肾脏内生回声性小肿块良性的预测因素

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q2 ACOUSTICS Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.1002/jum.16610
Anthony F Chen, Mary Le Dinh, John P McGahan, Machelle D Wilson, Michael C Larson
{"title":"肾脏内生回声性小肿块良性的预测因素","authors":"Anthony F Chen, Mary Le Dinh, John P McGahan, Machelle D Wilson, Michael C Larson","doi":"10.1002/jum.16610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate for distinguishing demographic and sonographic features of small (<3 cm) endophytic angiomyolipomas (AMLs) that differentiate them from endophytic renal cell carcinomas (RCCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":17563,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Predictors of Benignity for Small Endophytic Echogenic Renal Masses.\",\"authors\":\"Anthony F Chen, Mary Le Dinh, John P McGahan, Machelle D Wilson, Michael C Larson\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jum.16610\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To evaluate for distinguishing demographic and sonographic features of small (<3 cm) endophytic angiomyolipomas (AMLs) that differentiate them from endophytic renal cell carcinomas (RCCs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This 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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There 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.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>For 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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17563,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16610\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.16610","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的评估肾小球癌的人口统计学特征和超声特征:这是一项符合《健康保险便携性和责任法案》(HIPAA)的回顾性研究,研究对象是内生性肾AML与一组内生性RCC的人口统计学和超声波特征。AML是通过计算机断层扫描(CT)或磁共振成像(MRI)确定宏观脂肪来确诊的,而RCC则是经病理证实的。统计分析用于比较两组患者的检查结果:结果:共有 66 例 AML 患者和 28 例 RCC 患者。在 66 例 AML 患者中,57 例为女性,而在 28 例 RCC 患者中,10 例为女性(P 结 论):就女性患者的内生性回声肿块而言,从统计学角度来看,体积小、呈椭圆形且边缘有回声的肿块更有可能是 AML,而不是 RCC,这可能有助于做出治疗决定。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Predictors of Benignity for Small Endophytic Echogenic Renal Masses.

Objectives: To evaluate for distinguishing demographic and sonographic features of small (<3 cm) endophytic angiomyolipomas (AMLs) that differentiate them from endophytic renal cell carcinomas (RCCs).

Methods: This 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.

Results: There 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.

Conclusion: For 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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
4.30%
发文量
205
审稿时长
1.5 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine (JUM) is dedicated to the rapid, accurate publication of original articles dealing with all aspects of medical ultrasound, particularly its direct application to patient care but also relevant basic science, advances in instrumentation, and biological effects. The journal is an official publication of the American Institute of Ultrasound in Medicine and publishes articles in a variety of categories, including Original Research papers, Review Articles, Pictorial Essays, Technical Innovations, Case Series, Letters to the Editor, and more, from an international bevy of countries in a continual effort to showcase and promote advances in the ultrasound community. Represented through these efforts are a wide variety of disciplines of ultrasound, including, but not limited to: -Basic Science- Breast Ultrasound- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound- Dermatology- Echocardiography- Elastography- Emergency Medicine- Fetal Echocardiography- Gastrointestinal Ultrasound- General and Abdominal Ultrasound- Genitourinary Ultrasound- Gynecologic Ultrasound- Head and Neck Ultrasound- High Frequency Clinical and Preclinical Imaging- Interventional-Intraoperative Ultrasound- Musculoskeletal Ultrasound- Neurosonology- Obstetric Ultrasound- Ophthalmologic Ultrasound- Pediatric Ultrasound- Point-of-Care Ultrasound- Public Policy- Superficial Structures- Therapeutic Ultrasound- Ultrasound Education- Ultrasound in Global Health- Urologic Ultrasound- Vascular Ultrasound
期刊最新文献
The Median Nerve Displays Adaptive Characteristics When Exposed to Repeated Pinch Grip Efforts of Varying Rates of Force Development: An Ultrasonic Investigation. Ultrasound Pattern of Congenital Smooth Muscle Hamartoma of the Skin. Ultrasonographic Features of the Fallopian Tubes: An Overview on Main Tubal Pathologies. Clinical and Multimodal Imaging Features of Hepatic Inflammatory Pseudotumors: A Two-Center Retrospective Study. Sonographic Characterization of Red-Blue Neurofibromas in Patients With Neurofibromatosis Type 1: An Observational Prospective Study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1