设为首页 电子邮箱 联系我们

本刊最新招聘信息请见“通知公告”!  本刊投稿系统试运行中,欢迎投稿!如投稿有问题,可直接将稿件发送至zgyy8888@163.com

 

主管单位:中华人民共和国   

国家卫生健康委员会

主办单位:中国医师协会
总编辑:
杨秋

编辑部主任:吴翔宇

邮发代号:80-528
定价:28.00元
全年:336.00元
Email:zgyy8888@163.com
电话(传真):010-64428528;
010-64456116(总编室)

                  

过刊目录

2019 年第 5 期 第 14 卷

数字乳腺断层摄影与超声对致密型乳腺内病变的诊断效能对比研究

Diagnostic performances of digital breast tomosynthesis and ultrasound for dense breasts

作者:代晓倩张伟

英文作者:

单位:110004沈阳,中国医科大学附属盛京医院放射科

英文单位:

关键词:致密型乳腺;数字乳腺断层摄影;超声;联合诊断

英文关键词:

  • 摘要:
  • 【摘要】目的    比较数字乳腺断层摄影(DBT)及超声对致密型乳腺内病变的诊断效能。方法    收集2017年3月至2018年5月于中国医科大学附属盛京医院行DBT及超声检查的致密型乳腺内病变患者资料,严格按照2013年版乳腺影像报告和数据系统(BI-RADS)标准分析并记录患者腺体分型、DBT及超声病灶检查结果,以手术病理或活检结果为金标准,BI-RADS 1~4A类为良性,4B类及以上为恶性。绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,比较DBT、超声及联合检查诊断致密型乳腺内病变的效能。结果    本研究共纳入221例患者,共检出236个病灶,其中良性病灶108个(45.8%),恶性病灶128个(54.2%)。DBT与超声对致密型乳腺内病灶的敏感度、特异度比较,差异均无统计学意义(均P>0.05)。联合诊断对致密型乳腺内病灶的敏感度高于DBT和超声(97.65%比95.31%、89.06%),特异度低于DBT和超声(68.51%比75.92%、85.18%),差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。DBT、超声及联合诊断的ROC曲线下面积分别为0.86、0.87、0.94,DBT曲线下面积与超声比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),联合诊断曲线下面积大于DBT和超声,差异均有统计学意义(均P<0.01)。结论    DBT和超声对致密型乳腺内病变的诊断效能相似,二者联合有利于致密型乳腺内病变的诊断。

  • 【Abstract】Objective    To compare the diagnostic efficiencies of digital breast tomosynthesis(DBT) and ultrasound in women with dense breasts. Methods    Imaging data, surgical pathology and biopsy results of women with dense breast lesions who underwent DBT and ultrasound examinations in Shengjing Hospital of China Medical University from March 2017 to May 2018 were classified by the 2013 Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System(BI-RADS). BI-RADS 1-4A were considered as benign and BI-RADS 4B-5 were considered as malignant. Diagnostic efficiencies of DBT, ultrasound and combined detection were analyzed by the receiver operating characteristic(ROC) curve. Results    A total of 221 patients with 236 breast lesions were included; 108 lesions(45.8%) were benign and 128 lesions(54.2%) were malignant. There was no significant difference of the sensitivity and specificity between DBT and ultrasound in diagnosing dense breasts(P>0.05). The sensitivity of combined diagnosis was higher(97.65% vs 95.31%, 89.06%) and the specificity was lower(68.51% vs 75.92%, 85.18%) than those of DBT and ultrasound alone(all P<0.01). The area under ROC curve of DBT, ultrasound and combined diagnosis was 0.86, 0.87 and 0.94, respectively. There was no significant difference of the area under curve between DBT and ultrasound(P>0.05). The area under the curve of combined diagnosis was larger than that of DBT and ultrasound(both P<0.01). Conclusions    Diagnostic performances of DBT and ultrasound are similar in dense breasts. Combined diagnosis helps the accurate diagnosis of dense breast lesions.

copyright 《中国医药》杂志编辑部
地址:北京市朝阳区安贞路2号首都医科大学附属北京安贞医院北楼二层
电话:010-64456116 传真:010-64428528 邮编:100029 Email: zgyy8888@163.com
网址:www.chinamedicinej.com 京ICP备2020043099号-3

当您在使用本网站投稿遇到困难时,请直接将稿件投送到编辑部邮箱zgyy8888@163.com。







安卓


苹果

关闭