CAJ | 학술논문

目的：探讨磁共振扩散加权成像(DWI)表观扩散系数(ADC)在前列腺癌临床评估中的价值。方法对照组10例(健康志愿者),实验组216例,疑似前列腺增生或前列腺癌的患者,均行前列腺 T1 WI、T2 WI 及 DWI。实验组中124例经前列腺穿刺或手术后获取病理资料,并收集相关临床及生化学资料。根据病理结果分为前列腺增生组、前列腺癌组。87例前列腺癌病例按照TNM 分期、Gleason 分级、危险因素分级进行分组。对各组 ADC 值进行统计学分析。结果前列腺癌的 ADC 值较前列腺增生、正常前列腺组低,组间 ADC 值有统计学差异性(F=11.72,P<0.0001)。ADC 值与临床 TNM 分期无相关性(r=-0.235,P =0.143)。ADC 值与 Gleason 分级、危险因素分级呈负相关(r=-0.542,P <0.05；r=-0.529,P <0.05)。不同病理级别、危险因素分级的前列腺癌的 ADC 值有统计学差异性(F =4.84,P =0.0102；F =3.423,P =0.0371)。结论磁共振 DWI 的 ADC 值对前列腺癌的诊断、鉴别诊断及临床病情评估提供有价值的参考。
목적：탐토자공진확산가권성상(DWI)표관확산계수(ADC)재전렬선암림상평고중적개치。방법대조조10례(건강지원자),실험조216례,의사전렬선증생혹전렬선암적환자,균행전렬선 T1 WI、T2 WI 급 DWI。실험조중124례경전렬선천자혹수술후획취병리자료,병수집상관림상급생화학자료。근거병리결과분위전렬선증생조、전렬선암조。87례전렬선암병례안조TNM 분기、Gleason 분급、위험인소분급진행분조。대각조 ADC 치진행통계학분석。결과전렬선암적 ADC 치교전렬선증생、정상전렬선조저,조간 ADC 치유통계학차이성(F=11.72,P<0.0001)。ADC 치여림상 TNM 분기무상관성(r=-0.235,P =0.143)。ADC 치여 Gleason 분급、위험인소분급정부상관(r=-0.542,P <0.05；r=-0.529,P <0.05)。불동병리급별、위험인소분급적전렬선암적 ADC 치유통계학차이성(F =4.84,P =0.0102；F =3.423,P =0.0371)。결론자공진 DWI 적 ADC 치대전렬선암적진단、감별진단급림상병정평고제공유개치적삼고。
Objective To explore the value of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC)for prostate cancer diagnosis and clinical as-sessment.Methods 10 healthy volunteers were in the control group,21 6 cases suspected of prostate hyperplasia or prostate cancer were in the experimental group.All were performed T1 WI,T2 WI and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI).Of 21 6 cases in the ex-perimental group,124 were undergone operation or needle biopsy and were classified into benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH)group and prostate cancer (PCa)group according pathological results.Then the 87 PCa cases were grouped by the clinical TNM stage,Gleason grading and risk factors classification,respectively.The ADC values obtained by DWI were measured and statistically analysed.Results ADC values of PCa group were lower than BPH group and control group,respectively(F=11.72,P<0.000 1).There were no significant correlation between ADC values and TNM stage (r = -0.235,P =0.143),but clear negative correlation between ADC values and Gleason grading,risk factors classification,respectively(r = -0.542,P <0.05;r = -0.529,P <0.05 ).And statistically difference was found between ADC values in different Gleason grading and different risk factors classification,respectively (F =4.84,P =0.010 2;F =3.423,P =0.037 1).Conclusion ADC values are valuable for PCa diagnosis,differential diagnosis and clinical assessment.