期刊文献+

超声造影定量分析在围绝经期子宫内膜良恶性疾病鉴别诊断中的价值 被引量:9

原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探讨超声造影(CEUS)定量分析参数在围绝经期子宫内膜良恶性疾病鉴别诊断中的价值,为临床诊治提供参考依据。方法选择宁波市镇海区妇幼保健计划生育服务中心2015年1月-2018年1月确诊的围绝经期子宫内膜病变患者105例,对超声资料进行回顾性分析,根据病理学结果分为良性组(65例)和恶性组(40例),比较两组患者腔内造影子宫内膜厚度,CEUS的上升时间(RT)、达峰时间(TTP)、基础强度(BI)和峰值强度(PI)等参数,以病理检验为"金标准",应用受试者工作曲线(ROC)比较不同超声参数在子宫内膜良恶性中的效能。结果恶性组患者的子宫内膜厚度和PI明显高于良性组,RT和TTP显著低于良性组,差异有统计学意义(均P<0. 05),而BI差异无统计学意义(P>0. 05)。ROC曲线显示,PI鉴别子宫内膜病变良恶性的曲线下面积(AUC)最高(AUC=0. 986,P<0. 05),其次为RT和TTP (AUC=0. 888,0. 862,均P<0. 05),内膜厚度(AUC=0. 778,P<0. 05),PI的AUC明显高于内膜厚度(Z=4. 410,P<0. 05)、RT (Z=3. 306,P<0. 05)和TTP (Z=3. 344,P<0. 05),其最佳截点为PI≥20. 61 db。PI鉴别子宫内膜良恶性病变的灵敏度、特异度和阳性预测值均明显高于内膜厚度、RT和TTP,差异有统计学意义(均P<0. 05),PI的阴性预测值明显高于内膜厚度,差异有统计学意义(P<0. 05),PI、RT和TTP的阴性预测值差异无统计学意义(均P>0. 05)。结论 CEUS在鉴别绝经后子宫内膜良恶性肿瘤中具有更好的诊断价值,其中,PI≥20. 61 db下的诊断灵敏度、特异度较高。
出处 《中国妇幼保健》 CAS 2019年第24期5788-5791,共4页 Maternal and Child Health Care of China
  • 相关文献

参考文献6

二级参考文献23

  • 1Deng-Fu Yao, Xin-Hua Wu, Yong Zhu, Gong-Sheng Shi, Zhi-Zhen Dong, Deng-Bing Yao, Wei Wu, Li-Wei Qiu and Xian-Yong Meng Nantong, China Research Center of Clinical Molecular Biology , Department of Pathology and Department of Gastroenterology , Affiliated Hos- pital of Nantong University,Department of Diagnostics , and Institute of Neurosciences , Nantong University,Nantong 226001, China.Quantitative analysis of vascular endothelial growth factor, microvascular density and their clinicopathologic features in human hepatocellular carcinoma[J].Hepatobiliary & Pancreatic Diseases International,2005,4(2):220-226. 被引量:81
  • 2Hong-Chuan Zhao,Rong Qin,Xiao-Xin Chen,Xia Sheng,Ji-Feng Wu,Dao-Bin Wang,Gui-Hua Chen.Microvessel density is a prognostic marker of human gastric cancer[J].World Journal of Gastroenterology,2006,12(47):7598-7603. 被引量:25
  • 3Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A. Cancer statistics [ J 1. CA Cancer J Clin,2015,65 ( 1 ) :5 - 29.
  • 4Smith RA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Brooks D, et al. Cancer screening in the United States ,2015 :A review of current American Cancer Soci- ety guidelines and current issues in cancer screening[ J]. CA Cancer J Clin,2015,65( 1 ) :30 -54.
  • 5Takeda T, Wong TF, Adachi T, et al. Guidelines for Office gynecology in Japan:Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Japan Asso- ciation of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2011 edition [ J 1. J Obstet Gynaecol Res,2012,38(4) :615 -631.
  • 6Breijer MC, Peeters JA, Opmeer BC, et al. Capacity of endometrial thickness measurement to diagnose endometrial carcinoma in asympto- matic postmenopausal women:a systematic review and meta-analysis [ J ]. Ultrasound Obstet Gyneco1,2012,40 ( 6 ) :621 - 629.
  • 7Dijkhuizen FP, Mol BW, Brolmann HA, et al. The accuracy of endom- etrial sampling in the diagnosis of patients with endometrial carcinoma and hyperplasia: a recta-analysis [ J ]. Cancer, 2000,89 ( 8 ) : 1765 - 1772.
  • 8Tangjitgamol S ,Anderson BO, See HT ,et al. Management of endome- trial cancer in Asia: consensus statement from the Asian Oneology Summit 2009 [ J 1. Lancet Onco1,2009,10 ( 11 ) : 1119 - 1127.
  • 9Siegel R, Ma J,Zou Z, et al. Cancer statistics [ J ]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2014,64( 1 ) :9 -29.
  • 10Fambrini M, Sorbi F, Sisti G, et al. Endometrial carcinoma in high-risk populations:is it time to consider a screening policy[ J]. Cytopatholo- gy,2014,25(2) :71 -77.

共引文献324

同被引文献84

引证文献9

二级引证文献40

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