实用放射学杂志
實用放射學雜誌
실용방사학잡지
Journal of Practical Radiology
2015年
9期
1443-1446
,共4页
刘奕琳%刘洪杰%刘丽%徐晶晶
劉奕琳%劉洪傑%劉麗%徐晶晶
류혁림%류홍걸%류려%서정정
乳腺导管原位癌%乳腺X线%超声检查%病变范围
乳腺導管原位癌%乳腺X線%超聲檢查%病變範圍
유선도관원위암%유선X선%초성검사%병변범위
ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast%mammography%ultrasonography%tumor size
目的：比较乳腺 X 线和超声检查对于乳腺导管原位癌病变范围的术前诊断价值。方法回顾性分析经手术病理证实的乳腺导管原位癌患者87例,所有患者具有完整的乳腺 X 线和超声检查资料,分别将2种方法所测量的病变最大径与病理所测量的病变最大径进行比较,将 X 线和超声检查测量病变最大径界于病理测量病变最大径±0.5 cm 之间的病例定义为与病理结果一致。用 Pearson 相关分析比较2种方法所测量的病变最大径与病理测量的病变最大径的相关性。结果87例乳腺导管原位癌病理测量的病变最大径范围为0.4~7.0 cm,平均(2.4±1.3)cm。X 线测量的病变最大径范围为0.8~6.9 cm,平均(2.6±1.2)cm。超声测量的病变最大径范围为0.5~4.8 cm,平均(2.3±1.0)cm。X 线与病理测量病变最大径的相关系数为0.724,P <0.001。超声检查与病理测量病变最大径的相关系数为0.532,P <0.001。结论对于乳腺导管原位癌术前病变范围的评估,乳腺 X 线的诊断价值高于超声检查。
目的：比較乳腺 X 線和超聲檢查對于乳腺導管原位癌病變範圍的術前診斷價值。方法迴顧性分析經手術病理證實的乳腺導管原位癌患者87例,所有患者具有完整的乳腺 X 線和超聲檢查資料,分彆將2種方法所測量的病變最大徑與病理所測量的病變最大徑進行比較,將 X 線和超聲檢查測量病變最大徑界于病理測量病變最大徑±0.5 cm 之間的病例定義為與病理結果一緻。用 Pearson 相關分析比較2種方法所測量的病變最大徑與病理測量的病變最大徑的相關性。結果87例乳腺導管原位癌病理測量的病變最大徑範圍為0.4~7.0 cm,平均(2.4±1.3)cm。X 線測量的病變最大徑範圍為0.8~6.9 cm,平均(2.6±1.2)cm。超聲測量的病變最大徑範圍為0.5~4.8 cm,平均(2.3±1.0)cm。X 線與病理測量病變最大徑的相關繫數為0.724,P <0.001。超聲檢查與病理測量病變最大徑的相關繫數為0.532,P <0.001。結論對于乳腺導管原位癌術前病變範圍的評估,乳腺 X 線的診斷價值高于超聲檢查。
목적：비교유선 X 선화초성검사대우유선도관원위암병변범위적술전진단개치。방법회고성분석경수술병리증실적유선도관원위암환자87례,소유환자구유완정적유선 X 선화초성검사자료,분별장2충방법소측량적병변최대경여병리소측량적병변최대경진행비교,장 X 선화초성검사측량병변최대경계우병리측량병변최대경±0.5 cm 지간적병례정의위여병리결과일치。용 Pearson 상관분석비교2충방법소측량적병변최대경여병리측량적병변최대경적상관성。결과87례유선도관원위암병리측량적병변최대경범위위0.4~7.0 cm,평균(2.4±1.3)cm。X 선측량적병변최대경범위위0.8~6.9 cm,평균(2.6±1.2)cm。초성측량적병변최대경범위위0.5~4.8 cm,평균(2.3±1.0)cm。X 선여병리측량병변최대경적상관계수위0.724,P <0.001。초성검사여병리측량병변최대경적상관계수위0.532,P <0.001。결론대우유선도관원위암술전병변범위적평고,유선 X 선적진단개치고우초성검사。
Objective To compare the accuracy of mammography and ultrasonography in evaluating the tumor size of breast ductal carcinoma in situ before operation.Methods Eighty-seven patients with breast ductal carcinoma in situ confirmed by surgery pathology were retrospectively analyzed.All of the mammography and ultrasonography data were well-documented.The maximum diameter of the tumor was measured by mammography,ultrasonography and pathology,respectively.It was considered concordant if the difference between the imaging size and pathologic size was less than 0.5 cm.Pearson correlation analysis was used to determine the relation of imaging size with pathologic size.Results The range of the maximum diameter of the tumors measured by pathology,mammography and ultrasonography was 0.4-7.0 cm,0.8-6.9 cm and 0.5-4.8 cm,respectively.The mean value was (2.4±1.3)cm,(2.6±1.2)cm and (2.3±1.0)cm,respectively.The coefficient correlation between mammographic and pathologic size was 0.724,and between ultra-sonographic and pathologic size was 0.532.Conclusion Mammography is more accurate than ultrasonography in size assessment of breast ductal carcinoma in situ.
