早期乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结MRI与超声检查的比较。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Cancer Management and Research Pub Date : 2024-11-29 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CMAR.S482484
Ling Li, Jing Zhao, Fangxuan Li, Zhanyu Pan
{"title":"早期乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结MRI与超声检查的比较。","authors":"Ling Li, Jing Zhao, Fangxuan Li, Zhanyu Pan","doi":"10.2147/CMAR.S482484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) status in breast cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 590 female breast cancer patients who had undergone both ultrasound and MRI to assess ALNs prior to any invasive procedures. Using pathological results as the standard, we compared the diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For differentiating between malignancy and benign ALNs, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 68.98%, 38.14%, 86.67%, 62.12% and 70.96%, respectively. MRI demonstrated corresponding values of 72.03%, 38.60%, 91.20%, 71.55% and 72.15%. In assessing the burden status of ALNs (high vs low), ultrasound yielded values of 78.47%, 52.75%, 83.17%, 36.36% and 90.61%, while MRI showed corresponding values of 81.19%, 52.75%, 86.37%, 41.38% and 90.93%. There were no statistically significant differences between the two imaging modalities in their ability to evaluate ALN malignancy or burden status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ultrasound and MRI offer comparable value in assessing ALN status. Whether evaluating for metastatic involvement or determining ALN burden, it may not be necessary for patients to undergo both imaging tests.</p>","PeriodicalId":9479,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Management and Research","volume":"16 ","pages":"1685-1692"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11613698/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of MRI and Ultrasound for Evaluation of Axillary Lymph Node Status in Early Breast Cancer.\",\"authors\":\"Ling Li, Jing Zhao, Fangxuan Li, Zhanyu Pan\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/CMAR.S482484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) status in breast cancer patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We retrospectively analyzed 590 female breast cancer patients who had undergone both ultrasound and MRI to assess ALNs prior to any invasive procedures. Using pathological results as the standard, we compared the diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For differentiating between malignancy and benign ALNs, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 68.98%, 38.14%, 86.67%, 62.12% and 70.96%, respectively. MRI demonstrated corresponding values of 72.03%, 38.60%, 91.20%, 71.55% and 72.15%. In assessing the burden status of ALNs (high vs low), ultrasound yielded values of 78.47%, 52.75%, 83.17%, 36.36% and 90.61%, while MRI showed corresponding values of 81.19%, 52.75%, 86.37%, 41.38% and 90.93%. There were no statistically significant differences between the two imaging modalities in their ability to evaluate ALN malignancy or burden status.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both ultrasound and MRI offer comparable value in assessing ALN status. Whether evaluating for metastatic involvement or determining ALN burden, it may not be necessary for patients to undergo both imaging tests.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer Management and Research\",\"volume\":\"16 \",\"pages\":\"1685-1692\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11613698/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer Management and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S482484\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Management and Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S482484","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

简介:本研究旨在比较超声(US)和磁共振成像(MRI)对乳腺癌患者腋窝淋巴结(aln)状态的诊断准确性。方法:我们回顾性分析了590名女性乳腺癌患者,这些患者在任何侵入性手术之前都接受了超声和MRI来评估aln。以病理结果为标准,我们比较了两种成像方式的诊断性能。结果:超声鉴别恶性与良性aln的诊断准确率为68.98%,敏感性为38.14%,特异性为86.67%,阳性预测值为62.12%,阴性预测值为70.96%。MRI相应值分别为72.03%、38.60%、91.20%、71.55%、72.15%。超声对aln负担状况(高与低)的评价分别为78.47%、52.75%、83.17%、36.36%和90.61%,MRI分别为81.19%、52.75%、86.37%、41.38%和90.93%。两种成像方式在评估ALN恶性或负担状态的能力方面没有统计学上的显著差异。结论:超声与MRI在评估ALN状态方面具有相当的价值。无论是评估转移性累及还是确定ALN负担,患者可能没有必要同时进行这两项影像学检查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of MRI and Ultrasound for Evaluation of Axillary Lymph Node Status in Early Breast Cancer.

Introduction: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound (US) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in evaluating axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) status in breast cancer patients.

Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 590 female breast cancer patients who had undergone both ultrasound and MRI to assess ALNs prior to any invasive procedures. Using pathological results as the standard, we compared the diagnostic performance of the two imaging modalities.

Results: For differentiating between malignancy and benign ALNs, the diagnostic accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of ultrasound were 68.98%, 38.14%, 86.67%, 62.12% and 70.96%, respectively. MRI demonstrated corresponding values of 72.03%, 38.60%, 91.20%, 71.55% and 72.15%. In assessing the burden status of ALNs (high vs low), ultrasound yielded values of 78.47%, 52.75%, 83.17%, 36.36% and 90.61%, while MRI showed corresponding values of 81.19%, 52.75%, 86.37%, 41.38% and 90.93%. There were no statistically significant differences between the two imaging modalities in their ability to evaluate ALN malignancy or burden status.

Conclusion: Both ultrasound and MRI offer comparable value in assessing ALN status. Whether evaluating for metastatic involvement or determining ALN burden, it may not be necessary for patients to undergo both imaging tests.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer Management and Research
Cancer Management and Research Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
448
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Management and Research is an international, peer reviewed, open access journal focusing on cancer research and the optimal use of preventative and integrated treatment interventions to achieve improved outcomes, enhanced survival, and quality of life for cancer patients. Specific topics covered in the journal include: ◦Epidemiology, detection and screening ◦Cellular research and biomarkers ◦Identification of biotargets and agents with novel mechanisms of action ◦Optimal clinical use of existing anticancer agents, including combination therapies ◦Radiation and surgery ◦Palliative care ◦Patient adherence, quality of life, satisfaction The journal welcomes submitted papers covering original research, basic science, clinical & epidemiological studies, reviews & evaluations, guidelines, expert opinion and commentary, and case series that shed novel insights on a disease or disease subtype.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信