4.3 Article

Non-invasive assessment of kidney allograft fibrosis with shear wave elastography: A radiological-pathological correlation analysis

期刊

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF UROLOGY
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 450-455

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/iju.13536

关键词

chronic allograft nephropathy; kidney; shear wave elastography; transplantation; ultrasound

资金

  1. Hong Kong Society of Nephrology Research Grant

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo evaluate the use of shear wave elastography in assessment of kidney allograft tubulointerstitial fibrosis. MethodsShear wave elastography assessment was carried out by two independent operators in kidney transplant recipients who underwent allograft biopsy for clinical indications (i.e. rising creatinine >15% or proteinuria >1g/day). Allograft biopsies were interpreted by the same pathologist according to the 2013 Banff Classification. ResultsA total of 40 elastography scans were carried out (median creatinine 172.5mol/L [interquartile range 133.8-281.8mol/L]). Median tissue stiffness at the cortex (22.6kPa [interquartile range 18.8-25.7kPa] vs 22.3kPa [interquartile range 19.0-26.5kPa], P=0.70) and medulla (15.0kPa [interquartile range 13.7-18.0kPa] vs 15.6kPa [interquartile range 14.4-18.2kPa]) showed no significant differences between the two observers. Interobserver agreement was satisfactory (intraclass correlation coefficient of the cortex 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-0.92 and intraclass correlation coefficient of the medulla 0.88, 95% CI 0.78-0.94). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves for detection of tubulointerstitial fibrosis were estimated to be 0.75 (95% CI 0.61-0.89), 0.85 (95% CI 0.75-0.95) and 0.65 (95% CI 0.53-0.78) for cortical, medullary tissue stiffness and serum creatinine, respectively. ConclusionsShear wave elastography can be used as a non-invasive tool to evaluate kidney allograft fibrosis with reasonable interobserver agreement and superior test performance to serum creatinine in detecting early tubulointerstitial fibrosis.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据