期刊文献+

MR扩散加权成像中应用ADC值鉴别良、恶性淋巴结的Meta分析 被引量:13

Differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes with ADC value on diffusion MR: a Meta- analysis
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的 采用循证医学Meta分析的方法,探讨DWI-ADC值鉴别良、恶性淋巴结的可行性.方法 检索1998年至今公开发表的良、恶性淋巴结DWI-ADC值差别研究的中、英文文献,对符合纳入条件的原始研究进行质量评价,提取特征信息.对提取的信息进行异质性检验.根据异质性检验结果选择相应的效应量合并模型.合并效应量为ADC值差别的加权平均差和诊断性试验的敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、诊断比值比,计算验前、验后概率,以定性和定量的方法研究良、恶性淋巴结DWI-ADC值差别及临床应用价值.结果 符合纳入标准的文献共15篇,研究对象735例,淋巴结1963个.Meta回归分析、亚组分析和敏感性分析显示,2项良性淋巴结来自健康对照和1项采用化学位移选择法压脂技术的研究,对汇总结果影响较大,合并效应量时予以剔除.恶性淋巴结与良性淋巴结的ADC值的加权均数差值为-0.355×10-3mm2/s[95%可信区间(CI) -0.423×10-3~-0.288×10-3mm2/s].虽然各研究鉴别良、恶性淋巴结采用的ADC界值不同,但鉴别良、恶性淋巴结的诊断指标稳定,汇总敏感性、特异性、阳性似然比、阴性似然比、诊断比值比和汇总受试者工作特征曲线下面积分别为:0.87(95% CI:0.79~0.92)、0.87 (95% CI:0.82~0.90)、6.5 (95% CI:4.7~9.2)、0.15(95% CI:0.09~0.25)、43 (95% CI:21~87)、0.93 (95% CI:0.90~0.95),ADC提示良性的淋巴结验后恶性率为6%,ADC提示恶性的淋巴结验后恶性率为72%.结论 恶性淋巴结ADC值低于良性淋巴结,是一种准确性较高的鉴别良、恶性淋巴结的无创性检查方法. Objective To summarize the diagnostic efficacy of ADC value for differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes on diffusion MRI with Meta-analysis. Methods Published papers on differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes with ADC value were searched and reviewed.Quality evaluation was performed for the eligible papers before data extraction.Test for heterogeneity was performed first,then appropriate model was selected to calculate the weighted mean difference,sensitivity,specificity,positive likelihood ratio,negative likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio,pretest and posttest probability.The potential of ADC value for differentiation of benign and malignant lymph nodes was assessed qualitatively and quantitatively.Results Fifteen papers including 735 cases and 1963 lymph nodes were selected.According to Meta-regression analysis,subgroup analysis and robust analysis,two studies with benign lymph nodes in patients with benign lesion and one study using chemical shift saturation technique were excluded because of their impact on the robustness of the pooled results. The weighted mean difference (WMD) between malignant and benign lymph nodes was -0.355 × 10-3mm2/s[95% confidence interval (CI):-0.423 ×10-3- -0.288 × 10-3 mm2/s].Although the cutoff of ADC value for differentiation in each study was different,the diagnostic efficacy was stable,the pooled sensitivity,specificity,positive likelihood ratio,negative likelihood ratio,diagnostic odds ratio and area under summarized receiver operator's curve were 0.87 (95% CI:0.79-0.92),0.87 (95% CI:0.82-0.90),6.5 (95% CI:4.7-9.2),0.15 (95% CI:0.09-0.25 ),43 ( 95% CI:21-87 ),0.93 ( 95 % CI:0.90-0.95 ).The posttest malignancy probability of benign lymph node indicated by ADC was 6%,while that of malignant lymph node was 72%.Conclusion The ADC value can be used to differentiate benign and malignant lymph nodes with good sensitivity and specificity noninvasively.
出处 《中华放射学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2012年第2期152-157,共6页 Chinese Journal of Radiology
关键词 META分析 磁共振成像 弥散 淋巴转移 诊断 鉴别 Meta analysis Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging Lymphatic metastasis Diagnosis, differential
  • 相关文献

参考文献3

二级参考文献40

  • 1郭佑民,张少娟,杨健,李洪伦,汪军峰,陈敏.CT动脉造影对肺动脉栓塞诊断价值的Meta分析[J].中华放射学杂志,2004,38(7):706-710. 被引量:15
  • 2刘妍,夏黎明,邹明丽,王承缘.磁共振扩散加权成像及ADC值测量在淋巴结病变鉴别诊断中的价值[J].中国医学影像技术,2006,22(5):730-732. 被引量:47
  • 3Juvela S, Porras M, Heiskanen O. Natural history of unruptured intracranial aneurysm: a long-term follow-up study. J Neurosurg,1993, 79: 174-182.
  • 4Heiserman JE, Dean BL, Hodak JA, et al. Neurologic complication of cerebral angiography. AJNR, 1994,15:1401-1407.
  • 5Futatsuya R, Seto H, Kamei T, et al. Clinical utility of three-dimensional time-of-flight magnetic resonance angiography for the evaluation of intracranial aneurysms. Clin Imaging, 1994, 18:101-106.
  • 6Liang EY, Chan M, Hsiang JH, et al. Detection and assessment of intracranial aneurysms: value of CT angiography with shaded-surface display. AJR,1995 ,165 : 1497-1502.
  • 7The Cochrane methods group on systematic review of screening and diagnosis tests: recommended methods, http://www. Cochrane. org/docs/sadtdocl. htm.
  • 8Sackett DL, Straus S, Richardson S, et al. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd Ed. London:Churchill Livingstone, 2000. 169-182.
  • 9Lau J. Meta-tet verssion 0. 6. Boston : New England Medical Center,1997. http://www. Cochrane. org/docs. sadt. htm.
  • 10Moses LE, Shapiro D, Littenberg B. Combining independent studies of a diagnostic test into a summary ROC curve: data-analytic approaches and some additional considerations. Stat Med, 1993,12.1293-1316.

共引文献49

同被引文献123

引证文献13

二级引证文献82

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部