| 李响,康姝,王学梅,李银燕,樊智颖,王健楠.超微血管成像与彩色多普勒血流成像在乳腺肿瘤诊断中的应用[J].中国医学影像技术,2015,31(5):663~667 |
| 超微血管成像与彩色多普勒血流成像在乳腺肿瘤诊断中的应用 |
| Application of superb microvascular imaging and CDFI in diagnosis of breast masses |
| 投稿时间：2015-01-07 修订日期：2015-03-08 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.1003-3289.2015.05.006 |
| 中文关键词: 乳腺肿瘤 超微血管成像 超声检查,多普勒,彩色 |
| 英文关键词:Breast neoplasms Superb microvascular imaging Ultrasonography, Doppler, color |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 3271 |
| 全文下载次数: 1504 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较超微血管成像(SMI)两种成像模式[彩色模式超微血管成像(cSMI)和灰阶模式超微血管成像(mSMI)]和CDFI诊断乳腺肿瘤的价值。方法 对134例患者的146个乳腺肿块分别行CDFI及SMI检查,对CDFI、cSMI、mSMI图像的血流特点进行分型。比较3种血流检测方法在良恶性乳腺肿瘤诊断中的价值。结果 CDFI和cSMI图像显示乳腺恶性肿瘤的血流较良性肿瘤丰富;mSMI图像中良恶性肿瘤血流类型差异有统计学意义(χ2=88.10,P<0.001);CDFI、cSMI、mSMI诊断乳腺恶性肿瘤敏感度分别为74.47%(35/47)、80.85%(38/47)、76.60%(36/47),特异度分别为89.90%(89/99)、86.87%(86/99)、95.96%(95/99),准确率分别为84.93%(124/146)、84.93%(124/146)、89.73%(131/146),三种血流检测方法诊断乳腺恶性肿块的敏感度、准确率差异无统计学意义,CDFI与cSMI、CDFI与mSMI诊断特异度差异无统计学意义,mSMI诊断恶性肿瘤的特异度大于cSMI(χ2=5.212,P=0.022)。结论 SMI与CDFI诊断乳腺良恶性肿瘤可相互补充,但SMI可提供更多低速血流信息,SMI的两种成像模式中mSMI较cSMI诊断价值更高。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the value of superb microvascular imaging (SMI) including color superb micro-vascular imaging (cSMI) and monochrome superb microvascular imaging (mSMI), and CDFI in diagnosis of breast masses. Methods Totally 134 patients of 146 breast masses underwent CDFI, cSMI and mSMI. The blood flow characteristics of CDFI, cSMI, mSMI images were typed. The diagnostic values of CDFI, cSMI and mSMI in detecting blood flow were compared. Results Malignant breast masses were detected richer flow signals than benign ones by CDFI and cSMI. The types of malignant masses were significantly different from benign masses in mSMI images (χ2=88.10, P<0.001). The sensitivity of CDFI, cSMI, mSMI in diagnosis of breast malignant tumors was 74.47% (35/47), 80.85% (38/47), 76.60% (36/47), specificity was 89.90% (89/99), 86.87% (86/99), 95.96% (95/99), accuracy was 84.93% (124/146), 84.93% (124/146), 89.73% (131/146), respectively. There was no significant differences between the three methods in sensitivity and accuracy in diagnosis of malignant masses, as well as in specificity between neither CDFI and cSMI nor CDFI and mSMI, but there was statistically significant difference in specificity between mSMI and cSMI (χ2=5.212, P=0.022). Conclusion SMI and CDFI have the same value in diagnosis of breast malignant tumors, but SMI can provide more information of low-speed blood flow. mSMI has higher value in diagnosis of breast malignant tumors than cSMI. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
