyperechoic renal masses <2 cm, one lesion measuring between 1 and 2 cm was an oncocytic tumor. In de Silva's series, 3 it was difficult to determine what was the smallest size RCC detected among their echogenic renal masses.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are There Ultrasound Features to Distinguish Small (<3 cm) Peripheral Renal Angiomyolipomas From Renal Cell Carcinomas?

Chen

McGahan

Wilson

et al. 2023

J of Ultrasound Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundSmall echogenic renal masses are usually angiomyolipomas (AMLs), but some renal cell carcinomas (RCCs) can be echogenic and confused with an AML.ObjectivesThis is a study to evaluate any distinguishing demographic and sonographic features of small (<3 cm) peripheral AMLs versus peripheral RCCs.MethodsThis is a HIPAA‐compliant retrospective review of the demographics and ultrasound features of peripheral renal AMLs compared with a group of peripheral RCCs. All AMLs had confirmation of macroscopic fat as noted on thin‐cut CT or fat‐saturation MRI sequence images. All RCCs were pathologically proven. Statistical analysis was used to compare findings in the two groups.ResultsThere were a total of 52 patients with 56 AMLs, compared with 42 patients with 42 RCCs. There were 42 females in the AML group versus 10 females in the RCC group (P < .0001). The AML diameters (15.7 mm × 12.0 mm) were statistically significantly smaller (Plargest = .0085, Psmallest < .001) than the diameters of the RCCs (19.9 mm × 18.5 mm). Ultrasound features found to be statistically different between the two groups were the ratio of the largest dimension to the smallest dimension (P < .001), a lobulated versus smooth margin of the AML (26 vs 30) compared with the RCC group (3 vs 39) (P = .0012), and an “unusual” versus a round shape (P < .001) of the AML group (45 vs 11) compared with the RCC group (9 vs 33). In the multivariable model, the patient sex, margin, and mass shape were predictive of AML, with an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.92.ConclusionFor a small (<3 cm) peripheral echogenic mass in a female patient, a lobulated lesion with an unusual shape is highly predictive of being an AML.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are There Ultrasound Features to Distinguish Small (<3 cm) Peripheral Renal Angiomyolipomas From Renal Cell Carcinomas?

Chen

McGahan

Wilson

et al. 2023

J of Ultrasound Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Predictors of Benignity for Small Endophytic Echogenic Renal Masses

Chen,

Le Dinh,

McGahan

et al. 2024

J of Ultrasound Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectivesTo evaluate for distinguishing demographic and sonographic features of small (<3 cm) endophytic angiomyolipomas (AMLs) that differentiate them from endophytic renal cell carcinomas (RCCs).MethodsThis is a Health Insurance Portablitiy and Accountablity Act (HIPAA)‐compliant retrospective review of the demographics and ultrasound features of endophytic renal AMLs compared to a group of endophytic RCCs. AMLs were confirmed by identifying macroscopic fat on computed tomography (CT) or magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), while RCCs were pathologically proven. Statistical analysis was used to compare findings in the 2 groups.ResultsThere were a total of 66 patients with 66 AMLs, and 28 patients with 28 RCCs. Of the AMLs, 57 of 66 were in females, while 10 of the 28 RCC cases were in females (P < .0001). The mean AML long and short diameters were 11.0 × 9.3 mm and were statistically significantly smaller (P < .0001) than the diameters of the RCCs (23.4 × 22.1 mm). Likewise, the ratio of the long axis to the short axis measurement was statistically significantly different between the 2 groups (P < .0001). Of the studied sonographic features, statistically different features between AMLs and RCCs included an oval versus a round shape (P < .001), respectively, and the presence versus absence of an echogenic margin, respectively. Location of the mass, mass homogeneity, mass lobulation, and presence of cystic components were not distinguishing features using P < .01 levels.ConclusionFor an endophytic echogenic mass in a female patient, a small size with an oval shape and an echogenic margin is statistically more likely to be an AML than an RCC, which may be helpful with management decisions.

show abstract

Etiology of Small Echogenic Renal Masses

Cited by 2 publications

References 28 publications

Are There Ultrasound Features to Distinguish Small (<3 cm) Peripheral Renal Angiomyolipomas From Renal Cell Carcinomas?

Are There Ultrasound Features to Distinguish Small (<3 cm) Peripheral Renal Angiomyolipomas From Renal Cell Carcinomas?

Predictors of Benignity for Small Endophytic Echogenic Renal Masses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About