MRI与CT在肝硬化背景下对肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值分析

目的:分析MRI与CT在肝硬化背景下对肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值。方法:选取2020年1月—2022年12月睢宁县人民医院收治的30例肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节患者,所有患者均接受MRI和CT检查,以病理检查结果为诊断金标准。对比两种检查方式对患者的肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值。结果:MRI检查对恶性占位肝癌、良性病变海绵状血管瘤、局部病灶性结节增生、肝硬化结节、肝腺癌的检出率与CT检查对比,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);MRI诊断肝脏恶性结节的特异度、准确度、灵敏度、阳性预测率、阴性预测率均高于CT检查。结论:肝硬化背景下,MRI和CT对良恶性结节的诊断均具有一定的价值,但是相较于CT,MRI检查诊断恶性结节的灵敏度、特异度和准确度较高,更适合临床选择作为鉴别诊断影像学技术。

CT联合MRI检查对肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值

目的探讨CT联合MRI检查对肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值。方法选取莆田学院附属医院2017年3月—2019年2月收治的肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节患者66例,所有患者均接受CT及MRI检查,以手术病理结果为“金标准”,比较CT、MRI、CT联合MRI的诊断效能,包括灵敏度、特异度及准确度。结果CT联合MRI诊断灵敏度、特异度、准确度高于CT、MRI单一诊断(P<0.05)。结论CT联合MRI对肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值较高。

MRI与CT在肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节鉴别诊断中应用价值对比

目的:探究在肝硬化背景下采用磁共振(MRI)及计算机断层扫描(CT)鉴别诊断肝脏良恶性结节的应用价值。方法:回顾性分析2018年9月-2021年7月于某院就诊的肝硬化背景下肝脏结节患者100例的临床资料,所有患者均行MRI及CT检查。以病理结果作为诊断“金标准”,分析MRI及CT检查在肝脏良恶性结节中的检出情况,并分析在肝硬化背景下MRI及CT检查诊断肝脏良恶性结节中的应用价值,另计算MRI及CT检查与病理结果的一致性。结果:MRI及CT在肝癌、海绵状血管瘤、局灶性结节性增生、肝腺瘤检出中比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);MRI检查在肝硬化背景下鉴别诊断肝脏良恶性结节中特异度为92.73%,准确度为95.00%,阳性预测值为91.67%,均高于CT检查的78.18%、83.00%、76.92%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);灵敏度及阴性预测值比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);kappa检验显示:MRI与病理检查结果的一致性良好(kappa值=0.900,P=0.000);CT与病理检查结果的一致性尚可(kappa值=0.661,P=0.000)。结论:MRI及CT检查在肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的鉴别诊断中具有较高的临床应用价值,其中MRI检查具有更高的特异度及准确度,且与病理结果一致性较强,诊断效果更高,可将其作为鉴别诊断的首选方法,值得推广。

探讨CT联合MRI检查对肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值

评价CT联合MRI检查对肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的诊断价值。方法:收集2018年2月至2020年10月来我院就诊的肝脏孤立性结节的肝硬化患者为研究主体展开调查,从中抽选出64例全部接受肝脏CT和MRI检查,对比分析两组患者的肝脏良恶性结节的诊断准确率以及各个图像特征。结果:经检查结果显示,MRI检查对肝癌、肝脏良性结节和肝硬化结节的诊断检出率均比CT结果高;以病理结果为金标准,MRI诊断肝脏良恶性结节及肝癌的诊断效能指标均比对照组高,对比差异P<0.05。结论:临床针对肝硬化背景下肝脏良恶性结节的诊断中使用MRI和CT诊断均能进行鉴别判断,但诊断效能相比,MRI的诊断准确率相对更高,值得临床深入探究和讨论。

Differentiation between malignant and benign nodules in the liver: Use of contrast C^3-MODE technology

AIM: To investigate the value of contrast-enhanced C3-MODE technology in differentiating malignant nodules of liver from the benign ones. METHODS: Forty-six nodules in 36 patients (29 men and 7 women) were studied by contrast-enhanced C3-MODE technology and contrast-enhanced CT in 1 wk before the biopsy or operation. A low MI monitor and a high MI flash imaging were intermittently performed. After the injection of contrast agent, the period from 10 to 30 s and the time later than 100 s were respectively defined as early arterial phase and the late phase. The vascularities of the liver nodules in the two phases were combined for differential diagnosis. Corresponding to the pathological diagnosis, the accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of contrast-enhanced C3-MODE technology were compared to those of contrast-enhanced CT. RESULTS: By C3-MODE technology, 33 of the 46 liver nodules were demonstrated as defected area in the late phase and were diagnosed as malignant tumors. Of them, 28 with hypervascularity in the early arterial phase were assessed as hepatocellular carcinoma, the other five nodules with rim-like enhancement in the early arterial phase were diagnosed as metastatic tumors. Thirteen nodules were shown as iso or hypervascularity in the late phase as well as centripetal filling in the early arterial phase and we made a diagnosis of hemangioma. Corresponding to the pathological results, the sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of contrast-enhanced C3-MODE technology in differentiating malignant and benign nodules in the liver were 97.0%, 92.3% and 95.7%, respectively. With comparison to those of contrast CT (sensitivity, 94.1%; specificity, 91.7%; accuracy, 93.5%), the difference was not significant. CONCLUSION: Contrast-enhanced C3-MODE technology can effectively differentiate malignant liver tumors from the benign nodules. It highly agrees diagnostically with the pathology. We suggest that it provides a new approach for differential diagnosis of liver nodules in addition to contrast-enhanced CT.