期刊文献+

锥光束乳腺CT与MRI、乳腺X线摄影对乳腺非肿块型病变大小测量的准确性分析 被引量:4

Comparative Analysis of Contrast-Enhanced Cone Beam Breast CT, MRI and Digital Mammography Measuresize of Breast Non-Mass Lesions
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的:探讨锥光束乳腺CT (Cone beam breast computed tomography,CBBCT)、MRI及数字化乳腺X线摄影(Digitalmammography,DM)术前测量乳腺非肿块型病变(Non-masslesion, NML)大小的准确性。方法:本研究回顾性分析我院2019年7月至2019年12月期间37例同时行CBBCT、MRI及DM检查提示NML且经病理证实的患者资料,以大体手术病理为金标准,应用Pearson相关分析对三种检查方法测量病变大小与病理标本大小进行对比。结果:CBBCT、MRI、DM所测量病变最大径分别为(4.60 ±1.70) cm、(4.70 ±2.12) cm、(5.75 ±2.33) cm,大体手术标本最大径为(4.50 ±2.12) cm;三种影像方法所测量病变大小均较病理标本大,三种影像方法与大体病理测量病变大小的相关性系数分别为r = 0.941、0.846、0.609 (P值均【0.001),其中CBBCT所测量病变大小与大体病理测量病变大小的相关性最高。结论:CBBCT测量NML大小的准确性高于MRI及DM。 Objective: To compare the accuracy of contrast enhanced cone beam breast CT (CE-CBBCT), MRI and digital mammography (DM) in the measurement of preoperative tumor sizes of breastnon-mass lesion (NML). Methods: In this retrospective study, the study cohort included 37 patients acquired between July 2019 and December 2019 with histopathologic confirmed NML findings. The patients in the cohort underwent all three modalities (CE-CBBCT, DM, and MRI). The sizes of NML measured from the three imaging modalities were compared using surgical pathology measurements as gold standard. Pearson coefficient was used to analyze the correlation between the sizes measured from images and pathological specimens. Results: The maximum diameters of CBBCT, MRI, DM and pathology specimen were (4.60 ±1.70) cm, (4.70 ±2.12) cm, (5.75 ±2.33) cm and (4.50 ±2.12) cm, respectively. The sizes of three imaging methods were larger than pathological specimens. The correlation coefficients (r) between the three imaging methods and pathology were 0.941, 0.846 and 0.609, respectively (P
出处 《临床医学进展》 2020年第10期2387-2392,共6页 Advances in Clinical Medicine
关键词 锥光束乳腺CT 磁共振成像 非肿块强化 乳腺癌 Cone Beam Breast CT Magnetic Resonance Imaging Non-Mass Enhancement Breast Carcinoma
  • 相关文献

参考文献8

二级参考文献42

  • 1全国肿瘤防治研究办公室,全国肿瘤登记中心,卫生部疾病预防控制局.中国肿瘤死亡报告——全国第三次死因回顾抽样调查[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2010:120-131.
  • 2Hata T, Takahashi H, Watanabe K, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging for preoperative evaluation of breast cancer: A compara- tive study with mammography and ultrasonography. J Am Coll Surg, 2004, 198(2) : 190-197.
  • 3Tavassoli F, Deville P. Pathology and genetics of tumors of the breast and female genital organs. Lyon : Lakcp Press, 2003 : 1-5.
  • 4Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N, et al. Radiologists" performance in the detection of benign and malignant masses with 3D automated breast ultrasound (ABUS). Eur J Radiol, 2011,78 ( 1 ) : 99-103.
  • 5Wang HY, Jiang YX, Zhu QL, et al. Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: A comparison between automatical- ly generated breast volume scans and handheld uhrasound exami- nations. EurJ Radiol, 2012,81(11):3190-3200.
  • 6Zhao H, Xu R, Ouyang Q, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is helpful in the differentiation of malignant and benign breast le- sions. Eur J Radiol, 2010,73(2) :288-293.
  • 7Schrading S, Simon B, Braun M, et al. MRl-guided breast biopsy: Influ- ence of choice of vacuum biopsy system on the mode of biopsy of MRI only suspicious breast lesions. AIR Am J Roentgenol, 2010,194(6) :1650-1657.
  • 8Tan T, Platel B, Huisman H, et al. Computer-aided lesion diag- nosis in automated 3-D breast ultrasound using coronal spieula- tion. IEEETrans Med Imaging, 2012,31(5):1034-1042.
  • 9Chen L, Chen Y, Diao XH, et al. Comparative study of auto- mated breast 3-D ultrasound and handheld B-mode ultrasound for differentiation of benign and malignant breast masses. Uhra- sound Med Biol, 2013,39(10):1735-1742.
  • 10International Agency for Research on Cancer. GLOBOCAN 2012 : Estimated Cancer Incidence,Mortality and Precalence Worldwide in 201[2R/0L]. http : //globocan.iarc.fr/Default.aspx.

共引文献137

同被引文献52

引证文献4

二级引证文献9

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