| 胡瀚中,张松松,曹永政.弹性指数差在鉴别乳腺影像报告数据系统3~5类乳腺肿块良恶性中的应用[J].中国医学影像技术,2017,33(5):662~665 |
| 弹性指数差在鉴别乳腺影像报告数据系统3~5类乳腺肿块良恶性中的应用 |
| Application of elastic index difference in identification of benign and malignant masses of breast imaging reporting and data system 3-5 |
| 投稿时间：2016-09-23 修订日期：2017-04-01 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.1003-3289.201609103 |
| 中文关键词: 乳腺肿瘤 超声检查 弹性成像技术 弹性指数差 |
| 英文关键词:Breast neoplasms Ultrasonography Elasticity imaging techniques Elastic index difference |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1641 |
| 全文下载次数: 1387 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨弹性指数差（EID）鉴别乳腺影像报告数据系统（BI-RADS）3~5类肿块良恶性的应用价值。方法 回顾分析164例经病理证实的BI-RADS 3~5类乳腺肿块患者（193个病灶）的超声检查资料。通过弹性成像定量分析软件测定肿块与正常腺体间的EID。以EID≥2.5判断为恶性，重新调整BI-RADS分类。绘制ROC曲线并计算曲线下面积（AUC）。比较BI-RADS联合EID与单独采用BI-RADS分类诊断乳腺恶性肿块的AUC及诊断准确率。结果 以病理结果为金标准，单独采用BI-RADS诊断乳腺恶性肿块的敏感度、特异度、准确率分别为96.00%（72/75）、67.80%（80/118）、78.76%（152/193）；BI-RADS联合EID诊断乳腺恶性肿块的敏感度、特异度、准确率分别为97.33%（73/75）、83.05%（98/118）、88.60%（171/193）。BI-RADS联合EID的AUC（0.931）高于单独应用BI-RADS的AUC（0.875），差异有统计学意义（Z=2.06，P<0.05）；且2种方法的诊断准确率差异亦有统计学意义（χ2=15.21，P<0.05）。结论 BI-RADS联合EID对鉴别乳腺肿块良恶性较单纯采用BI-RADS更具优势。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To evaluate the application value of elastic index difference (EID) in identifying benign or malignancy masses of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) 3-5. Methods Data of 193 lesions in 164 patients with ultrasonic diagnosed as BI-RADS 3-5 breast masses were retrospectively analyzed. All the cases were confirmed pathologically. The EID of masses and normal glands were measured with elastography quantitative analysis software. BI-RADS 3-5 breast masses were diagnosed as malignant when EID≥2.5, which was the criteria for BI-RADS reclassification. ROC curve was drawn, and the area under the curve (AUC) was calculated. The diagnostic accuracy and AUC of malignant breast tumors with the methods of BI-RADS and BI-RADS combined with EID were compared. Results Taking pathological results as gold standard, the sensitivity, specificity, accuracy of BI-RADS in detecting malignant tumors were 96.00% (72/75), 67.80% (80/118), 78.76% (152/193), and those of BI-RADS combined with EID were 97.33% (73/75), 83.05% (98/118), 88.60% (171/193), respectively. The AUC of BI-RADS combined with EID (0.931) was higher than that of BI-RADS (0.875; Z=2.06, P<0.05). The statistical difference of accuracy was found between BI-RADS and BI-RADS combined with EID methods (χ2=15.21, P<0.05). Conclusion The combination of BI-RADS and EID is better than simple using BI-RADS in identifying benign or malignancy of breast tumors. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
