乳腺超声和钼靶X线摄片对触诊阴性乳腺病灶的诊断价值分析(附87例报告)

目的 探讨和比较乳腺钼靶X线摄片和超声对临床触诊阴性乳腺病灶的诊断价值.方法 回顾性分析77例触诊阴性乳腺病例(87个病灶)的临床资料,所有病例均行乳腺超声和钼靶X线摄片检查,并经穿刺活检或手术切除标本获得病理诊断.分析良恶性乳腺病变患者的年龄和月经状态;总结乳腺癌病灶在钼靶X线摄片和超声诊断中的影像学特点,并比较两种方法 的诊断效能.结果 全组87个触诊阴性的乳腺病灶中,乳腺癌20个(20例患者),占23%(20/87),其中95%(19/20)为0-Ⅰ期的早期乳腺癌;良性病灶67个(57例患者),占77%(67/87).乳腺癌患者的年龄明显高于良性乳腺病变患者(P<0.01),但月经状态无明显差异.钼靶X线摄片、超声诊断乳腺癌病灶的阳性率分别为75%(15/20)和55%(11/20);其主要影像学特点分别是恶性钙化和边界不清的低回声占位,分别占诊断阳性病灶的67%(10/15)和55%(6/11).钼靶X线摄片诊断触诊阴性的乳腺病灶的敏感性、特异性和准确性(分别为75%、64%、67%)均优于乳腺超声(分别为55%、21%、29%).20例乳腺癌患者经超声或钼靶引导下采用金属丝定位,行切除手术.11例患者行保乳手术,保乳率达55%(11/20).结论 钼靶X线摄片和超声检查在触诊阴性的乳腺癌的早发现、早诊断、早治疗中发挥着重要作用.其中,钼靶X线摄片检查更为重要.     

临床触诊阴性的乳腺病灶超声和钼靶X线摄片对照及联合应用的分析

目的 探讨乳腺超声和钼靶X线摄片检查对临床触诊阴性乳腺病灶临床应用的价值.方法 回顾性分析192例临床触诊阴性乳腺病例(254个病灶),所有患者均行乳腺超声和钼靶X线摄片对照检查,所有病灶均有病理学诊断.结果 254个临床触诊阴性乳腺病灶中,超声和钼靶X线摄片检查对其诊断的灵敏度分别为39.1%(18/46)、60.8%(28/46),联合检查的灵敏度为90.0%(40/46).结论乳腺超声和钼靶X线摄片检查的联合应用在临床触诊阴性的乳腺癌早期发现、早期诊断、早期治疗中可发挥重要作用.     

Aries乳腺超声诊断装置在乳腺病变筛查中的价值初探

目的 探讨Aries乳腺超声诊断装置在乳腺病变筛查中的应用价值.方法 采用常规手持式超声(handheld ultrasound,HHUS)和Aries乳腺超声诊断装置对119例志愿者进行乳腺筛查,记录乳腺结节的位置、数量、大小、回声、边界、形态等,比较两种方法检查乳腺病灶的大小、回声、边界、形态的一致性.结果 在HH...     

锥光束乳腺CT与乳腺MRI对乳腺病变的诊断效能

目的 比较锥光束乳腺CT(CBBCT)和乳腺MRI对乳腺良、恶性病变的诊断效能.资料与方法 收集接受乳腺CBBCT和(或)MRI检查并取得病灶病理结果的患者38例,其中32例完成2项检查,以病理结果为"金标准"评价2种方法的诊断正确率,并比较2种检查方法的影像特征表现差异.结果 CBBCT与MRI总的检查诊断正确率分别...     

彩色多普勒超声对探测触诊阴性乳腺结节的临床意义（附328例分析）

目的探讨超声对探测触诊阴性乳腺结节的临床意义。方法328例触诊阴性乳腺结节患者均经彩色多普勒超声检查,其中年龄大于35岁者又经乳腺镏靶X线检查,全部患耆的超声检查结果与病理进行对照。结果在328例触诊阴性乳腺结节患者中,术前超声检出最大直径小于1cm的乳腺结节病灶共465个,其中,单发结节者160例,多发结节着168例,超声诊断良性结节者326例,恶性结节者2例,2例恶性误诊为良性。与病理对照,本组患者超声诊断敏感性为50％,特异性为100％,准确性为99．39％。结论超声提示触诊阴性的乳腺结节多为良性病变;彩色多普勒超声是尽甲发现本病的首选方法。     

选择性局部点压联合触诊在致密型乳腺疾病中的诊断价值

目的探讨钼靶局部点压摄影联合触诊对致密型乳腺疾病的诊断价值.资料与方法纳入常规乳腺 X 线摄影表现为致密腺体且影像未见明显异常者133例,分别进行双乳细致触诊,并结合常规体位影像表现,对触诊异常部位进行局部点压摄影,对所获得图像进行再次分析诊断.结果133例局部点压后影像中,69例清楚显示病灶,阳性检出率为51.9%(69/133),其中乳腺内肿块43例,腋下肿块9例,成簇微细钙化2例,局限性致密浸润15例;术后病理提示良性病变59例,恶性病变10例.结论钼靶局部点压摄影联合触诊可提高致密型乳腺中病灶的检出率,减少漏诊.     

自动乳腺容积成像与手动超声及钼靶诊断乳腺疾病的对照研究

目的 探讨自动乳腺容积成像(ABVS)对乳腺疾病的诊断价值,并与手动超声和钼靶检查结果进行比较.资料与方法 155例患者共165个乳腺结节接受钼靶、手动超声及ABVS检查,均经穿刺活检或手术病理证实,计算ABVS、手动超声和钼靶检查对乳腺病变的检出率、敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值.结果 手动超声、ABVS及钼靶检查对乳腺疾病的检出率分别为95.8％、97.6％、87.9％,手动超声和ABVS的检出率显著高于钼靶检查(x2=6.356,P＜0.05).手动超声、ABVS、钼靶及三者联合诊断乳腺疾病的准确度、敏感度、特异度分别为91.5％、93.2％、88.7％,94.5％、96.1％、91.9％,86.1％、83.5％、90.3％,96.4％、97.1％、95.2％.手动超声及ABVS诊断乳腺病变的准确度和敏感度均显著高于钼靶检查(x2=4.368、3.569,P＜0.05),手动超声与ABVS间无显著差异(x2=1.313、0.893,P＞0.05);三者联合对乳腺病变的诊断准确度、敏感度及特异度显著高于钼靶检查(x2=6.525、4.816、3.868,P＜0.05).ABVS的冠状切面上,毛刺状及卫星状边界诊断恶性病变的特异度为98.4％.结论 ABVS在乳腺病变的鉴别诊断中可以提供补充信息,ABVS的诊断敏感度与手动超声相似,但高于钼靶检查.     

乳腺专用伽玛显像仪对乳腺癌的诊断价值

目的 通过与钼靶成像进行比较,探讨乳腺专用伽玛显像(BSGI)仪诊断乳腺癌的临床价值.方法 56例拟行手术的乳腺肿块女性患者分别进行BSGI和钼靶成像,2次检查间隔不超过15 d.对照术后病理结果,分别计算2种显像方法诊断乳腺癌的灵敏度、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值,并采用配对x2检验比较检出率差异.结果 BSGI和钼靶成像诊断乳腺癌的灵敏度分别为92％ (34/37)和76％(28/37),特异性分别为84％(16/19)和74％ (14/19),准确性分别为89％ (50/56)和75％(42/56),阳性预测值分别为92％(34/37)和85％ (28/33),阴性预测值分别为84％(16/19)和61％(14/23),但两者诊断效能差异无统计学意义(X2=1.14,P＞0.05).BSGI准确诊断出6例钼靶成像漏诊的乳腺癌,该6例患者的乳腺组织均呈致密型.结论 BSGI对于乳腺癌(尤其是乳腺组织呈致密型者)的诊断具有一定的临床应用价值,弥补了钼靶成像的不足.     

超声联合动态光学成像对乳腺小病灶的诊断价值

目前女性乳腺筛查多采用超声技术,但超声对于微小钙化的检出率较低,限制了其对乳腺小病灶良恶性的正确判断.动态光学乳腺成像(dynamic optical breast imaging,DOBI)系统是一种通过分析病灶新血管生成血量和血氧含量来诊断乳腺疾病的新技术.本文旨在观察超声联合DOBI对乳腺小病灶的临床诊断价值.     

乳腺影像报告与数据系统在鉴别诊断乳腺良恶性肿瘤中的应用价值

目的评价乳腺影像报告与数据系统(BI-RADS)在乳腺良恶性肿瘤鉴别诊断中的应用价值.资料与方法根据 BI-RADS 规范,分析202例患者共234个肿瘤的形态、方向、边缘、边界、内部回声、后方回声及钙化情况,并将病灶定义为3级(可能良性)、4级(可能恶性)和5级(高度可疑恶性).计算每个病灶特征的阳性预测值与阴性预测值,分析影响诊断的因素.结果?49个(20.9%)为 BI-RADS 3级,47个(20.1%)为 BI-RADS 4级,138个(59.0%)为 BI-RADS 5级,BI-RADS 3级对乳腺肿瘤的阴性预测值为98.0%(48/49),BI-RADS 4级与5级对乳腺肿瘤的阳性预测值分别为34.0%(16/47)和92.8%(128/138).BI-RADS 对乳腺恶性肿瘤的诊断敏感性为99.3%,特异性为53.9%,阳性预测值为77.8%,阴性预测值为98.0%.对恶性肿瘤的诊断有较高阳性预测值的超声特征包括不完整的边缘(100.0%)、微钙化(100.0%)、不清晰的边界(97.3%)、后方回声衰减(97.0%);对良性肿瘤的诊断有较高阳性预测值的超声特征包括后方回声增强(100.0%)、形态规则(98.0%)、病灶方向平行于皮肤长轴(98.0%)、边缘完整(98.0%)、边界清晰(98.0%)与无钙化(98.0%).结论 BI-RADS 可帮助分析影响诊断的因素,有助于乳腺良恶性肿瘤的鉴别诊断.     

Radiologists' Performance for Detecting Lesions and the Interobserver Variability of Automated Whole Breast Ultrasound

Objective

To compare the detection performance of the automated whole breast ultrasound (AWUS) with that of the hand-held breast ultrasound (HHUS) and to evaluate the interobserver variability in the interpretation of the AWUS.

Materials and Methods

AWUS was performed in 38 breast cancer patients. A total of 66 lesions were included: 38 breast cancers, 12 additional malignancies and 16 benign lesions. Three breast radiologists independently reviewed the AWUS data and analyzed the breast lesions according to the BI-RADS classification.

Results

The detection rate of malignancies was 98.0% for HHUS and 90.0%, 88.0% and 96.0% for the three readers of the AWUS. The sensitivity and the specificity were 98.0% and 62.5% in HHUS, 90.0% and 87.5% for reader 1, 88.0% and 81.3% for reader 2, and 96.0% and 93.8% for reader 3, in AWUS. There was no significant difference in the radiologists'' detection performance, sensitivity and specificity (p > 0.05) between the two modalities. The interobserver agreement was fair to good for the ultrasonographic features, categorization, size, and the location of breast masses.

Conclusion

AWUS is thought to be useful for detecting breast lesions. In comparison with HHUS, AWUS shows no significant difference in the detection rate, sensitivity and the specificity, with high degrees of interobserver agreement.     

超声弹性成像与常规超声联合应用在乳腺病灶良恶性鉴别上的价值

目的：探讨超声弹性成像在鉴别乳腺病变良恶性上的价值。材料和方法：对随机来我院检查的400例患者共433个乳腺病灶分别进行常规超声及弹性超声检查，结果与病理对照。结果：常规超声成像和弹性成像在鉴别乳腺病灶良恶性上价值相当（灵敏度、特异度及正确率分别为84．8％、82．8％及83．6％和83．6％、78．2％及80．4％，P〉0．05），但联合应用2种技术灵敏度提高至93．0％，比常规超声检查显著提高（P≤0．01）。结论：超声弹性成像对乳腺恶性病变较敏感，能帮助诊断常规超声较难鉴别的良恶性病变，两者联合应用可进一步提高超声技术的鉴别诊断能力。     

超声、钼靶X线联合MRI在乳腺癌术前评价中的应用

目的 探讨超声、钼靶X线联合MRI在乳腺癌术前评价中的作用.资料与方法 经超声、钼靶X线和MRI检查后拟诊为乳腺癌的58例患者,均经手术或穿刺病理证实,比较三种检查方法对癌灶检出率、癌灶大小符合率、淋巴结转移情况及手术方式的影响.结果 钼靶X线对癌灶的检出率及对浸润性导管癌(IDC)和浸润性小叶癌(LDC)的检出率最低(P＜0.05);超声、钼靶X线和MRI联合对癌灶的检出率和对导管内原位癌(DCIS)的检出率均高于超声(P＜ 0.05),对转移淋巴结的检出率高于钼靶X线、MRI(P＜0.05);癌灶影像学测值与病理测值的符合度:MRI最高,超声次之,钼靶X线最低(P=0.000).对手术方案的影响:拟行保乳术25例,最终实施16例,超声、钼靶X线、MRI和术中病理分别使2例(2/25,8.0％)、1例(1/25,4.0％)、5例(5/25,20.0％)、1例( 1/25,4.0％)改行根治术.结论 超声、钼靶X线联合MRI可进一步确诊乳腺癌,并对手术方案的确立提供更详细准确的依据.     

Automated breast ultrasound: basic principles and emerging clinical applications

Automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) is a recently introduced ultrasonography technique, developed with the purpose to standardize breast ultrasonography and overcome some limitations of handheld ultrasound (HHUS), such as operator dependence and the considerable amount of medical time necessary to perform and interpret HHUS. This new ultrasonography technique separates the moment of image acquisition (that may be performed also by a technician) from that of its interpretation, increasing reproducibility, reducing operator-dependence and physician time. Moreover, multiplanar reconstructions, especially the coronal view, introduce new diagnostic information. ABUS, with those advantages, has the potential to be used as an adjunctive tool to screening mammography, especially in the dense breast, where mammography has a relatively low sensitivity. Women’s awareness of risks related to breast density is a hot topic, especially in the USA where legislative breast density notification laws increase the demand for supplemental ultrasound screening. Therefore, ABUS might have the potential to respond to this need. The purpose of this article is to present a summary of current state-of-the-art of ABUS technology and applications, with an emphasis on breast cancer screening. This article discusses also how to overcome some ABUS limitations, in order to be familiar with the new technique.     

The performance of 3D ABUS versus HHUS in the visualisation and BI-RADS characterisation of breast lesions in a large cohort of 1,886 women

Objectives

This study aimed to evaluate automated breast ultrasound (ABUS) compared to hand-held traditional ultrasound (HHUS) in the visualisation and BIRADS characterisation of breast lesions.

Materials and methods

From January 2016 to January 2017, 1,886 women with breast density category C or D (aged 48.6±10.8 years) were recruited. All participants underwent ABUS and HHUS examination; a subcohort of 1,665 women also underwent a mammography.

Results

The overall agreement between HHUS and ABUS was 99.8 %; kappa=0.994, p<0.0001. Two cases were graded as BI-RADS 1 in HHUS, but were graded as BIRADS 4 in ABUS; biopsy revealed a radial scar. Three carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 4 in ABUS; two additional carcinomas were graded as BI-RADS 2 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS. Two carcinomas, appearing as a well-circumscribed mass or developing asymmetry in mammography, were graded as BI-RADS 4 in mammography but BI-RADS 5 in ABUS.

Conclusions

ABUS could be successfully used in the visualisation and characterisation of breast lesions. ABUS seemed to outperform HHUS in the detection of architectural distortion on the coronal plane and can supplement mammography in the detection of non-calcified carcinomas in women with dense breasts.

Key Points

? The new generation of ABUS yields comparable results to HHUS. ? ABUS seems superior to HHUS in detecting architectural distortions. ? In dense breasts, supplemental ABUS to mammography detects additional cancers.

     

Differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions: A comparison between automatically generated breast volume scans and handheld ultrasound examinations

Objective

To assess the diagnostic value of automated breast volume scanning (ABVS) or conventional handheld ultrasonography (HHUS) for the differentiation of benign and malignant breast lesions.

Materials and methods

The study prospectively evaluated 239 lesions in 213 women who were scheduled for open biopsy. The patients underwent ABVS and conventional HHUS. The sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, false positive rate, false negative rate, and positive and negative predictive values for HHUS and ABVS images were calculated using histopathological examination as the gold standard. Additionally, diagnostic accuracy was further evaluated according to the size of the masses.

Results

Among the 239 breast lesions studied, pathology revealed 85 (35.6%) malignant lesions and 154 (64.4%) benign lesions. ABVS was similar to HHUS in terms of sensitivity (95.3% vs. 90.6%), specificity (80.5% vs. 82.5%), accuracy (85.8% vs. 85.3%), positive predictive value (73.0% vs. 74.0%), and negative predictive value (93.3% vs. 94.1%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, which is used to estimate the accuracy of the methods, demonstrated only minor differences between HHUS and ABVS (0.928 and 0.948, respectively).

Conclusions

The diagnostic accuracy of HHUS and ABVS in differentiating benign from malignant breast lesions is almost identical. However, ABVS can offer new diagnostic information. ABVS may help to distinguish between real lesions and inhomogeneous areas, find small lesions, and demonstrate the presence of intraductal lesions. This technique is feasible for clinical applications and is a promising new technique in breast imaging.     

联合使用B超与钼靶射线用于诊断乳腺疾病中的应用

目的：探讨使用B超与钼靶X线诊断乳腺良性病变和恶性病变的效果对比。方法分析2014年1月－2016年1月收治的135例乳腺肿瘤患者,分别使用钼靶X线、B超及钼靶X线和B超联合诊断,其结果与术后病理检查结果进行对照,比较三种诊断手段的敏感性、特异性和准确度。结果 B超和钼靶X线诊断乳腺良恶性病变敏感性、特异性及准确度无统计学差意（ P＞0.05）;联合B超和钼靶X线的敏感性、特异性、准确度明显高于单独使用B超和乳腺钼靶X线诊断（ P＜0.05）。结论 B超诊断和乳腺钼靶X线诊断乳腺良恶性病变各有特点,联合使用可提高诊断的准确率,发挥多科协作的优势。     

联合应用彩超、钼靶、MRI对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值

 目的 探讨联合应用彩超、钼靶、MRI对早期乳腺癌的诊断价值。方法 回顾性分析2018-01至2019-10医院收治的118例术前完善了彩超、钼靶、MRI检测的早期乳腺癌可疑患者的临床资料,以术后病理诊断为金标准,比较彩超、钼靶、MRI与三者联合检测的灵敏度、特异度和准确率。结果 118例患者中,术前检测可疑为乳腺癌:彩超87例,钼靶88例,MRI 92例,三者联合检测103例;术前检测乳腺良性病变:彩超31例,钼靶33例,MRI26例,三者联合检测15例;术后病理诊断乳腺癌106例,乳腺良性病变12例。灵敏度分别为:彩超79.25％,钼靶80.19％,MRI 84.91％,三者联合97.17％;特异度分别为:彩超75.00％,钼靶75.00％,MRI 83.33％,三者联合100.00％;准确率分别为:彩超78.81％,钼靶79.66％,MRI 84.75％,三者联合97.46％。在灵敏度、特异度和准确率方面,彩超、钼靶、MRI三者联合检测高于各单项检测,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 联合应用彩超、钼靶、MRI检测早期乳腺癌,在灵敏度、特异度和准确率方面有较大提升。     

X线摄影和超声检查对早期乳腺癌诊断的价值

目的:探讨单独与联合应用X线乳腺摄影(MMG)及彩色多谱勒超声(US)检查对于早期乳腺癌的诊断价值.方法:收集27例经病理证实的早期乳腺癌(病灶直径≤20mm)病例,回顾性分析经单独采用MMG或US检查以及两者联合应用对于诊断结果的准确程度.结果:X线乳腺摄影及彩色多谱勒超声单项检查对早期乳腺癌的检出率无明显差异(均为85.2%),而联合应用X线乳腺摄影及超声检查对早期乳腺癌的检出率(92.6%)明显优于单项检查的检出率(85.2%),两者检出率的差别无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论:X线乳腺摄影和彩色多谱勒超声联合检查综合诊断可明显降低早期乳腺癌的漏诊率.