-
近年来,随着超声检查在人群健康体检以及临床中的普及,甲状腺结节的检出率较前明显增加[1],虽然超声是首选筛查手段,但其在鉴别结节良恶性方面作用相对有限[2]。如何在初筛时准确地对结节进行风险预测,是学者们研究的热点[3]。超声弹性成像是一种新型成像技术,能在组织生物力学层面评估组织硬度,操作易实施且无创[4]。超声弹性对比指数(elasticity contrast index,ECI)是在弹性成像的基础上,以颈动脉的搏动作为内部压力源,通过测量感兴趣区域(region of interest,ROI)内组织应变的差异性,反映病灶内组织均一性[5]。但在临床实际操作中,ECI的测量方法多样,目前尚无统一标准,本研究从横切、纵切及横切面结节内不均质区测定3种方法测量ECI,探讨每种方法的诊断效能。现作报道。
-
本研究共纳入病人31例,其中男11例,女20例,常规超声共检出结节36个,经FNA或手术病理证实,其中良性结节11个,恶性结节25个。
-
横切、纵切及横切面结节内不均质区测定3种测量法中恶性结节的ECI值均明显高于良性结节,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05~P < 0.01)(见表 1、图 1~3)。3种ECI测量方法对诊断甲状腺结节的敏感性、特异性和准确性、阳性预测率及阴性预测率见表 2。ROC曲线分析显示,横切结节内不均质区测量法鉴别甲状腺结节良恶性的最佳界值为2.93;当ECI值≥2.93时,考虑为恶性;ECI值< 2.93时,考虑为良性;对应的灵敏度为82.0%,特异度为76.4%,准确率为75.3%;AUC为0.82,95%CI为0.69~0.87。
ECI测量方法 ECI值 t′ P 恶性 良性 横切结节边界 2.95±1.00 1.63±0.52 4.90 < 0.01 横界结节内不均质区 3.02±2.01 1.74±0.46 2.50 < 0.05 纵切结节边界 2.82±1.51 1.61±0.76 2.99 < 0.01 表 1 3种ECI测量方法对甲状腺良恶性结节的诊断结果
ECI测量方法 敏感性/% 特异性/% 准确性/% 阳性预测值/% 阴性预测值/% 横切结节边界 77.7 72.7 72.0 80.5 73.9 横界结节内不均质区 82.0 76.4 75.3 81.3 82.8 纵切结节边界 79.4 71.1 71.4 77.6 76.9 表 2 3种ECI测量方法对甲状腺良恶性结节的诊断效能
不同方法测量超声弹性对比指数诊断甲状腺结节效能比较
Comparison of the diagnostic efficacy of different methods measuring ultrasonicity elastic contrast index in the diagnosis of thyroid nodule
-
摘要:
目的探讨超声弹性对比指数(elasticity contrast index,ECI)在诊断甲状腺结节中的应用价值,同时比较不同测量方法的效能。 方法选取甲状腺结节病人31例共36个结节,分别以勾勒横切面结节边界、横切面结节内不均质区、纵切面结节边界3种方法测量ECI,绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,比较不同测量方法对甲状腺结节的诊断效能。 结果3种方法中,横切面结节内不均质区测量法ROC曲线下面积最大,为0.82,对应ECI界值2.93,其评价甲状腺结节恶性风险的敏感性、特异性、准确性分别为82.0%、76.4%、75.3%,以横切面结节内不均质区法测定,恶性结节的ECI值高于良性结节(P < 0.05)。 结论横切面结节内不均质区测量ECI法对甲状腺结节有较高的诊断效能。 Abstract:ObjectiveTo explore the application value of ultrasonic elasticity contrast index(ECI) in the diagnosis of thyroid nodules, and compare the efficacy among different measurement methods. MethodsA total of 31 patients with thyroid nodules(36 nodules) were investigated, and the ECI was measured using the sketching the cross-sectional junction boundary, measurement of inhomogeneous areas within nodules in cross section and cross-sectional junction boundary, respectively.The ROC curve was drawn, and the diagnostic effects of thyroid nodules were compared among different measurement methods. ResultsAmong the three methods, the area under the ROC curve of the measurement of inhomogeneous areas within nodules in cross section was the largest(0.82), and the corresponding ECI cut-off value was 2.93.The sensitivity, specificity and accuracy of the measurement of inhomogeneous areas within nodules in cross section in evaluating the malignant risk of thyroid nodules were 82.0%, 76.4% and 75.3%, respectively.Using the measurement of inhomogeneous areas within nodules in cross section, the ECI value of malignant nodules is high than that of benign nodules (P < 0.05). ConclusionsThe measurement of inhomogeneous areas within nodules in cross section has a high diagnostic effect on thyroid nodules. -
Key words:
- thyroid nodule /
- ultrasonic elasticity contrast index /
- ultrasound
-
表 1 3种ECI测量方法对甲状腺良恶性结节的诊断结果
ECI测量方法 ECI值 t′ P 恶性 良性 横切结节边界 2.95±1.00 1.63±0.52 4.90 < 0.01 横界结节内不均质区 3.02±2.01 1.74±0.46 2.50 < 0.05 纵切结节边界 2.82±1.51 1.61±0.76 2.99 < 0.01 表 2 3种ECI测量方法对甲状腺良恶性结节的诊断效能
ECI测量方法 敏感性/% 特异性/% 准确性/% 阳性预测值/% 阴性预测值/% 横切结节边界 77.7 72.7 72.0 80.5 73.9 横界结节内不均质区 82.0 76.4 75.3 81.3 82.8 纵切结节边界 79.4 71.1 71.4 77.6 76.9 -
[1] 孙芳, 石岩, 刘菲菲, 等. 基于超声影像构建机器学习模型预测甲状腺良恶性结节[J]. 国际医学放射学杂志, 2021, 44(4): 392. [2] KANT R, DAVIS A, VERMA V. Thyroid nodules: advances in evaluation and management[J]. Am Fam Physician, 2020, 102(5): 298. [3] TIAN C, WANG Z, HOU X, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of superb microvascular imaging in distinguishing thyroid nodules: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis[J]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2020, 99(40): e22350. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022350 [4] SIGRIST RMS, LIAU J, KAFFAS AE, et al. Ultrasound elastography: review of techniques and clinical applications[J]. Theranostics, 2017, 7(5): 1303. doi: 10.7150/thno.18650 [5] 孙佩璇, 童宇洋, 苏蕾, 等. 超声弹性对比指数在甲状腺结节鉴别诊断中的应用[J]. 肿瘤影像学, 2018, 27(2): 92. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1008-617X.2018.02.006 [6] KIM J, GOSNELL JE, ROMAN SA. Geographic influences in the global rise of thyroid cancer[J]. Nat Rev Endocrinol, 2020, 16(1): 17. doi: 10.1038/s41574-019-0263-x [7] 张博. 超声弹性对比指数在甲状腺结节诊断中的应用价值分析[J]. 影像研究与医学应用, 2019, 3(23): 151. [8] 李阳, 郭婕, 苏蕾, 等. 超微血管三维立体超声成像在甲状腺良恶性结节鉴别诊断中的应用价值[J]. 蚌埠医学院学报, 2020, 45(4): 507. [9] LI M, BRITO JP, VACCARELLA S. Long term declines of thyroid cancer mortality: an international age-period-cohort analysis[J]. Thyroid, 2020, 30(6): 838. doi: 10.1089/thy.2019.0684 [10] COLONNA M, UHRY Z, GUIZARD AV, et al. Recent trends in incidence, geographical distribution, and survival of papillary thyroid cancer in France[J]. Cancer Epidemiol, 2015, 39(4): 511. doi: 10.1016/j.canep.2015.04.015 [11] BURKI TK. Unnecessary thyroid cancer screening in South Korea[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2017, 18(1): e6. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)30640-4 [12] SONG Q, TIAN X, JIAO Z, et al. Value of conventional ultrasonography with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in the differential diagnosis of partial cystic thyroid nodules[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2021, 47(9): 2494. doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.03.009 [13] KIM MH, LUO S, KO SH, et al. Thyroid nodule parameters influencing performance of ultrasound elastography using intrinsic compression[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2015, 41(9): 2333 doi: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2015.05.002 [14] XIE X, YU Y. Effect of the location and size of thyroid nodules on the diagnostic performance of ultrasound elastography: A retrospective analysis[J]. Clinics (Sao Paulo), 2020, 75: e1720. doi: 10.6061/clinics/2020/e1720 [15] CHOI WJ, PARK JS, KOO HR, et al. Ultrasound elastography using carotid artery pulsation in the differential diagnosis of sonographically indeterminate thyroid nodules[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 204(2): 396. doi: 10.2214/AJR.14.12871 [16] 盛建国, 王斌, 曹昆昆, 等. 桥本氏甲状腺炎甲状腺超声弹性对比指数与血清自身抗体、Th1/Th2型细胞因子含量的关系[J]. 海南医学院学报, 2016, 22(19): 2357. [17] 徐翠, 杨智, 石岩, 等. 超声弹性对比指数在甲状腺结节诊断中的应用及测量方法探讨[J]. 中国医师进修杂志, 2021, 44(1): 76. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn115455-20200522-00643 [18] 葛喜凤, 崔立刚, 李磊, 等. 超声弹性对比指数在甲状腺结节诊断中的应用价值[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2017, 33(10): 871. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1002-0101.2017.10.003