超声检查对乳腺导管内癌的早期诊断价值

doi:10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2016.04.013

中华医学超声杂志（电子版） ›› 2016, Vol. 13 ›› Issue (04) : 297 -301. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2016.04.013

所属专题：乳腺超声；文献；

浅表器官超声影像学

超声检查对乳腺导管内癌的早期诊断价值

林僖¹, 林庆光¹, 李程¹, 李安华¹^,^†(

)

^1. 510060　广州，中山大学肿瘤防治中心超声科　华南肿瘤学国家重点实验室　肿瘤医学协同创新中心

收稿日期:2015-11-23 出版日期:2016-04-01
通信作者: 李安华
基金资助:
国家自然科学基金委青年基金项目(No.81301733); 广东省自然科学基金委自由申请项目(S2013010016623); 广东省中医药局自由申请项目(20121155)

The early diagnostic value of ultrasound in ductal carcinoma in situ of breast

Xi Lin¹, Qingguang Lin¹, Cheng Li¹, Anhua Li¹^,^†()

^1. Department of Ultrasound, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center; State Key Laboratory of Oncology in South China; Collaborative Innovation, Center for Cancer Medicine, Guangzhou 510060, China

Received:2015-11-23 Published:2016-04-01
Corresponding author: Anhua Li
About author:
Corresponding author: Li Anhua, Email: lianhua58@126.com

全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用

目的

评价超声检查对乳腺导管内癌（DCIS）的早期诊断价值。

方法

回顾性分析2005年5月至2015年6月中山大学肿瘤防治中心收治的经穿刺活检或手术病理证实的261例DCIS患者的超声声像图特征，将其分为七类：肿块型、单根导管扩张型、多根导管扩张型、囊实性导管扩张型、单根导管扩展型、多根导管扩展型、导管扩张扩展型。采用χ²检验比较有钙化的病例超声诊断准确率与无钙化的病例超声诊断准确率的差异。

结果

本组261例DCIS患者，2例超声漏诊，超声检查检出率为99.23%（259/261）,超声诊断准确率为83.40%（216/259）。其中肿块型98例，导管改变型161例。各超声分类的诊断准确率分别为：肿块型82.65%（81/98），单根导管扩张型80.00%（8/10），多根导管扩张型82.19%（60/73），囊实性导管扩张型66.67%（8/12），单根导管扩展型0，多根导管扩展型87.76%（43/50），导管扩张扩展型100%（16/16）。经钼靶或病理证实的有钙化的病例179例（包括导管内钙化和病灶内钙化），占69.11%（179/259）。有钙化的病例超声诊断准确率为93.85%（168/179），无钙化的病例超声诊断准确率为67.50%（54/80），有钙化的病例超声诊断准确率高于无钙化的病例超声诊断准确率，且差异有统计学意义（χ²=14.54，P<0.01）。

结论

DCIS超声诊断准确率与其超声分类和有无钙化密切相关。准确判读DCIS超声分类对其早期诊断具有重要的指导意义和应用价值。

关键词: 超声检查, 乳腺导管内癌, 诊断

Objectives

To evaluate the early diagnostic value of ultrasound in ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) of breast.

Methods

The sonographic characteristics in 261 cases of pathologically-confirmed DCIS from May, 2005 to June, 2015 in Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center were retrospectively analyzed and the sonograms were divided into mass or ductal change including dilation and extension. The Chi-square test was used to determine the difference of ultrasound diagnostic accuracy between with and without microcalcifications cases.

Results

Two (1.14%) of the 261 lesions were not visible on sonography. The detection rate was 99.23% (259/261) and the diagnostic accuracy was 83.40% (216/259). Sonography revealed a mass in 98 cases (37.84%), ductal changes in 161 cases (62.16%). The diagnostic accuracy of each type was 82.65% (mass), 80.00% (single ductal dilatation), 82.19% (multiple ductal dilatation), 66.67% (mixed echogenicity), 0 (single ductal extension), 87.76% (multiple ductal extension), 100% (mixed type) respectively. Microcalcifications were visible on sonography in 179 (69.11%) of the 259 lesions. The diagnostic accuracies with and without microcalcifications were 93.85% and 67.50%. The diagnostic accuracy in cases with microcalcifications was higher than those without microcalcifications and there was significant difference between these two groups (χ²=14.54, P<0.01).

Conclusions

The diagnostic accuracy of DCIS has close relationship with ultrasound classification and microcalcifications. The accurate interpretation of ultrasound classification is essential for its clinical application and the early diagnosis of DCIS.

Key words: Ultrasonography, Ductal carcinoma in situ, Diagnosis

图1 乳腺导管内癌超声声像图分类及定义

图9，10 导管扩张扩展型乳腺导管内癌超声声像图。示多根导管膨胀伴实性填充，内可见密集点状强回声，病灶沿导管方向扩展（箭头所示）并形成类似特征的病灶。图9、10显示为相连的导管

[1]	Shin HJ, Kim HH, Kim SM, et al. Screening-detected and symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the sonographic and pathologic features [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2008, 190(2): 516-525.
[2]	Mun HS, Shin HJ, Kim HH, et al. Screening-detected calcified and non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: differences in the imaging and histopathological features [J]. Clin Radiol, 2013, 68(1): e27-e35.
[3]	Erbas B, Provenzano E, Armes J, et al. The natural history of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: a review [J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2006, 97(2): 135-144.
[4]	Osako T, Takahashi K, Iwase T, et al. Diagnostic ultrasonography and mammography for invasive and noninvasive breast cancer in women aged 30 to 39 years [J]. Breast Cancer, 2007, 14(2): 229-233.
[5]	王怡, 富丽娜, 许萍, 等. 超声诊断乳腺导管内癌的价值探讨 [J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2007, (10): 1479-1480.
[6]	王建伟, 林僖, 郑玮, 等. 乳腺导管内癌超声图像特征分析 [J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志:电子版, 2010, 7(11): 1808-1814.
[7]	李萍, 刘思良, 王建红, 等. 超声对乳腺导管内癌的诊断价值 [J]. 中国临床医学影像杂志, 2009, 20(11): 857-858.
[8]	周辉红, 徐秋华, 燕山. 乳腺导管内癌的超声研究 [J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2008, 24(4): 367-369.
[9]	Yang W, Tse GM. Sonographic, mammographic, and histopathologic correlation of symptomatic ductal carcinoma in situ [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2004, 182(1): 101-110.
[10]	Cho KR, Seo BK, Kim CH, et al. Non-calcified ductal carcinoma in situ: ultrasound and mammographic findings correlated with histological findings [J]. Yonsei Med J, 2008, 49(1): 103-110.
[11]	Tang X, Yamashita T, Hara M, et al. Histopathological characteristics of breast ductal carcinoma in situ and association with imaging findings [J]. Breast Cancer, 2015. [Epub ahead of print]
[12]	Jin ZQ, Lin MY, Hao WQ, et al. Diagnostic evaluation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: ultrasonographic, mammographic and histopathologic correlations [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2015, 41(1): 47-55.
[13]	Kim SH, Seo BK, Lee J, et al. Correlation of ultrasound findings with histology, tumor grade, and biological markers in breast cancer [J]. Acta Oncologica, 2008, 47(8): 1531-1538.
[14]	Moon WK, Myung JS, Lee YJ, et al. US of ductal carcinoma in situ [J]. Radiographics, 2002, 22(2): 269-280.
[15]	Chen SC, Cheung YC, Lo YF, et al. Sonographic differentiation of invasive and intraductal carcinomas of the breast [J]. Br J Radiol, 2003, 76(909): 600-604.
[16]	Izumori A, Takebe K, Sato A. Ultrasound findings and histological features of ductal carcinoma in situ detected by ultrasound examination alone [J]. Breast Cancer, 2010, 17(2): 136-141.
[17]	Scoggins ME, Fox PS, Kuerer HM, et al. Correlation between sonographic findings and clinicopathologic and biologic features of pure ductal carcinoma in situ in 691 patients [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2015, 204(4): 878-888.
[18]	马步云, 彭玉兰, 罗燕, 等. 超声诊断乳腺癌的漏诊和误诊分析 [J]. 华西医学, 2007, 22(1): 16-17.
[19]	孙培, 张晖, 彭丽春. 乳腺导管内癌的超声诊断及误诊分析 [J]. 中国临床医学, 2014, 21(3): 314-315.

[1]	王亚红, 蔡胜, 葛志通, 杨筱, 李建初. 颅骨骨膜窦的超声表现一例[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(11): 1089-1091.
[2]	章建全, 程杰, 陈红琼, 闫磊. 采用ACR-TIRADS评估甲状腺消融区的调查研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(10): 966-971.
[3]	罗辉, 方晔. 品管圈在提高甲状腺结节细针穿刺检出率中的应用[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(10): 972-977.
[4]	杨忠, 时敬业, 邓学东, 姜纬, 殷林亮, 潘琦, 梁泓, 马建芳, 王珍奇, 张俊, 董姗姗. 产前超声在胎儿22q11.2 微缺失综合征中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(09): 852-858.
[5]	孙佳丽, 金琳, 沈崔琴, 陈晴晴, 林艳萍, 李朝军, 徐栋. 机器人辅助超声引导下经皮穿刺的体外实验研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[6]	史学兵, 谢迎东, 谢霓, 徐超丽, 杨斌, 孙帼. 声辐射力弹性成像对不可切除肝细胞癌门静脉癌栓患者放射治疗效果的评价[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(08): 778-784.
[7]	唐金侨, 叶宇佳, 王港, 赵彬, 马艳宁. 医学影像学检查方法在颞下颌关节紊乱病中临床应用研究进展[J/OL]. 中华口腔医学研究杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 406-411.
[8]	赵林娟, 吕婕, 王文胜, 马德茂, 侯涛. 超声引导下染色剂标记切缘的梭柱型和圆柱型保乳区段切除术的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 634-637.
[9]	中华医学会器官移植学分会. 肝移植术后缺血性胆道病变诊断与治疗中国实践指南[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 739-748.
[10]	郑大雯, 王健东. 胆囊癌辅助诊断研究进展[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 769-773.
[11]	王秋生. 胆道良性疾病诊疗策略[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 779-782.
[12]	李浩, 陈棋帅, 费发珠, 张宁伟, 李元东, 王硕晨, 任宾. 慢性肝病肝纤维化无创诊断的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(09): 863-867.
[13]	谭瑞义. 小细胞骨肉瘤诊断及治疗研究现状与进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(08): 781-784.
[14]	王子阳, 王宏宾, 刘晓旌. 血清标志物对甲胎蛋白阴性肝细胞癌诊断的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 677-681.
[15]	陈慧, 邹祖鹏, 周田田, 张艺丹, 张海萍. 皮肤镜对头皮红斑性皮肤病辅助鉴别诊断的研究进展[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 692-698.

阅读次数

全文

摘要

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

The early diagnostic value of ultrasound in ductal carcinoma in situ of breast

模态框（Modal）标题

选择文件类型/文献管理软件名称

选择包含的内容

The early diagnostic value of ultrasound in ductal carcinoma in situ of breast