中华医学超声杂志（电子版）
中華醫學超聲雜誌（電子版）
중화의학초성잡지（전자판）
CHINESE JOURNAL OF MEDICAL ULTRASOUND(ELECTRONICAL VISION)
2014年
5期
393-396
,共4页
弹性成像技术%乳腺肿瘤%超声检查%诊断
彈性成像技術%乳腺腫瘤%超聲檢查%診斷
탄성성상기술%유선종류%초성검사%진단
Elasticity imaging techniques%Breast neoplasms%Ultrasonography%Diagnosis
目的：探讨超声弹性成像（UE）技术中评分法联合面积比值法对乳腺良恶性病变的诊断价值。方法对134例（178个肿块）乳腺病变患者进行UE检查，先用5分评分法给肿块评分，然后测量面积比（肿块弹性图像面积/肿块二维图像面积），以病理结果作为金标准，构建受试者操作特性（ROC）曲线，判断乳腺良恶性病变诊断的最佳界值。结果 UE评分≥4分诊断乳腺良恶性病变的敏感度、特异度和准确性分别为78.8%，93.8%和91.0%。面积比值法诊断乳腺良恶性病变的敏感度、特异度和准确性分别为75.8%，95.8%，92.1%。二者对乳腺良恶性病变的诊断差异无统计学意义（Ρ＞0.05）。乳腺良恶性病变诊断的最佳界值是1.45。二者联合诊断的敏感度、特异度和准确性分别为90.9%，98.6%，97.2%。联合诊断与5分评分法、面积比值法的准确性两两比较，差异有统计学意义（Ρ＜0.05）。结论 UE面积比值法与5分评分法对乳腺良恶性病变的诊断价值相当，二者联合可提高诊断的准确性。
目的：探討超聲彈性成像（UE）技術中評分法聯閤麵積比值法對乳腺良噁性病變的診斷價值。方法對134例（178箇腫塊）乳腺病變患者進行UE檢查，先用5分評分法給腫塊評分，然後測量麵積比（腫塊彈性圖像麵積/腫塊二維圖像麵積），以病理結果作為金標準，構建受試者操作特性（ROC）麯線，判斷乳腺良噁性病變診斷的最佳界值。結果 UE評分≥4分診斷乳腺良噁性病變的敏感度、特異度和準確性分彆為78.8%，93.8%和91.0%。麵積比值法診斷乳腺良噁性病變的敏感度、特異度和準確性分彆為75.8%，95.8%，92.1%。二者對乳腺良噁性病變的診斷差異無統計學意義（Ρ＞0.05）。乳腺良噁性病變診斷的最佳界值是1.45。二者聯閤診斷的敏感度、特異度和準確性分彆為90.9%，98.6%，97.2%。聯閤診斷與5分評分法、麵積比值法的準確性兩兩比較，差異有統計學意義（Ρ＜0.05）。結論 UE麵積比值法與5分評分法對乳腺良噁性病變的診斷價值相噹，二者聯閤可提高診斷的準確性。
목적：탐토초성탄성성상（UE）기술중평분법연합면적비치법대유선량악성병변적진단개치。방법대134례（178개종괴）유선병변환자진행UE검사，선용5분평분법급종괴평분，연후측량면적비（종괴탄성도상면적/종괴이유도상면적），이병리결과작위금표준，구건수시자조작특성（ROC）곡선，판단유선량악성병변진단적최가계치。결과 UE평분≥4분진단유선량악성병변적민감도、특이도화준학성분별위78.8%，93.8%화91.0%。면적비치법진단유선량악성병변적민감도、특이도화준학성분별위75.8%，95.8%，92.1%。이자대유선량악성병변적진단차이무통계학의의（Ρ＞0.05）。유선량악성병변진단적최가계치시1.45。이자연합진단적민감도、특이도화준학성분별위90.9%，98.6%，97.2%。연합진단여5분평분법、면적비치법적준학성량량비교，차이유통계학의의（Ρ＜0.05）。결론 UE면적비치법여5분평분법대유선량악성병변적진단개치상당，이자연합가제고진단적준학성。
Objective To evaluate the application of ultrasound elastography (UE) 5-point scores and ratio of traced area in diagnosis of breast diseases. Methods One hundred and thirty foure patients with 178 lesions were examined with UE. And 5-point scores were applied at first, and then the area ratios were calculated. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was established to evaluate diagnostic value. The histology results were used as the golden standard. The optimal cut-off point was calculated. Results The sensitivity, speciifcity and accuracy of 5-point scores (score≥4) were 78.8%, 93.8%and 91.0%respectively. The sensitivity, speciifcity and accuracy of ratio of traced area were 75.8%, 95.8%, 92.1%respectively. There was no signiifcant difference between these two diagnostic methods (Ρ>0.05). The cut-off of ratio of traced area was 1.45. When combining these two methods, the sensitivity, speciifcity and accuracy were 90.9%, 98.6%, 97.2%respectively. The accuracy was signiifcantly improved (Ρ<0.05). Conclusions The ratio of traced area and 5-point scores were both valuable diagnostic approaches. The combination of the two methods can improve the accuracy of diagnosis.
