比较超声妇科影像报告和数据系统分类与恶性风险指数4鉴别卵巢良恶性肿块的价值

详细信息    查看全文 | 推荐本文 |

英文篇名：Comparison of value on gynecologic imaging reporting and data system and risk of malignancy index 4 in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms 作者：黄冰冰 ; 陈秋月 ; 吕国荣 英文作者：HUANG Bingbing;CHEN Qiuyue;LYU Guorong;Department of Ultrasound, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University;Department of Ultrasound, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xiamen Medical College;Collaborative Innovation Center for Maternal and Infant Health Service Application Technology,Quanzhou Medical College; 关键词：卵巢肿瘤 ; 超声检查 英文关键词：ovarian neoplasms;;ultrasonography 中文刊名：ZYXX 英文刊名：Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology 机构：福建医科大学附属第二医院超声科;厦门医学院附属第二医院超声科;泉州医学高等专科学校母婴健康服务应用技术协同创作中心; 出版日期：2019-04-20 出版单位：中国医学影像技术 年：2019 期：v.35;No.311 基金：福建省教育厅B类科技项目(JB12103);; 泉州医学高等专科学校母婴健康服务应用技术协同创作中心经费资助 语种：中文; 页：ZYXX201904030 页数：4 CN：04 ISSN：11-1881/R 分类号：94-97

摘要

目的比较超声妇科影像报告和数据系统(GI-RADS)分类与恶性风险指数4(RMI 4)鉴别卵巢良恶性肿块的价值。方法回顾性分析经病理证实的342例卵巢肿块患者的资料,以GI-RADS分类1～4a类为良性,4b～5类为恶性,RMI 4取450作为界值,判定良恶性肿块,并与病理结果对照,计算GI-RADS分类与RMI 4诊断卵巢良恶性肿瘤的效能。结果 GI-RADS分类与RMI 4鉴别诊断卵巢良恶性肿块的敏感度分别为70.71%(70/99)、53.54%(53/99),特异度分别为98.77%(240/243)、95.47%(232/243),阳性预测值分别为95.89%(70/73)、82.81%(53/64),准确率分别为90.64%(310/342)、83.33%(285/342),ROC曲线AUC分别为0.91、0.81,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。结论超声GI-RADS分类鉴别卵巢良恶性肿块的价值优于RMI 4。
        Objective To compare the value of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system(GI-RADS) and risk of malignancy index 4(RMI 4) in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms. Methods Data of 342 patients with ovarian neoplasms confirmed by pathology were analyzed retrospectively. Taking pathological results as gold standards, GI-RADS 1-4 a as benign tumor, GI-RADS 4 b-5 as malignant tumor, RMI 4=450 as critical points of benign and malignant ones, the diagnostic performance of GI-RADS and RMI 4 were calculated and compared. Results The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, accuracy, AUC of GI-RADS and RMI 4 for differentiating benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms were 70.71%(70/99)and 53.54%(53/99), 98.77%(240/243) and 95.47%(232/243), 95.89%(70/73) and 82.81%(53/64), 90.64%(310/342) and 83.33%(285/342), 0.91 and 0.81, respectively(all P<0.05). Conclusion GI-RADS classification is better than RMI 4 in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms.

引文

[1] Geomini P, Kruitwagen R, Bremer GL, et al. The accuracy of risk scores in predicting ovarian malignancy a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol, 2009,113(2):384-394.
    [2] Yamamoto Y, Yamada R, Oguri H, et al. Comparison of four malignancy risk indices in the preoperative evaluation of patients with pelvic masses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2009,144(2):163-167.
    [3] 陈秋月,吕国荣.GI-RADS分类在妇科卵巢肿块诊断中的应用.中国超声医学杂志,2013,29(6):527-530.
    [4] 孙丽娟,吴青青,马玉庆,等.卵巢性索间质肿瘤的三维超声表现.中国超声医学杂志,2011,27(7):650-652.
    [5] 郭翠霞,汪龙霞,刘伟,等.卵巢恶性畸胎瘤的超声表现及误诊分析.中国医学影像学杂志,2013(10):775-779.
    [6] 陈铃,袁颂华,石小红.恶性风险指数、超声特征及CA125对上皮性卵巢癌的预测价值.暨南大学学报(自然科学与医学版),2012,33(6):633-637.
    [7] Amor F, Alcázar JL, Vaccaro H, et al. GI-RADS reporting system for ultrasound evaluation of ovarian neoplasms in clinical practice: A prospective multicenter study. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2011,38(4):450-455.
    [8] 吴莹,彭鸿灵,赵霞.CEUS诊断卵巢恶性肿瘤的Meta分析.中国医学影像技术,2015,31(10):1568-1573.
    [9] 王霞丽,杨舒萍,吕国荣,等.妇科超声影像报告和数据系统联合三维超声造影鉴别诊断卵巢良恶性肿块.中国医学影像技术,2018,34(6):888-892.