中国医疗设备
中國醫療設備
중국의료설비
China Medical Devices
2015年
11期
43-46
,共4页
许立云%刘翠霞%韩冬%王长霞
許立雲%劉翠霞%韓鼕%王長霞
허립운%류취하%한동%왕장하
经直肠实时组织超声弹性成像%经直肠超声%前列腺癌%穿刺活检
經直腸實時組織超聲彈性成像%經直腸超聲%前列腺癌%穿刺活檢
경직장실시조직초성탄성성상%경직장초성%전렬선암%천자활검
transrectal real-time tissue elastography%transrectal ultrasonography%prostate carcinoma%puncture biopsy
目的:探讨经直肠实时组织超声弹性成像(TRTE)技术与经直肠超声(TRUS)检查在诊断前列腺癌中的应用价值。方法对51例拟诊为前列腺癌的患者于穿刺检查前行TRTE和TRUS检查,分析两种检查方法及两种方法联合诊断的结果,并与穿刺活检结果进行比较,计算其诊断效能。结果经病理检查,24例为前列腺癌,27例为前列腺良性疾病。与病理检查结果相比,TRUS诊断前列腺癌的灵敏度为79.17%,特异度为59.26%,Kappa=0.379,P<0.001;TRTE诊断前列腺癌的灵敏度为83.33%,特异度为70.37%,Kappa=0.532,P<0.001;TRUS和TRTE联合诊断前列腺癌的灵敏度为87.50%,特异度为92.60%,Kappa=0.803,P<0.001。结论 TRTE与TRUS两种检查方法联合应用可以显著提高诊断的灵敏度、特异度及与病理结果的一致性。
目的:探討經直腸實時組織超聲彈性成像(TRTE)技術與經直腸超聲(TRUS)檢查在診斷前列腺癌中的應用價值。方法對51例擬診為前列腺癌的患者于穿刺檢查前行TRTE和TRUS檢查,分析兩種檢查方法及兩種方法聯閤診斷的結果,併與穿刺活檢結果進行比較,計算其診斷效能。結果經病理檢查,24例為前列腺癌,27例為前列腺良性疾病。與病理檢查結果相比,TRUS診斷前列腺癌的靈敏度為79.17%,特異度為59.26%,Kappa=0.379,P<0.001;TRTE診斷前列腺癌的靈敏度為83.33%,特異度為70.37%,Kappa=0.532,P<0.001;TRUS和TRTE聯閤診斷前列腺癌的靈敏度為87.50%,特異度為92.60%,Kappa=0.803,P<0.001。結論 TRTE與TRUS兩種檢查方法聯閤應用可以顯著提高診斷的靈敏度、特異度及與病理結果的一緻性。
목적:탐토경직장실시조직초성탄성성상(TRTE)기술여경직장초성(TRUS)검사재진단전렬선암중적응용개치。방법대51례의진위전렬선암적환자우천자검사전행TRTE화TRUS검사,분석량충검사방법급량충방법연합진단적결과,병여천자활검결과진행비교,계산기진단효능。결과경병리검사,24례위전렬선암,27례위전렬선량성질병。여병리검사결과상비,TRUS진단전렬선암적령민도위79.17%,특이도위59.26%,Kappa=0.379,P<0.001;TRTE진단전렬선암적령민도위83.33%,특이도위70.37%,Kappa=0.532,P<0.001;TRUS화TRTE연합진단전렬선암적령민도위87.50%,특이도위92.60%,Kappa=0.803,P<0.001。결론 TRTE여TRUS량충검사방법연합응용가이현저제고진단적령민도、특이도급여병리결과적일치성。
Objective To discuss the clinical effectiveness of application of TRTE (Transrectal Real-time Tissue Elastography) and TRUS (Transrectal Ultrasonography) in diagnosis of prostatic carcinoma. Methods TRTE and TRUS were performed in 51 suspected prostatic carcinoma patients prior to puncture examinations so as to compare the two testing methods and the combination of both methods diagnosis results with the biopsy results. And the diagnostics efifciency index was also calculated.Results Of 51 patients, 24 patients were diagnosed with prostate cancer and 27 patients with benign prostate disease through pathological examinations. In contrast with pathological examinations, the sensitivity and specificity of TRUS in diagnosis of prostate carcinoma were 79.17% and 59.26% respectively with Kappa=0.379 (P <0.001) versus TRTE’s 83.33% and 70.37% respectively with Kappa=0.532 (P <0.001). The sensitivity and speciifcity of TRUS combined with TRTE in diagnosis of prostate carcinoma were 87.50% and 92.60% with Kappa=0.803 (P<0.001).Conclusion Application of combination of TRTE and TRUS in differential diagnosis of prostate carcinoma demonstrated its remarkably-improved sensitivity, speciifcity and consistency with pathological ifndings.