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

Abstract

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 (&lt;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 &lt; .0001). The AML diameters (15.7 mm × 12.0 mm) were statistically significantly smaller (Plargest = .0085, Psmallest &lt; .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 &lt; .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 &lt; .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 (&lt;3 cm) peripheral echogenic mass in a female patient, a lobulated lesion with an unusual shape is highly predictive of being an AML.