CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨超声造影联合M RI检查对前列腺癌定性定位诊断及其超声引导下前列腺穿刺活检中的应用价值。方法选取可疑前列腺癌患者190例，经超声造影和M RI检查后，行经会阴前列腺10点传统盲法穿刺活检术，另对超声造影联合M RI发现的可疑病灶区进行靶向穿刺，对照其穿刺病理结果，分析靶向穿刺提高前列腺癌检出率的作用。结果190例可疑前列腺癌患者中，穿刺病理诊断前列腺癌96例，采用传统盲穿法检出前列腺癌73例，靶向穿刺检出86例，传统盲穿结合靶向穿刺检出96例，采用盲穿法前列腺癌的检出率38．4％（73／190），靶向穿刺的检出率45．3％（86／190），两者比较差异无统计学意义（礸2＝1．828， P ＝0．176），但传统盲穿法结合靶向穿刺的检出率为50．5％（96／190），较传统盲穿法提高12．1％（23／190），差异有统计学意义（礸2＝5．637， P ＝0．018）；单个穿刺点的检出率比较：靶向穿刺点的检出率（61．4％，162／264）明显高于传统盲穿法的检出率（15．9％，302／1900），差异有统计学意义（礸2＝284．5， P＜0．001）。结论超声造影联合M RI检查对前列腺癌定性定位诊断，以其提供信息行超声引导下穿刺活检可提高前列腺癌的检出率，具有一定的临床应用价值。
목적：탐토초성조영연합M RI검사대전렬선암정성정위진단급기초성인도하전렬선천자활검중적응용개치。방법선취가의전렬선암환자190례，경초성조영화M RI검사후，행경회음전렬선10점전통맹법천자활검술，령대초성조영연합M RI발현적가의병조구진행파향천자，대조기천자병리결과，분석파향천자제고전렬선암검출솔적작용。결과190례가의전렬선암환자중，천자병리진단전렬선암96례，채용전통맹천법검출전렬선암73례，파향천자검출86례，전통맹천결합파향천자검출96례，채용맹천법전렬선암적검출솔38．4％（73／190），파향천자적검출솔45．3％（86／190），량자비교차이무통계학의의（찰2＝1．828， P ＝0．176），단전통맹천법결합파향천자적검출솔위50．5％（96／190），교전통맹천법제고12．1％（23／190），차이유통계학의의（찰2＝5．637， P ＝0．018）；단개천자점적검출솔비교：파향천자점적검출솔（61．4％，162／264）명현고우전통맹천법적검출솔（15．9％，302／1900），차이유통계학의의（찰2＝284．5， P＜0．001）。결론초성조영연합M RI검사대전렬선암정성정위진단，이기제공신식행초성인도하천자활검가제고전렬선암적검출솔，구유일정적림상응용개치。
Objective To explore the utility of combining contrast enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) and magnetic reso‐nance imaging (MRI) in qualitative and locative diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa) and in ultrasond‐guided biopsy of the prostate .Methods Totally ,190 consecutive patients with suspected PCa were selected and received transrectal CEUS and MRI .Subsequently ,all patients underwent 10 cores‐systematic blind transperineal biopsy .In addition ,targeted biopsy was used in the suspicious lesions found by CEUS and MRI .We analysed the impact of targeted biopsy on improving the detection rate of PCa by referring the pathological results .Results Cancer was detected in 96 of the 190 patients ,73 (38.4% ) participants were diagnosed PCa by traditional blind biopsy ,86(45 .3% ) by targeted biopsy ,and 96 (50 .5% ) by both two methods .There was no significant difference between blind biopsy and targeted biopsy (χ2= 1 .828 ,P =0.176) .The cancer detection rate of combine targeted biopsy resulted in a statistically significant increase comparing with traditional biopsy by 12 .1% (χ2=5 .637 ,P=0 .018) .The detection rate for single targeted biopsy core was significantly higher than traditional blind biopsy cores (61 .4% Vs 15 .9% ,χ2=284 .5 ,P <0 .001) .Conclusion Using both CEUS and MRI for qualitative and locative diagnosis of PCa and ultrasound‐guided prostate biopsy could increase the detection of prostate cancer .