切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华临床医师杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (04) : 319 -325. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0785.2022.04.006

临床研究

乳腺周边组织进行剪切波弹性成像诊断结节良恶性的价值研究
何慧灵1, 张宣宣1, 张兰1, 吴晓瑾1, 姜美娟1, 陈剑1,()   
  1. 1. 322000 浙江义乌,浙江大学医学院附属第四医院超声医学科
  • 收稿日期:2021-12-28 出版日期:2022-04-15
  • 通信作者: 陈剑
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省基础公益研究计划项目(LY20H180013); 浙江省中医药科技计划项目(2018ZT011)

Study on the value in the diagnosis of benign and malignant nodules of shear wave elastography in the surrounding tissues of the breast

Huiling He1, Xuanxuan Zhang1, Lan Zhang1, Xiaojin Wu1, Meijuan Jiang1, Jian Chen1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasonics, the Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu 322000, China
  • Received:2021-12-28 Published:2022-04-15
  • Corresponding author: Jian Chen
引用本文:

何慧灵, 张宣宣, 张兰, 吴晓瑾, 姜美娟, 陈剑. 乳腺周边组织进行剪切波弹性成像诊断结节良恶性的价值研究[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(04): 319-325.

Huiling He, Xuanxuan Zhang, Lan Zhang, Xiaojin Wu, Meijuan Jiang, Jian Chen. Study on the value in the diagnosis of benign and malignant nodules of shear wave elastography in the surrounding tissues of the breast[J]. Chinese Journal of Clinicians(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(04): 319-325.

目的

研究乳腺周边组织进行剪切波弹性成像(SWE)诊断结节良恶性的价值。

方法

选取浙江大学医学院附属第四医院2020年1月至2020年12月在甲乳外科因乳腺肿块而行穿刺活检或手术的女性患者。进行SWE检查,得到肿块内部的杨氏模量平均值(E-mean)、最大值(E-max)、最小值(E-min)和标准差(E-SD);启动“shell”功能,先后将“shell”值调节为0.5 mm、1 mm、2 mm,得到肿块周边0.5 mm、1 mm、2 mm的E-mean、E-max、E-min和E-SD。根据最终病理学结果对比4组数据并绘制ROC曲线。

结果

共计纳入68例患者76个病灶,病理证实,76个肿块中良性肿块44个,恶性肿块32个。恶性肿块内部和肿块周边0.5 mm、1 mm、2 mm的E-mean、E-max、E-SD大于良性肿块,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);良恶性肿块内部和肿块周边0.5 mm、1 mm、2 mm的E-min差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。分别绘制ROC曲线可知,肿块内部E-mean、E-max、E-SD诊断肿块良恶性的最佳截断值分别为35.14 kPa、80.46 kPa、11.67 kPa,此时AUC分别为0.785、0.824、0.801。肿块周边0.5 mm区域E-mean、E-max、E-SD诊断肿块良恶性的最佳截断值分别为39.44 kPa、86.15 kPa、14.02 kPa,此时AUC分别为0.770、0.835、0.817。肿块周边1 mm区域E-mean、E-max、E-SD诊断肿块良恶性的最佳截断值分别为41.68 kPa、90.46 kPa、15.98 kPa,此时AUC分别为0.806、0.886、0.825。肿块周边2 mm区域E-mean、E-max、E-SD诊断肿块良恶性的最佳截断值分别为44.16 kPa、95.45 kPa、16.81 kPa,此时AUC分别为0.821、0.926、0.842。综合所有数据,肿块周边2 mm区域E-max的AUC最大,诊断价值最高,此时敏感度为93.75%,特异度为93.18%。

结论

乳腺周边组织行SWE诊断结节良恶性的效能高于内部组织,其中,“shell”值取2 mm且使用E-max作为诊断参数时诊断效能最高。

Objective

To study the value in the diagnosis of benign and malignant nodules of shear wave elastography (SWE) in the surrounding tissues of the breast.

Methods

Female patients who underwent needle biopsy or surgery for breast masses in the Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine from January 2020 to December 2020 were selected. They were performed SWE inspection and got the average (E-mean), maximum (E-max), minimum (E-min) and standard deviation (E-SD) of Young's modulus inside the mass. Then, we started the "shell" function and adjusted the "shell" value to 0.5 mm, 1 mm, and 2 mm successively to obtain E-mean, E-max, E-min and E-SD of 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm around the mass. According to the final pathology results, the four sets of data were compared and the ROC curves were drawn.

Results

A total of 68 patients with 76 lesions were included. Pathologically, among 76 masses, there were 44 benign masses and 32 malignant masses. E-mean, E-max and E-SD of 0.5 mm, 1 mm, 2 mm around and inside the malignant mass were higher than those of benign masses. The difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in E-min between benign and malignant tumors within and 0.5mm, 1mm, and 2mm around the tumor (P>0.05). According to the ROC curve separately, it could be seen that the best cut-off values of E-mean, E-max and E-SD inside the tumor for diagnosing benign and malignant tumors were 35.14 kPa, 80.46 kPa, 11.67 kPa, respectively. At this time, the AUC were 0.785, 0.824, 0.801, respectively. The best cut-off values of E-mean, E-max, and E-SD in the 0.5 mm area around the mass for diagnosing benign and malignant masses were 39.44 kPa, 86.15 kPa, and 14.02 kPa, respectively. At this time, the AUC were 0.770, 0.835, 0.817, respectively. The best cut-off values of E-mean, E-max, and E-SD in the 1mm area around the tumor for diagnosing benign and malignant tumors were 41.68 kPa, 90.46 kPa, and 15.98 kPa, respectively. At this time, the AUC were 0.806, 0.886, 0.825, respectively. The best cut-off values of E-mean, E-max, and E-SD in the 2mm area around the mass for diagnosing benign and malignant masses were 44.16 kPa, 95.45 kPa, and 16.81 kPa, respectively. At this time, the AUC were 0.821, 0.926, 0.842, respectively. Combining all the data, the AUC of E-max in the 2 mm area around the mass was the largest and the diagnostic value was the highest. At this time, the sensitivity was 93.75% and the specificity was 93.18%.

Conclusion

The effectiveness of SWE in the diagnosis of benign and malignant nodules in the surrounding tissues of the breast is higher than that of the internal tissues. Among them, when the "shell" takes 2 mm, the diagnostic efficiency is the highest and E-max is used as the diagnostic parameter.

表1 最终病理结果
表2 良恶性患者一般资料比较
表3 良恶性肿块内部SWE杨氏模量值情况
表4 良恶性肿块周边0.5 mm区域SWE杨氏模量值情况
表5 良恶性肿块周边1 mm区域SWE杨氏模量值情况
表6 良恶性肿块周边2 mm区域SWE杨氏模量值情况
表7 不同区域SWE杨氏模量值的诊断效能
图1 肿块周边2 mm区域剪切波弹性成像杨氏模量值诊断乳腺肿块良恶性的ROC曲线
图2 乳腺良恶性结节SWE特征。图a为SWE质控图无明显伪像;图b、c、d为良性结节shell 0.5 mm、1.0 mm、2.0 mm时SWE图像示E-mean、E-max、E-min、E-SD值,术后病理为乳腺纤维腺瘤;图e为SWE质控图无明显伪像;图f、g、h为恶性结节shell 0.5 mm、1.0 mm、2.0 mm时SWE图像示E-mean、E-max、E-min、E-SD值,术后病理为浸润性导管癌 注:SWE为剪切波弹性成像;E-mean为杨氏模量平均值;E-max为杨氏模量最大值;E-min为杨氏模量最小值;E-SD为杨氏模量标准差
1
Sung H, Ferlay J, Siegel RL, et al. Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries [J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2021, 71(3): 209-249.
2
邹小农, 贾漫漫, 王鑫, 等. «2020全球癌症报告»要点解读 [J]. 中国胸心血管外科临床杂志, 2021, 28(1): 11-18.
3
叶欣, 周晓云, 杨莉, 等. 不同年龄范围界定下的年轻乳腺癌患者的临床病理特征及预后分析 [J]. 上海交通大学学报(医学版), 2020, 40(3): 351-357.
4
Budny A, Starosławska E, Budny B, et al. Epidemiologia oraz diagnostyka raka piersi [Epidemiology and diagnosis of breast cancer] [J]. Pol Merkur Lekarski, 2019, 46(275): 195-204.
5
Youk JH, Kwak JY, Lee E, et al. Grayscale ultrasound radiomic features and shear-wave elastography radiomic features in benign and malignant breast masses [J]. Ultraschall Med, 2020, 41(4): 390-396.
6
Liu B, Zheng Y, Huang G, et al. Breast lesions: quantitative diagnosis using ultrasound shear wave elastography-A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2016, 42(4): 835-47.
7
Fahad Ullah M. Breast cancer: current perspectives on the disease status [J]. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2019, 1152: 51-64.
8
Jiang H, Yu X, Zhang L, et al. Diagnostic values of shear wave elastography and strain elastography for breast lesions [J]. Rev Med Chil, 2020, 148(9):1239-1245.
9
秦婷, 张翠明, 方云梅, 等. 超声不同感兴趣区对剪切波弹性成像诊断乳腺肿瘤的影响 [J]. 医学研究杂志, 2020, 49(10): 105-109, 114.
10
Yoo J, Seo BK, Park EK, et al. Tumor stiffness measured by shear wave elastography correlates with tumor hypoxia as well as histologic biomarkers in breast cancer [J]. Cancer Imaging, 2020, 20(1): 85.
11
Gemici AA, Ozal ST, Hocaoglu E, et al. Relationship between shear wave elastography findings and histologic prognostic factors of invasive breast cancer [J]. Ultrasound Q, 2020, 36(1): 79-83.
12
Coughlin SS. Epidemiology of breast cancer in women [J]. Adv Exp Med Biol, 2019, 1152: 9-29.
13
Liang M, Ou B, Wu J, et al. Combined use of strain elastography and superb microvascular imaging with grayscale ultrasound according to the BI-RADS classification for differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2020, 74(4): 391-403.
14
薛姗姗, 赵巧玲, 阮骊韬, 等. 实时剪切波弹性成像技术在乳腺肿块诊断中的临床应用价值 [J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志, 2019, 30(11): 778-782.
15
Song EJ, Sohn YM, Seo M. Diagnostic performances of shear-wave elastography and B-mode ultrasound to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions: the emphasis on the cutoff value of qualitative and quantitative parameters [J]. Clin Imaging, 2018, 50: 302-307.
16
Suvannarerg V, Chitchumnong P, Apiwat W, et al. Diagnostic performance of qualitative and quantitative shear wave elastography in differentiating malignant from benign breast masses, and association with the histological prognostic factors [J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2019, 9(3): 386-398.
17
陈继赵, 谢春梅, 孙希文. 剪切波弹性成像技术联合超声BI-RADS分类鉴别诊断乳腺良恶性病变的价值 [J]. 中国医学计算机成像杂志, 2020, 26(4): 359-363.
18
王磊, 邓克学, 隋秀芳, 等. 超声声脉冲辐射力弹性成像量化技术联合超微血管成像检查对早期乳腺癌的筛查诊断价值研究 [J]. 中国全科医学, 2020, 23(18): 2309-2313.
19
戚敏, 王颖彦, 沈会明, 等. 剪切波弹性成像与超声造影联合评分对乳腺病灶定性诊断的临床研究 [J]. 南京医科大学学报(自然科学版), 2021, 41(2): 258-261, 285.
20
Ren WW, Li XL, Wang D, et al. Evaluation of shear wave elastography for differential diagnosis of breast lesions: A new qualitative analysis versus conventional quantitative analysis [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2018, 69(3): 425-436.
21
Sravani N, Ramesh A, Sureshkumar S, et al. Diagnostic role of shear wave elastography for differentiating benign and malignant breast masses [J]. SA J Radiol, 2020, 24(1): 1999.
22
Pesce K, Binder F, Chico MJ, et al. Diagnostic performance of shear wave elastography in discriminating malignant and benign breast lesions : our experience with QelaXtoTM software [J]. J Ultrasound, 2020, 23(4): 575-583.
23
Kim H, Lee J, Kang BJ, et al. What shear wave elastography parameter best differentiates breast cancer and predicts its histologic aggressiveness? [J]. Ultrasonography, 2021, 40(2): 265-273.
24
王晓童. 剪切波弹性成像技术评价乳腺良恶性肿块的临床研究 [D]. 太原: 山西医科大学, 2017.
25
黄蕾丹. 基于剪切波超声弹性成像技术定量评估病灶周边组织硬度对乳腺良恶性病灶的诊断价值 [D]. 广州: 广州医科大学, 2018.
[1] 王珏, 陈赛君, 贲志飞, 詹锦勇, 徐开颖. 剪切波弹性成像联合极速脉搏波技术评估颈动脉弹性对糖尿病性视网膜病变的预测价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(06): 636-641.
[2] 黄珈瑶, 林满霞, 田文硕, 何璟怡, 赖佳明, 谢晓燕, 龙海怡. 健康成人胰腺剪切波弹性成像的可行性和测量值及其影响因素[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(05): 524-529.
[3] 郭云云, 解翔, 彭梅, 姜凡, 毕玉, 何年安, 胡蕾, 杨杨, 王涛, 石玉洁, 陈冬冬. ACR-TIRADS与C-TIRADS分类分别联合二维剪切波弹性成像对甲状腺结节分类的诊断效能——多中心回顾性研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(05): 511-516.
[4] 程广文, 丁红, 陈坤, 张祯, 黄翀, 张继明. 实时双幅联合弹性成像在慢性肝病肝纤维化与炎症分层诊断中的价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(01): 63-69.
[5] 壮健, 潘昌杰, 李晓琴, 于梦霞, 张超, 朱韦文. 剪切波弹性成像技术评估子痫前期胎盘弹性的临床价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(07): 660-666.
[6] 唐远姣, 刘伊铃, 郭瑞倩, 钟琳, 邱逦. 健康人群四肢近端肌肉剪切波弹性成像测量的初步研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(06): 541-547.
[7] 李帅, 樊秀齐, 康春松, 薛继平, 苗俊旺. 甲状腺结节杨氏模量最大值的影响因素及其对结节性质的鉴别诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(12): 1185-1190.
[8] 钟华, 巫燕玲, 陈英, 周玉婷, 曾梅青, 骆婕, 杨焰. 二维超声联合实时剪切波弹性成像评估腹直肌分离[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(09): 847-853.
[9] 种静, 杨雪, 武斌, 李军, 张靓, 于宁. 剪切波弹性成像定量评估糖尿病肾病患者肾损害程度[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(04): 398-401.
[10] 张君, 沈素红, 刘春龙, 张志杰. 剪切波弹性成像技术量化评估健康人斜方肌弹性模量的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(03): 307-312.
[11] 强坤坤, 罗红. 杜氏肌营养不良症患儿的高频超声与剪切波弹性成像诊断研究现状及前景[J]. 中华妇幼临床医学杂志(电子版), 2023, 19(02): 162-167.
[12] 张红伟, 林爱龙, 王志涛, 余志鹄, 郭愿, 刘建新. 剪切波弹性成像技术检测颈动脉斑块不同位置杨氏模量在颈动脉内膜剥脱术前、后一致性的对比研究[J]. 中华脑科疾病与康复杂志(电子版), 2021, 11(06): 349-352.
[13] 熊亮霞, 方淇民, 唐雪培, 龚良庚. 数字乳腺断层摄影在乳腺良恶性结节鉴别中的价值[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2022, 12(03): 138-141.
[14] 熊妮, 李雨涵, 宋小伟. 超声弹性成像联合S-Detect技术对老年人乳腺BI-RADS 4类结节良恶性的鉴别诊断效能[J]. 中华老年病研究电子杂志, 2022, 09(04): 22-25.
[15] 陈国骥, 周俊臻, 董志勇, 张清, 胡瑞翔, 陈文辉, 胡佳美, 王存川. 肥胖合并乳腺肿物患者行腹腔镜Roux-en-Y胃旁路术联合乳腺肿物微创切除术一例报道[J]. 中华肥胖与代谢病电子杂志, 2021, 07(04): 278-280.
阅读次数
全文


摘要