| 周海萍,何颖韬,陈方红,涂晓波.超声造影联合超声弹性成像在前列腺癌中的诊断价值[J].浙江中西医结合杂志,2019,29(2): |
| 超声造影联合超声弹性成像在前列腺癌中的诊断价值 |
| Diagnostic value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound and elastography in prostate cancer |
| 投稿时间：2018-01-27 修订日期：2018-03-21 |
| DOI： |
| 中文关键词: 前列腺癌 超声造影 实时组织超声弹性成像 诊断 |
| 英文关键词:prostate cancer contrast ultrasound real-time tissue elastography Diagnosis |
| 基金项目: |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 788 |
| 全文下载次数: 1 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 探讨经直肠超声造影(CEUS)联合超声弹性成像技术(RET)对前列腺癌(PCa)的临床诊断价值。方法 采用前瞻性研究法,以2012年1月至2017年5月在我院就诊的428例疑似前列腺癌患者为研究对象,以穿刺组织的病理诊断结果为金标准,观察CEUS、RET以及CEUS+RET在前列腺癌中的诊断灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、诊断符合率,并绘制受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)并计算各诊断方式的曲线下面积。结果 428例疑似PCa患者经病理诊断确诊前列腺癌265例,前列腺增生163例；其中单用CEUS及单用RET诊断结果与病理诊断结果均存在统计学差异(χ2CEUS=13.503,P=0.000,χ2RET=5.445,P=0.020),而CEUS+RET诊断结果与病理结果诊断结果无统计学差异(χ2=1.165,P=0.282)；其中在灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值、阴性预测值、诊断符合率比较中CEUS+RET(92.8%、92.6%、95.3%、88.9%、92.8%)均高于单用RET(80.1%、81.6%、87.7%、72.2%、81.1%)及单用CEUS(66.0%、71.2%、78.8、56.3%、68.0%),同时在ROC曲线下面积中比较中CEUS+RET同样高于单用RET或单用CEUS。结论 CEUS联合RET对前列腺癌的诊断具有较高的临床诊断符合率。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To investigate the clinical value of transrectal ultrasound (CEUS) combined with ultrasound elastography (RET) in the diagnosis of prostate cancer (PCa). Methods A prospective study was conducted on 428 suspected patients with prostate cancer who were treated in our hospital from January 2012 to May 2017. The pathological findings of the punctured tissue were taken as the gold standard. CEUS, RET and CEUS + RET Diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, diagnostic coincidence rate in prostate cancer were plotted and the receiver operating characteristic curve (ROC) was plotted and the area under the curve for each diagnostic mode was calculated. Results Of the 428 suspected PCa patients, 265 cases of prostate cancer and 163 cases of benign prostatic hyperplasia were diagnosed by pathological diagnosis. The diagnostic results of CEUS alone and RET alone showed statistical difference (χ2 CEUS = 13.503, P = 0.000, χ2RET = 5.445 , P = 0.020). However, there was no significant difference between CEUS + RET diagnosis and pathological diagnosis (χ2 = 1.165, P = 0.282); among the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic coincidence rate CEUS + RET (92.8%, 92.6%, 95.3%, 88.9%, 92.8%) were higher than those of RET (80.1%、81.6%、87.7%、72.2%、81.1%)and CEUS (66.0%、71.2%、78.8、56.3%、68.0%), while CEUS + RET in the area under the ROC curve was also higher than that of single RET or single CEUS. Conclusion CEUS combined with RET diagnosis of prostate cancer has a high clinical diagnostic accuracy. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|
