Evaluation of benign and malignant ovarian tumors via super micro-vascular imaging and color Doppler flow imaging combined with the use of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system
-
摘要:
目的 探讨超微血管成像(super micro-vascular imaging,SMI)和彩色多普勒超声血流显像(color Doppler flow imaging,CDFI)联合妇科影像报告和数据系统(gynecologic imaging reporting and data system,GI-RADS)对卵巢肿瘤良恶性的评估价值。 方法 选取2019年9月至2021年3月于河北省廊坊市人民医院诊治的168例卵巢肿瘤患者的临床资料,分为恶性组56例、良性组112例,采用SMI和CDFI分别观察同一肿瘤中血流情况,并联合GI-RADS分别预测肿瘤良恶性,结果以术后病理组织诊断为金标准。 结果 恶性组中SMI检测血流的丰富程度显著高于CDFI检测(P<0.05),良性组中SMI和CDFI检测血流的丰富程度进行比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。采用CDFI联合GI-RADS和SMI联合GI-RADS诊断恶性的分别为53例和55例,敏感度分别为94.6%和98.2%、特异度分别为93.8%和95.5%、准确率分别为94.0%和96.4%,均与病理结果的一致性较好(κ=0.868和κ=0.921)。 结论 SMI联合GI-RADS对卵巢肿瘤的良恶性具有较好的鉴别诊断效能,较CDFI联合GI-RADS诊断时敏感度、特异度更高。 -
关键词:
- 超微血管成像 /
- 彩色多普勒超声血流显像 /
- 妇科影像报告和数据系统 /
- 卵巢肿瘤 /
- 超声检查
Abstract:Objective To explore the utility of super micro-vascular imaging (SMI) and color Doppler flow imaging (CDFI), in combination with the use of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS), in evaluating benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Methods A total of 168 patients with ovarian tumors in Langfang People’s Hospital, between September 2019 and March 2021, were included in the study. Fifty-six were included in the malignant group, and 112 were included in the benign group. Tumor blood flow was observed via SMI and CDFI. SMI with GI-RADS and CDFI with GI-RADS were used to predict the tumor nature. The postoperative pathological diagnosis was considered gold standard. Results In the malignant group, blood flow abundance detected using SMI was significantly higher than that detected using CDFI (P<0.05). However, no significant difference in blood flow abundance was observed between SMI and CDFI in the benign group (P>0.05). The number of malignant ovarian tumors diagnosed using CDFI with GI-RADS and SMI with GI-RADS was 53 and 55, respectively. Both methods had a sensitivity rate of 94.6% and 98.2%, specificity of 93.8% and 95.5%, and accuracy of 94.0% and 96.4%, respectively. The results were consistent with the pathological results (κ=0.868 and κ=0.921). Conclusions SMI with GI-RADS provided a better differential diagnostic efficacy for benign and malignant ovarian tumors. Moreover, this method provides higher sensitivity and specificity than CDFI with GI-RADS. -
表 1 SMI和CDFI检测卵巢良恶性肿瘤的Adler分级比较
组别 例数(例) SMI检测 CDFI检测 χ2 P 0级 1级 2级 3级 0级 1级 2级 3级 恶性组 56 1(1.79) 10(17.86) 15(26.78) 30(53.57) 11(19.64) 15(26.79) 16(28.57) 14(25.00) 15.184 0.002 良性组 112 45(40.18) 53(47.32) 10(8.93) 4(3.57) 56(50.00) 48(42.86) 8(7.14) 0(0) 5.668 0.129 ()内单位为% 表 2 SMI和CDFI检测两组的血管条数比较(
$\bar {\boldsymbol{x}}$ ±s)组别 SMI检测 CDFI检测 t P 恶性组 6.19±2.34 3.34±1.34 15.198 <0.001 良性组 2.26±1.01 1.34±0.67 12.916 <0.001 表 3 SMI联合GI-RADS和CDFI联合GI-RADS预测卵巢恶性肿瘤的ROC分析
检测方法 AUC SE 95%CI 血管数cut-off值
(条)敏感度(%) 特异度(%) P SMI检测 0.968 0.011 0.946~0.990 3.200 94.6 88.4 <0.001 CDFI检测 0.890 0.031 0.828~0.951 1.900 85.7 89.3 <0.001 -
[1] 魏矿荣,梁智恒,李柱明.2003-2013年广东省中山市主要癌症净生存率分析[J].中国肿瘤,2020,29(2):103-107. doi: 10.11735/j.issn.1004-0242.2020.02.A004 [2] Sha R, Badhulika S. Recent advancements in fabrication of nanomaterial based biosensors for diagnosis of ovarian cancer: a comprehensive review[J]. Mikrochim Acta, 2020, 187(3):181. doi: 10.1007/s00604-020-4152-8 [3] Jaiswal E. Evaluation of risk of malignancy index for preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer[J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2020, 56(S1):331. [4] García-Jiménez R, Arroyo E, Borrero C, et al. Evaluation of placental micro-vascularization by superb micro-vascular imaging Doppler in cases of intra-uterine growth restriction: a first step[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2021, 47(6):1631-1636. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.01.029 [5] 褚鑫,安晓夏,严剑波,等.彩色超声剪切波弹性成像及超微血管显像在乳腺良性与恶性肿瘤中的应用研究[J].影像科学与光化学,2020,38(6):1000-1004. doi: 10.7517/issn.1674-0475.200324 [6] 刘艳丽,张志坤.超微血管成像技术在早期宫颈癌及癌前病变中的应用[J].西北国防医学杂志,2020,41(5):307-311. doi: 10.16021/j.cnki.1007-8622.2020.05.010 [7] Adler DD, Carson PL, Rubin JM, et al. Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer: preliminary findings[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1990, 16(6):553-559. doi: 10.1016/0301-5629(90)90020-D [8] 陈秋月,吕国荣.GI-RADS分类在妇科附件肿块诊断中的应用[J].中国超声医学杂志,2013,29(6):527-530. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0101.2013.06.018 [9] Abdulrahman GO, Das N, Lutchman Singh K. The predictive role of thrombocytosis in benign, borderline and malignant ovarian tumors[J]. Platelets, 2020, 31(6):795-800. doi: 10.1080/09537104.2019.1686755 [10] Yang L, Lv GR, Chen HE, et al. Diagnostic efficiency of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system combined with 3-dimensional contrast-enhanced ultrasound scoring system in evaluating ovarian tumor[J]. Ultrasound Q, 2020, 36(4):375-381. doi: 10.1097/RUQ.0000000000000524 [11] 陆芳,彭梅,王丽华.超声GI-RADS分类结合血清HE4与CA125检测对卵巢单房囊实性肿瘤的诊断价值[J].重庆医学,2019,48(1):143-145. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-8348.2019.01.037 [12] 李文凯.超声GI-RADS分类法对卵巢良恶性肿瘤的诊断价值[J].实用癌症杂志,2018,33(5):756-759. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-5930.2018.05.018 [13] Lee EJ, Chang YW. Combination of quantitative parameters of shear wave elastography and superb microvascular imaging to evaluate breast masses[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2020, 21(9):1045-1054. doi: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0765 [14] Zhong L, Wang C. Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound superb microvascular imaging for breast tumor: a meta-analysis[J]. Med Ultrason, 2020, 22(3):313-318. doi: 10.11152/mu-2460 [15] 肖露,褚雯,王华.超微血管成像技术对乳腺肿瘤血管形态分布特征及其诊断效能的初步分析[J].中华超声影像学杂志,2018,27(11):973-976. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1004-4477.2018.11.012