| 李雪霜,王贝贝,何花,郭玉林.双源CT碘含量定量分析肾脏占位病变的强化[J].中国医学影像技术,2016,32(6):937~940 |
| 双源CT碘含量定量分析肾脏占位病变的强化 |
| Dual-source CT iodine quantificative analysis of enhancing renal lesions |
| 投稿时间：2015-10-16 修订日期：2016-01-24 |
| DOI：10.13929/j.1003-3289.2016.06.032 |
| 中文关键词: 体层摄影术,X线计算机 肾脏占位病变 碘含量 |
| 英文关键词:Tomography, X-ray computed Renal lesion Iodine quantification |
| 基金项目:2015宁夏研究生教育创新计划项目(NXYC201511)。 |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 2269 |
| 全文下载次数: 738 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 比较双源CT碘含量测定与传统CT值测量判断肾脏占位病变强化的能力,探讨双源CT碘定量分析技术评价肾脏占位碘摄取的准确率。方法 对63例怀疑肾脏占位病变患者行双源CT实质期双能量扫描,由2名影像医师分别用两种方法对图像进行分析。A 法采用常规方法观察图像,计算病灶在平扫和加权融合图像CT值的差值,将CT值的变化幅度>20 HU作为判断强化的标准。B 法将数据调入Liver VNC 后处理软件获得碘图,划定ROI,测得病灶的碘含量,将碘含量>0.5 mg/ml作为双源CT碘含量定量分析判断强化的标准。以手术病理或综合影像随访为标准,运用χ2检验分别计算两种判断方法的准确率、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值及阴性预测值。运用McNemar分析比较两种方法的准确率。结果 传统CT值的测量和碘含量判断肾脏占位强化的准确率、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值分别为81.36%、74.42%、100%、100%、59.26%和98.31%、100%、93.75%、97.73%、100%。McNemar分析得出双源CT碘含量测定判断肾脏占位强化的准确率明显高于传统CT值测量(P<0.001)。结论 双源CT碘含量定量分析可更为客观、快速、准确地评估肾脏占位病变碘摄取情况,既减少了患者的扫描时间及辐射剂量又提高了诊断的准确率,具有重要的临床意义。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the diagnostic accuracy of iodine quantification and standard enhancement measurements in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. Methods Sixty-three patients suspected renal masses underwent with dual-source CT nephrographic phase dual energy scan.All images were analyzed by two radiologists using two different methods, respectively. Method A observed the images through conventional approach, calculating the difference value between the CT value of plain scan and that of weighted imaging fusion, taking the variation of CT values >20 HU as a threshold to determine enhancement. Method B acquired iodine maps by inputting the data into Liver-VNC software, tested the iodine concentration of the lesion after specifying the ROI, and took iodine concentration >0.5 mg/ml as a threshold to determine enhancement in dual-source CT. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were calculated by χ2 tests taking histopathology or imaging follow-up as the reference standard. Difference in accuracy was assessed by means of McNemar analysis. Results Sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and diagnostic accuracy for standard enhancement measurements and iodine quantification were 81.36%, 74.42%, 100%, 100%, 59.26% and 98.31%, 100%, 93.75%, 97.73%, 100%, respectively. The McNemar analysis showed that the accuracy of iodine quantification was significantly better than that of standard enhancement measurements (P<0.001). Conclusion Compared with standard enhancement measurements, iodine quantification is more accurate in distinguishing enhancing from nonenhancing renal masses. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
