超声检测局灶性乳腺病变血管:微血管成像与常规彩色和功率多普勒成像。

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q1 ACOUSTICS
Ultrasonic Imaging Pub Date : 2021-09-01 Epub Date: 2021-07-08 DOI:10.1177/01617346211029542
Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta, Alessia Angela Maria Orlando, Maria Ilenia Schillaci, Luigi Spatafora, Mariangela Di Marco, Domenica Matranga, Alberto Firenze, Alessandra Cirino, Raffaele Ienzi
{"title":"超声检测局灶性乳腺病变血管:微血管成像与常规彩色和功率多普勒成像。","authors":"Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta,&nbsp;Alessia Angela Maria Orlando,&nbsp;Maria Ilenia Schillaci,&nbsp;Luigi Spatafora,&nbsp;Mariangela Di Marco,&nbsp;Domenica Matranga,&nbsp;Alberto Firenze,&nbsp;Alessandra Cirino,&nbsp;Raffaele Ienzi","doi":"10.1177/01617346211029542","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To compare microvascular flow imaging (MVFI) to conventional Color-Doppler (CDI) and Power-Doppler (PDI) imaging in the detection of vascularity of Focal Breast Lesions (FBLs). A total of 180 solid FBLs (size: 3.5-45.2 mm) detected in 180 women (age: 21-87 years) were evaluated by means of CDI, PDI, and MVFI. Two blinded reviewers categorized lesion vascularity in absent or present, and vascularity pattern as (a) internal; (b) vessels in rim; (c) combined. The presence of a \"penetrating vessel\" was assessed separately. Differences in vascularization patterns (chi<sup>2</sup> test) and intra- and inter-observer agreement (Fleiss method) were calculated. ROC analysis was performed to assess performance of each technique in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. About 103/180 (57.2%) FBLs were benign and 77/180 (42.8%) were malignant. A statistically significant (<i>p</i> < .001) increase in blood flow detection was observed for both readers with MVFI in comparison to either CDI or PDI. Benign FBLs showed mainly absence of vascularity (<i>p</i> <i>=</i> .02 and <i>p</i> <i>=</i> .01 for each reader, respectively), rim pattern (<i>p</i> < .001 for both readers) or combined pattern (<i>p</i> = .01 and <i>p</i> = .04). Malignant lesions showed a statistically significant higher prevalence of internal flow pattern (<i>p</i> < .001 for both readers). The prevalence of penetrating vessels was significantly higher with MVFI in comparison to either CDI or PDI (<i>p</i> < .001 for both readers) and in the malignant FBLs (<i>p</i> < .001). ROC analysis showed MVFI (AUC = 0.70, 95%CI = [0.64-0.77]) more accurate than CDI (AUC = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.60-0.74]) and PDI (AUC = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.60-0.74]) though not significantly (<i>p</i> = .5436). Sensitivity/Specificity values for MVFI, PDI, and CDI were 76.6%/64.1%, 59.7%/73.8% and 58.4%/74.8%, respectively. Inter-reader agreement with MVFI was always very good (<i>k</i>-score 0.85-0.96), whereas with CDI and PDI evaluation ranged from good to very good. No differences in intra-observer agreement were noted. MVFI showed a statistically significant increase in the detection of the vascularization of FBLs in comparison to Color and Power-Doppler.</p>","PeriodicalId":49401,"journal":{"name":"Ultrasonic Imaging","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/01617346211029542","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Ultrasonographic Detection of Vascularity of Focal Breast Lesions: Microvascular Imaging Versus Conventional Color and Power Doppler Imaging.\",\"authors\":\"Tommaso Vincenzo Bartolotta,&nbsp;Alessia Angela Maria Orlando,&nbsp;Maria Ilenia Schillaci,&nbsp;Luigi Spatafora,&nbsp;Mariangela Di Marco,&nbsp;Domenica Matranga,&nbsp;Alberto Firenze,&nbsp;Alessandra Cirino,&nbsp;Raffaele Ienzi\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01617346211029542\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>To compare microvascular flow imaging (MVFI) to conventional Color-Doppler (CDI) and Power-Doppler (PDI) imaging in the detection of vascularity of Focal Breast Lesions (FBLs). A total of 180 solid FBLs (size: 3.5-45.2 mm) detected in 180 women (age: 21-87 years) were evaluated by means of CDI, PDI, and MVFI. Two blinded reviewers categorized lesion vascularity in absent or present, and vascularity pattern as (a) internal; (b) vessels in rim; (c) combined. The presence of a \\\"penetrating vessel\\\" was assessed separately. Differences in vascularization patterns (chi<sup>2</sup> test) and intra- and inter-observer agreement (Fleiss method) were calculated. ROC analysis was performed to assess performance of each technique in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. About 103/180 (57.2%) FBLs were benign and 77/180 (42.8%) were malignant. A statistically significant (<i>p</i> < .001) increase in blood flow detection was observed for both readers with MVFI in comparison to either CDI or PDI. Benign FBLs showed mainly absence of vascularity (<i>p</i> <i>=</i> .02 and <i>p</i> <i>=</i> .01 for each reader, respectively), rim pattern (<i>p</i> < .001 for both readers) or combined pattern (<i>p</i> = .01 and <i>p</i> = .04). Malignant lesions showed a statistically significant higher prevalence of internal flow pattern (<i>p</i> < .001 for both readers). The prevalence of penetrating vessels was significantly higher with MVFI in comparison to either CDI or PDI (<i>p</i> < .001 for both readers) and in the malignant FBLs (<i>p</i> < .001). ROC analysis showed MVFI (AUC = 0.70, 95%CI = [0.64-0.77]) more accurate than CDI (AUC = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.60-0.74]) and PDI (AUC = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.60-0.74]) though not significantly (<i>p</i> = .5436). Sensitivity/Specificity values for MVFI, PDI, and CDI were 76.6%/64.1%, 59.7%/73.8% and 58.4%/74.8%, respectively. Inter-reader agreement with MVFI was always very good (<i>k</i>-score 0.85-0.96), whereas with CDI and PDI evaluation ranged from good to very good. No differences in intra-observer agreement were noted. MVFI showed a statistically significant increase in the detection of the vascularization of FBLs in comparison to Color and Power-Doppler.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49401,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ultrasonic Imaging\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/01617346211029542\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ultrasonic Imaging\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01617346211029542\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/7/8 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ACOUSTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ultrasonic Imaging","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01617346211029542","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/7/8 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ACOUSTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较微血管血流显像(MVFI)与常规彩色多普勒(CDI)和功率多普勒(PDI)在乳腺局灶性病变(FBLs)血管性检测中的应用价值。通过CDI、PDI和MVFI对180例年龄21 ~ 87岁的女性共检测到180例实性FBLs(大小:3.5 ~ 45.2 mm)进行评估。两名盲法审稿人将病变血管分布分为无或存在,血管分布模式分为(a)内部;(b)边缘容器;(c)的总和。“穿透血管”的存在被单独评估。计算血管化模式的差异(chi2检验)和观察者内部和观察者之间的一致性(Fleiss法)。进行ROC分析以评估每种技术在区分良恶性病变方面的表现。103/180例(57.2%)为良性,77/180例(42.8%)为恶性。p =。和p =。每个阅读器分别为01),边缘图案(p p =。01和p = .04)。恶性病变内流型的患病率有统计学意义(p p p p = .5436)。MVFI、PDI和CDI的敏感性/特异性分别为76.6%/64.1%、59.7%/73.8%和58.4%/74.8%。与MVFI的读者间一致性总是非常好(k-评分0.85-0.96),而与CDI和PDI的评价范围从好到非常好。没有注意到观察员内部协议的差异。与彩色多普勒和功率多普勒相比,MVFI对FBLs血管化的检测有统计学意义的增加。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ultrasonographic Detection of Vascularity of Focal Breast Lesions: Microvascular Imaging Versus Conventional Color and Power Doppler Imaging.

To compare microvascular flow imaging (MVFI) to conventional Color-Doppler (CDI) and Power-Doppler (PDI) imaging in the detection of vascularity of Focal Breast Lesions (FBLs). A total of 180 solid FBLs (size: 3.5-45.2 mm) detected in 180 women (age: 21-87 years) were evaluated by means of CDI, PDI, and MVFI. Two blinded reviewers categorized lesion vascularity in absent or present, and vascularity pattern as (a) internal; (b) vessels in rim; (c) combined. The presence of a "penetrating vessel" was assessed separately. Differences in vascularization patterns (chi2 test) and intra- and inter-observer agreement (Fleiss method) were calculated. ROC analysis was performed to assess performance of each technique in differentiating benign from malignant lesions. About 103/180 (57.2%) FBLs were benign and 77/180 (42.8%) were malignant. A statistically significant (p < .001) increase in blood flow detection was observed for both readers with MVFI in comparison to either CDI or PDI. Benign FBLs showed mainly absence of vascularity (p= .02 and p= .01 for each reader, respectively), rim pattern (p < .001 for both readers) or combined pattern (p = .01 and p = .04). Malignant lesions showed a statistically significant higher prevalence of internal flow pattern (p < .001 for both readers). The prevalence of penetrating vessels was significantly higher with MVFI in comparison to either CDI or PDI (p < .001 for both readers) and in the malignant FBLs (p < .001). ROC analysis showed MVFI (AUC = 0.70, 95%CI = [0.64-0.77]) more accurate than CDI (AUC = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.60-0.74]) and PDI (AUC = 0.67, 95%CI = [0.60-0.74]) though not significantly (p = .5436). Sensitivity/Specificity values for MVFI, PDI, and CDI were 76.6%/64.1%, 59.7%/73.8% and 58.4%/74.8%, respectively. Inter-reader agreement with MVFI was always very good (k-score 0.85-0.96), whereas with CDI and PDI evaluation ranged from good to very good. No differences in intra-observer agreement were noted. MVFI showed a statistically significant increase in the detection of the vascularization of FBLs in comparison to Color and Power-Doppler.

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
Ultrasonic Imaging
Ultrasonic Imaging 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
8.70%
发文量
15
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Ultrasonic Imaging provides rapid publication for original and exceptional papers concerned with the development and application of ultrasonic-imaging technology. Ultrasonic Imaging publishes articles in the following areas: theoretical and experimental aspects of advanced methods and instrumentation for imaging
×
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