期刊文献+

加权评分法在乳腺结节良恶性鉴别诊断中的应用价值研究 被引量:18

Ultrasound Weighted Score in Differentiating Benign and Malignant Breast Nodules
下载PDF
导出
摘要 背景乳腺超声美国放射学会乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)临床应用越来越广泛,但其评分细则缺乏统一标准。目的探讨加权评分法在乳腺结节良恶性鉴别诊断中的应用价值。方法选择2012年1月——2016年12月于中日友好医院超声诊断科进行乳腺超声检查的患者185例、共194个结节(恶性结节103个,良性结节91个),参照《中国浅表器官超声检查指南》对结节的形态、方位、边缘、回声模式、后方回声特征、周边高回声晕环、微钙化等进行描述并进行乳腺结节良恶性鉴别诊断。对每个恶性超声征象(形态不规则、非平行方位、边缘不规整、低回声、后方回声衰减、高回声晕环、微小钙化灶)进行特异度研究并对其进行评分,将所有恶性征象评分相加得出加权评分总分。以1.5 cm为界,分为小结节(≤1.5 cm,81个)和大结节(>1.5 cm,113个),研究加权评分对大、小结节良恶性的诊断价值。结果恶性结节加权评分大于良性结节(P<0.05)。加权评分法诊断乳腺结节良恶性的最佳诊断截点是5.5分,灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、正确率分别为87.4%、81.3%、84.1%、85.1%、84.5%;加权评分法诊断小结节良恶性的最佳诊断截点是4.5分,灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、正确率分别为80.5%、65.0%、70.2%、76.5%、72.8%;加权评分法诊断大结节良恶性的最佳诊断截点是5.5分,诊断灵敏度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、正确率分别为93.5%、90.2%、92.1%、92.0%、92.0%。加权评分法诊断大结节良恶性的正确率高于小结节(P<0.001)。结论加权评分法在乳腺结节良恶性鉴别诊断方面有较高的应用价值,尤其是对大结节的良恶性鉴别诊断要优于小结节。 Background The clinical application of breast ultrasound BI-RADS grading system is becoming more and more widespread.However,there is no unified standard for scoring rules.Objective To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of weighted score in differentiating benign and malignant breast nodules.Methods A total of 185 patients,194 nodules(103 malignant nodules and 91 benign nodules) in total underwent breast ultrasonography in the Department of Ultrasound of China- Japan Friendship Hospital were selected from January 2012 to December 2016.The shape,orientation,margin,echo pattern, echo halo,posterior acoustic features,and microcalcification of nodules were described in accordance with the Guidelines for Ultrasound Examination of Superficial Organs in China.Differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast nodules was carried out.The specificity of each malignant ultrasound sign (irregular shape,non-parallel orientation,irregular margin, low echo,posterior echo attenuation,high echo halo,micro-calcification focus) was studied and the ultrasound signs were scored.The weighted total score was obtained by adding all malignant signs scores.Using 1.5 cm as the standard,the nodules were divided into small nodule(≤ 1.5 cm,81) and large nodule(>1.5 cm,113).The value of ultrasound weighted score in the diagnosis of benign and malignant nodules of different sizes was studied.Results The weighted score of malignant nodules was greater than that of benign nodules (P<0.05).For all nodules,the weighted score of 5.5 was the best diagnostic cutoff point and the diagnostic sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value and accuracy were 87.4%, 81.3%,84.1%,85.1%,84.5%,respectively.For small nodules(≤ 1.5 cm),the best cutoff point was 4.5,and diagnostic sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value,and accuracy were 80.5%,65.0%,70.2%, 76.5%,72.8%,respectively.For big nodules(>1.5 cm),the best cutoff point was 5.5,and the diagnostic sensitivity, specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value and accuracy were 93.5%,90.2%,92.1%,92.0%,92.0%, respectively.The accuracy of weighted scoring in the diagnosis of large nodules was higher than that of small nodules(P<0.001). Conclusion The weighted score method has high application value in differentiating benign and malignant breast nodules.In particular,the differential diagnosis between benign and malignant nodules is better than that of small nodules.
作者 武敬平 于蕾 赵玉珍 王瑛 郭丹丹 刘健 WU Jingping;YU Lei;ZHAO Yuzhen;WANG Ying;GUO Dandan;LIU Jian(Department of Ultrasound,China-Japan Friendship Hospital,Beijing 100029,China;Department of Ultrasound,Peking University People's Hospital,Beijing 100044,China)
出处 《中国全科医学》 CAS 北大核心 2019年第3期270-274,共5页 Chinese General Practice
基金 首都临床特色应用研究与成果推广重点课题(Z151100004015116)
关键词 乳腺疾病 结节病 超声检查 诊断 鉴别 加权评分法 Breast diseases Sarcoidosis Ultrasonography Diagnosis,differential Weighted score
  • 相关文献

参考文献4

二级参考文献38

  • 1全国肿瘤防治研究办公室,卫生部卫生信息中心.中国试点市、县恶性肿瘤的发病与死亡(1993-1997).北京:中国医药科技出版社,2002.
  • 2Stewart BW,Kleihues P. World cancer report. IARC Press,Lyon,2003.
  • 3Althuis MD, Dozier JM, Anderson WF, et al. Global trends inbreast cancer incidence and mortality 197-1997. Int J Epidemiol,2005,34(2):405-412.
  • 4郝捷,赵平,陈万青.2011中国肿瘤登记年报.北京:军事医学科学出版社,2012.
  • 5陈竺.全国第三次死因回顾滿样调查报告.北京:中国协和医科大学出版社,2008.
  • 6Ferlay J,Shin HR,Bray F,et al. GLOBOCAN 2008 vl.2,CancerIncidence and Mortality Worldwide : IARC CancerBase No. 10[internet]. Lyon, France: International Agency for Research onCancer; 2010. Available from: http://glofiocan.iarc.fr,accessedon 30/10/2011.
  • 7Yang L,Parkin DM,Ferlay J,et al. Estimates of cancer incidencein China for 2000 and projections for 2005. Cancer EpidemiolBiomarkers Prev,2005,14(1) :243-250.
  • 8Zhao P, Dai M, Chen WQ, et al. Cancer trends in China. Jpn JClin Oncol,2010,40:281-285.
  • 9Madigan MP,Ziegler RG, Benichou J, et al. Proportion of breastcancer cases in the United States explained by well-establishedrisk factors. JNatl Cancer Inst, 1995,87 : 1681-1685.
  • 10Tavani A, Braga C, La Vecchia C, et al. Attributable risks forbreast cancer in Italy : education, family history and reproductiveand hormonal factors. Int J Cancer, 1997,70: 159-163.

共引文献207

同被引文献205

引证文献18

二级引证文献43

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