CAJ | 학술논문

目的比较胰腺癌(PC)和炎性胰腺肿块(1PM)的各种CT征象,探讨各种CT征象对该2种病变的诊断价值.方法回顾性分析85例经手术病理、细针穿刺活检及综合手段证实的PC和IPM患者资料,85例均行GT平扫和增强扫描,采用Fisher精确概率检验比较各种CT征象在2种病变中的发生率,并和病理、临床结果进行对照分析.结果 85例中,66例PC,19例IPM.PC组中,CT正确诊断58例,漏诊5例(漏诊率为7.6%),误诊3例(误诊率为4.5%).IPM组中,CT正确诊断9例,误诊10例,误诊率为52.6%.各种CT征象中,(1)胰腺肿块合并肝脏转移、胰周腹膜后淋巴结肿大、腹腔动脉干被包绕及门静脉癌栓只出现在PC组中.(2)PC组胰腺肿块直径≥3 cm、边界清、肿块内囊状低密度区、假性囊肿、胰周渗出、腹水、胰胆管轻中度扩张、重度扩张及双管征的发生率分别为90.91%(60/66)、15.15%(10/66)、54.55%(36/66)、10.61%(7/66)、4.55%(3/66)、22.73%(15/66)、24.24%(16/66)、45.45%(30/66)和27.27%(18/66),IPM组分别为94.74%(18/19)、15.79%(3/19)、52.63%(10/19)、15.79%(3/19)、15.79%(3/19)、21.05%(4/19)、31.58%(6/19)、21.05%(4/19)和5.26%(1/19),差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05).(3)PC组胰头体部肿块合并胰腺体尾萎缩、胰腺肿块的钙化、扩张的胰管穿过胰腺肿块、胰头肿块合并体尾部肿胀、胆系结石和炎症、肾前筋膜增厚的发生率分别为48.48%(32/66)、3.03%(2/66)、1.52%(1/66)、10.61%(7/66)、6.06%(4/66)和3.03%(2/66),IPM组分别为5.26%(1/19)、47.37%(9/19)、15.79%(3/19)、8_4.21%(16/19)、36.84%(7/19)、21.05%(4/19),差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05).结论正确认识Pc和IPM的各种CT征象对该2种病变的诊断具有重要意义.
목적 비교이선암(PC)화염성이선종괴(1PM)적각충CT정상,탐토각충CT정상대해2충병변적진단개치.방법 회고성분석85례경수술병리、세침천자활검급종합수단증실적PC화IPM환자자료,85례균행GT평소화증강소묘,채용Fisher정학개솔검험비교각충CT정상재2충병변중적발생솔,병화병리、림상결과진행대조분석.결과 85례중,66례PC,19례IPM.PC조중,CT정학진단58례,루진5례(루진솔위7.6%),오진3례(오진솔위4.5%).IPM조중,CT정학진단9례,오진10례,오진솔위52.6%.각충CT정상중,(1)이선종괴합병간장전이、이주복막후림파결종대、복강동맥간피포요급문정맥암전지출현재PC조중.(2)PC조이선종괴직경≥3 cm、변계청、종괴내낭상저밀도구、가성낭종、이주삼출、복수、이담관경중도확장、중도확장급쌍관정적발생솔분별위90.91%(60/66)、15.15%(10/66)、54.55%(36/66)、10.61%(7/66)、4.55%(3/66)、22.73%(15/66)、24.24%(16/66)、45.45%(30/66)화27.27%(18/66),IPM조분별위94.74%(18/19)、15.79%(3/19)、52.63%(10/19)、15.79%(3/19)、15.79%(3/19)、21.05%(4/19)、31.58%(6/19)、21.05%(4/19)화5.26%(1/19),차이균무통계학의의(P＞0.05).(3)PC조이두체부종괴합병이선체미위축、이선종괴적개화、확장적이관천과이선종괴、이두종괴합병체미부종창、담계결석화염증、신전근막증후적발생솔분별위48.48%(32/66)、3.03%(2/66)、1.52%(1/66)、10.61%(7/66)、6.06%(4/66)화3.03%(2/66),IPM조분별위5.26%(1/19)、47.37%(9/19)、15.79%(3/19)、8_4.21%(16/19)、36.84%(7/19)、21.05%(4/19),차이균유통계학의의(P<0.05).결론 정학인식Pc화IPM적각충CT정상대해2충병변적진단구유중요의의.
Objective To compare various CT signs of pancreatic carcinoma (PC) and inflammatory pancreatic mass (IPM), and to study the diagnostic value of these signs for distinguishing two diseases. Methods Eigty-five patients with PC and IPM were proved by surgery, fine needle aspiration or other comprehensive methods. These patients underwent non-enhanced and enhanced CT scans. CT findings were analyzed retrospectively. The occurrance rates of various CT signs in these two diseases were analyzed with Fisher test and were compared with the corresponding clinical and operational results as welL Results Among the 85 patients, 66 patients were proved to have PC, and 19 were proved to have IPM. In PC group,58 were corerectly diagnosed with CT, 3 (4. 5% ) were misdiagnosed, and 5 (7.6%) were omitted. In IPM group, 9 were correctly diagnosed with CT and 10 (52. 6% ) were misdiagnosed. The CT findings were as follows: (1) Pancreatic mass with liver metastases, lymph node metastases, encased celiac arteries, and cancer emboli in portal veins just occurred in PC group. (2) The occurrence rates of mass over 3 cm in diameter, clear boundary, low-density area within the mass, pseudocysts, peripancreatie infiltration, ascites, and slight and moderate pancreatic-bile duct dilation in PC group were 90. 91% (60/66), 15.15% ( 10/66), 54. 55% ( 36/66 ), 10. 61% ( 7/66 ), 4. 55% ( 3/66 ), 22. 73% ( 15/66 ), 24. 24% ( 16/66 ), 45.45% (30/66), and 27. 27% (18/66) respectively, the occurrence rates in IPM group were 94. 74% ( 18/19), 15.79% ( 3/19 ), 52. 63% ( 10/19 ), 15.79% ( 3/19 ), 15. 79% ( 3/19 ), 21.05% (4/19), 31.58% (6/19) ,21.05% (4/19), and 5.26% (1/19) respectively. There was no statistical difference for these CT findings between two groups(P >0. 05). (3) Pancreatic head mass with atrophy of pancreatic body and tail, mass calcification, pancreatic duct-penetrating sign, pancreatic head mass with hypertrophy of pancreatic body and tail, biliary stones with inflammation , and thickening of pre-kidney fascia in PC group were 48.48% ( 32/66 ), 3.03% ( 2/66 ), 1.52% ( 1/66 ), 10. 61% ( 7/66 ), 6. 06% ( 4/66 ) and 3.03% (2/66) respectively, the occurrence rates of those in IPM group were 5. 26% (1/19),47.37% (9/19), 15.79% ( 3/19 ), 84. 21% ( 16/19 ), 36. 84% ( 7/19 ) and 21.05% ( 4/19 ) respectively. There was statistical difference for these CT findings between two groups ( P < 0. 05 ) . Conclusion Accurate evaluation of various CT signs in PC and IPM is of great importance in the diagnosis of the two diseases.