摘要
目的探讨超声造影在乳腺癌疗效评估中的应用价值。方法选取55例乳腺癌患者作为研究对象,在患者进行新辅助化疗前后分别采取超声造影和普通乳腺超声检查,对比2种检查方法对癌病灶检出率、新辅助化疗前后病灶大小、ROI参数变化对比。结果超声造影对癌病灶阳性检出率明显高于普通乳腺超声(P <0. 05); 2种检查方式在新辅助化疗前病灶大小测量值(横径、上下径)无统计学差异(P> 0. 05),新辅助化疗后,超声造影检查新辅助化疗后病灶大小测量值明显小于新辅助化疗前(P <0. 05);新辅助化疗前后RT、WIS、TTP对比无统计学差异(P> 0. 05),新辅助化疗后,超声造影检查新辅助化疗后AUC、PI明显小于新辅助化疗前(P <0. 05)。结论超声造影对乳腺癌诊断率高、灵敏度强,可科学评估乳腺癌新辅助化疗后的临床疗效,具有较高的临床指导意义,可将其作为疗效评定的辅助手段。
Objective To investigate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in evaluating the efficacy of breast cancer. Methods Fifty-five patients with breast cancer who were treated were selected as the study object. Ultrasonography and normal breast ultrasound were performed before and after neoadjuvant neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Contrast two methods to detect cancer lesions rate of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before and after the lesion size,ROI parameters change contrast. Results The positive rate of CEUS in carcinomas was significantly higher than that in normal mammograms( P < 0. 05). There were no significant difference between the two methods in the size of neoadjuvant chemotherapy before and after the adjuvant chemotherapy( P> 0. 05). After neoadjuvant chemotherapy,the measurement of lesion size after neoadjuvant chemotherapy was significantly less than that before neoadjuvant chemotherapy( P < 0. 05). There were no significant difference in RT,WIS and TTP before and after neoadjuvant chemotherapy( P > 0. 05) Neoadjuvant chemotherapy,ultrasound contrast-enhanced neoadjuvant chemotherapy AUC,PI was significantly less than before neoadjuvant chemotherapy( P < 0. 05). Conclusion CEUS has a high diagnostic rate and sensitivity for breast cancer,which can scientifically evaluate the clinical efficacy of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer,which has a high clinical significance and can be used as a curative effect Auxiliary means.
作者
袁靖
王绮
郭海燕
YUAN Jing;WANG Qi;GUO Haiyan(The Second People's Hospital of Xuchang,Xuchang,461000)
出处
《实用癌症杂志》
2019年第3期494-496,共3页
The Practical Journal of Cancer
关键词
超声造影
乳腺癌
疗效评估
Ultrasound contrast
Breast cancer
Efficacy evaluation