| 吴嘉仪,罗葆明,梁铭,赵子卓,杨海云,欧冰.实时剪切波弹性成像调整圆形Q-Box法与手动描绘Q-Box法鉴别诊断乳腺良恶性病变[J].中国医学影像技术,2016,32(9):1361~1364 |
| 实时剪切波弹性成像调整圆形Q-Box法与手动描绘Q-Box法鉴别诊断乳腺良恶性病变 |
| Adjusted round Q-Box and manual tracing Q-Box of real-time shear wave elastography in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions |
| 投稿时间：2016-03-22 修订日期：2016-07-04 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.1003-3289.2016.09.012 |
| 中文关键词: 乳腺肿瘤 超声检查 剪切波弹性成像 |
| 英文关键词:Breast neoplasms Ultrasonography Shear wave elastography |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1827 |
| 全文下载次数: 1084 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较实时剪切波弹性成像（SWE）技术探讨调整圆形Q-Box法和手动描绘Q-Box法鉴别诊断乳腺良恶性病变的价值。方法 选取经SWE检查并经病理证实的乳腺肿物患者133例，共152个病灶，其中良性病灶115个，恶性病灶37个。分别采用调整圆形Q-Box法和手动描绘Q-Box法选取ROI，测量弹性模量平均值（Emean）、弹性最大值（Emax）和弹性模量离散度值（SD），并进行统计学分析。结果 两种方法测量恶性病灶的Emean、Emax、SD均高于良性病灶（P均<0.05）。两种方法测量所有病灶Emean、Emax、SD的差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。两种方法测量Emean、Emax、SD的AUC差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。调整圆形Q-Box法测量Emean的AUC较SD和Emax的AUC小（P均<0.05），手动描绘Q-Box法测量Emean的AUC较SD的AUC小（P<0.05），余相同测量方法测量不同弹性模量的AUC两两比较，差异均无统计学意义（P均>0.05）。结论 调整圆形Q-Box法鉴别诊断乳腺良恶性病变的诊断效能与手动描绘Q-Box法相似，Emax与SD诊断效能相似。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the value of adjusted round Q-Box and manual tracing Q-Box of real-time shear wave elastography (SWE) in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions. Methods Totally 133 breast tumor patients were collected (152 lesions), including 115 benign lesions and 37 malignant lesions. Adjusted round Q-Box method and manual tracing Q-Box method were respectively used to select ROI. Elasticity modulus mean value (Emean), elasticity maximum value (Emax) and elasticity modulus standard deviation (SD) were measured, and statistical analysis was performed. Results Emean, Emax, SD of malignant lesions measured by two methods were higher than those of benign lesions (all P<0.05). Emean, Emax, SD of all lesions measured by two methods had no statistical difference (all P>0.05). AUC of Emean, Emax, SD measured by two methods had no statistical difference (all P>0.05). AUC of Emean measured by adjusted round Q-Box method was smaller than that of SD and Emax (both P<0.05). AUC of Emean measured by manual tracing Q-Box method was smaller than that of SD (P<0.05). In pairwise comparison, AUC of the other elasticity modulus measured by the same method had no statistical difference in painwise comparison (all P>0.05). Conclusion Adjusted round Q-Box method and manual tracing Q-Box method, Emax and SD both have similar diagnostic performances. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
