期刊文献+

数字乳腺断层摄影与MRI在乳腺良恶性疾病诊断中的比较 被引量:4

A comparison of diagnosis of benign and malignant breast diseases between digital breast tomosynthesis and MRI
原文传递
导出
摘要 目的探讨数字化乳腺摄影(digital mammography,DM)、数字乳腺断层摄影(digital breast tomosynthesis,DBT)和MRI在乳腺良恶性疾病诊断中的比较。方法回顾性分析2019年1月—2020年10月就诊蚌埠医学院第一附属医院,临床触诊怀疑存在乳腺病灶且同时行DM、DBT、MRI三种检查的116例乳腺疾病患者的资料。对所有图像中病灶参照乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)标准分类,以病理结果为“金标准”,评价DM+DBT和MRI对乳腺良恶性疾病的诊断效能、显示恶性病灶大小和相关恶性征象的能力、DM与DBT的辐射剂量差异。结果116例病灶中恶性86例,良性30例。DM+DBT、MRI诊断乳腺良恶性疾病的敏感度为88.4%、96.5%,特异度为86.7%、73.3%,准确度为87.9%、90.5%;两者的ROC曲线下面积(AUC)分别为0.911和0.948,差异无统计学意义(Z=1.084,P=0.278);DM+DBT与MRI均稍高估恶性肿瘤大小,但两者与病理大小均存在较好的一致性(均P>0.05);DM+DBT在显示微钙化方面优于MRI(χ^(2)=22.114,P<0.05),在显示胸大肌浸润和腋窝淋巴结方面低于MRI(χ^(2)=4.900、21.333,均P<0.05)。DM的平均辐射剂量为(1.574±0.422)mGy,DBT的平均辐射剂量为(2.534±0.521)mGy,DBT的辐射剂量高于DM的辐射剂量,差异具有统计学意义(t=-29.213,P<0.001)。结论DM+DBT可以较准确的诊断乳腺良恶性疾病,与MRI相似。而且简单易行,无须注射对比剂,建议有致密型乳腺内病变的患者常规行DM+DBT检查。 Objective To explore the diagnostic of benign and malignant breast diseases between digital mammography(DM),digital breast tomosynthesis(DBT)and MRI.Methods During the period from January 2019 to October 2020,116 patients with suspected lesions by palpation underwent further imaging exam in the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College.The DM,DBT and MRI were performed on all the patients.All breast lesions were analyzed according to BI-RADS.The pathological results were"gold standard"to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the DM+DBT and MRI in benign and malignant breast diseases.The ability of the DM+DBT and MRI to evaluate the actual lesion size and malignant signs.The difference of average glandular dose between DM and DBT.Results Among the 116 lesions,86 were malignant and 30 were benign.The sensitivity of DM+DBT was 88.4%,specificity 86.7%,and accuracy 87.9%.The sensitivity of MRI was 96.5%,specificity 73.3%,and accuracy 90.5%.The ROC area under the curve of DM+DBT and MRI for diagnosis of breast diseases were 0.911 and 0.948.There was no significant difference in AUC value between DM+DBT and MRI(Z=1.084,P=0.278).The DM+DBT and MRI were slightly overestimated the size of malignant tumor,but both of them were positively correlated with the pathological measurements(all P>0.05).The calcification was significantly higher for DM+DBT detection than for MRI(χ^(2)=22.114,P<0.05).The infiltration of pectoralis major and axillary lymph nodes were significantly higher for MRI than that for DM+DBT detection(χ^(2)=4.900,21.333,all P<0.05).The average glandular dose(AGD)of DM and DBT was(1.574±0.422)mGy and(2.534±0.521)mGy,respectively.The AGD of DBT was significantly higher than DM(t=-29.213,P<0.001).Conclusion DM+DBT can effectively diagnose benign and malignant breast lesions,providing a comparable efficiency to MRI.It is easy for patients and does not need contrast injections.DM+DBT is recommend for patients with dense gland type breast.
作者 王祥芝 汤晓敏 杨菊萍 高之振 谢宗玉 沈俊杰 WANG Xiang-zhi;TANG Xiao-min;YANG Ju-ping;GAO Zhi-zhen;XIE Zong-yu;SHEN Jun-jie(Department of Radiology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Bengbu Medical College,Bengbu,Anhui 233004,China;不详)
出处 《中华全科医学》 2021年第7期1186-1190,共5页 Chinese Journal of General Practice
基金 安徽省高校自然科学研究重点项目(KJ2019A0402) 蚌埠医学院转化医学重点专项(BYTM2019043)。
关键词 数字乳腺断层摄影 磁共振 乳腺疾病 肿瘤大小 钙化 Digital breast tomosynthesis Magnetic resonance imaging Breast diseases Tumor size Calcification
  • 相关文献

参考文献7

二级参考文献48

  • 1嵇鸣,苗华栋,叶春涛,臧雪如,朱震方.老年乳腺病变的MRI检查[J].老年医学与保健,2005,11(1):24-26. 被引量:2
  • 2Lucci A, Mccall LM, Beitsch PD, et al. Surgical complications as sociated with sentinel lyrnph node dissection (SLND) plus axilla- ry lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the A- merican College of Surgeons Ontology Group Trial Z0011 [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2007,25 (24) : 3657-3663.
  • 3Giuliano AE, Hunt KK,Ballman KV, et al. Axillary dissection vs no axillary dissection in women with invasive breast cancer and sentinel node metastasis: A randomized clinical trial[-J]. JAMA, 2011,305(6) :569-575.
  • 4Kijima Y, Yoshinaka H, Hirata M, et al. Number of axillary lymph node metastases determined by preoperative ultrasound is related to prognosis in patients with breast cancer[J]. Cancers (Basel), 2010,2 (I) : 20-31.
  • 5Houssami N, Ciatto S, Turner RM, et al. Preoperative ultrasound- guided needle biopsy of axillary nodes in invasive breast cancer: meta- analysis of its accuracy and utility in staging the axilla[J]. Ann Surg, 2011,254(2) :243-251.
  • 6Valente SA, Levine GM, Silverstein MJ, et al. Accuracy of pre- dicting axillary lymph node positivity by physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, and magnetic resonance ima- ging[J]. Ann Surg Oncol,2012,19(6) : 1825-1830.
  • 7Scaranelo AM, Eiada R,Jacks LM, et al. Accuracy of unenhanced MR imaging in the detection of axillary lymph node metastasis: study of reproducibility and reliability[J]. Radiology, 2012,262 (2) :425-434.
  • 8Harnan SE, Cooper KL, Meng Y, et al. Magnetic resonance for assessment of axillary lymph node status in early breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur J Surg Oncol, 2011,37(11) :928-936.
  • 9Tanaka K, Yamamoto D, Kanematsu S, et al. A four node axillary sampling trial on breast cancer patients[J]. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland) ,2006,15(2) :203-209.
  • 10Kim T,Giuliano AE, Lyman GH. Lymphatic mapping and senti- nel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma[J]. Cane- er,2006,106(1) :4-16.

共引文献1230

同被引文献35

引证文献4

二级引证文献6

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