切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 18 ›› Issue (09) : 868 -874. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2021.09.010

生殖泌尿超声影像学

超声造影对Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型乳头状肾细胞癌的鉴别诊断
朱梅梅1, 徐超丽1, 田付丽1, 王丹丹1, 杨斌1,()   
  1. 1. 210002 南京大学医学院附属金陵医院(东部战区总医院)超声诊断科
  • 收稿日期:2021-03-06 出版日期:2021-09-01
  • 通信作者: 杨斌

Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ papillary renal cell carcinoma

Meimei Zhu1, Chaoli Xu1, Fuli Tian1, Dandan Wang1, Bin Yang1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, Jinling Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210002, China
  • Received:2021-03-06 Published:2021-09-01
  • Corresponding author: Bin Yang
引用本文:

朱梅梅, 徐超丽, 田付丽, 王丹丹, 杨斌. 超声造影对Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型乳头状肾细胞癌的鉴别诊断[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(09): 868-874.

Meimei Zhu, Chaoli Xu, Fuli Tian, Dandan Wang, Bin Yang. Value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ papillary renal cell carcinoma[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2021, 18(09): 868-874.

目的

探讨Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型乳头状肾细胞癌(PRCC)的超声造影表现及其鉴别诊断价值。

方法

回顾性分析2006年12月至2020年11月在东部战区总医院经病理证实的78例PRCC患者的常规超声检查及超声造影检查表现。78例患者中36例为Ⅰ型PRCC,42例为Ⅱ型PRCC,男性58例(74%),女性20例(26%),年龄(54±12)岁,范围30~76岁。采用单因素分析法比较两型PRCC患者影像学特征的差异,对差异有统计学意义的变量进一步行二元Logistic回归分析。应用受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线分析超声影像特征鉴别诊断Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型PRCC的价值。

结果

单因素分析结果显示,Ⅱ型PRCC病灶的术后病理最大径大于Ⅰ型PRCC病灶的[4.0(3.0,5.5)cm vs 3.1(2.1,4.0)cm],差异有统计学意义(U=555.500,P=0.043)。两型比较,根治性肾切除术(57.1%)更常用于Ⅱ型PRCC,部分肾切除术(22.2%)更常用于Ⅰ型PRCC,差异有统计学意义(P<0.016 667)。常规超声检查时Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型PRCC各声像图特征差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而超声造影检查时两型PRCC的病灶增强模式及增强边缘声像图特征差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。进一步回归分析后,病灶的术后病理大小及病灶手术方式作为干扰因素被排除(P>0.05),而病灶的增强模式及增强边缘为诊断Ⅱ型PRCC的独立危险因素(OR=3.854、4.388,P均<0.05),ROC曲线分析显示二者联合诊断Ⅱ型PRCC的曲线下面积为0.724,敏感度为0.881,特异度为0.500。

结论

超声造影检查可为Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型PRCC的鉴别诊断提供有价值的信息。

Objective

To assess the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound examination in the differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ papillary renal cell carcinoma (PRCC).

Methods

A total of 78 patients pathologically confirmed as having PRCC from December 2006 to November 2020 at the Eastern Theater General Hospital were enrolled. The conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) findings were retrospectively analyzed. There were 58 (74.0%) males and 20 (26.0%) females, aged 30-78 (54±12) years. Univariate analysis was used to compare the differences in imaging characteristics between the two types of PRCC patients, and binary logistic regression analysis was performed for variables with a statistically significant difference. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to assess the value of conventional ultrasound and CEUS imaging features in the differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ PRCC.

Results

Univariate analysis showed that the postoperative pathological maximum diameter of type Ⅱ PRCC lesions [4.0(3.0, 5.5) cm] was significantly larger than that of type Ⅰ PRCC lesions [3.1(2.1, 4.0) cm; U=555.500, P=0.043]. Radical nephrectomy (57.1%) was more commonly used for type Ⅱ PRCC, and partial nephrectomy (22.2%) was more commonly used for type Ⅰ PRCC, the difference between them was statistically significant (P<0.016 667). Type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ PRCC lesions had no statistically significant differences in conventional ultrasound imaging features (P>0.05). There were statistically significant differences in lesion enhancement pattern and ultrasonographic characteristics of the enhanced lesion edge between the two types of PRCC (P<0.05). After further regression analysis, the postoperative pathological size of the lesion and the surgical method were excluded as interfering factors (P>0.05), while the enhancement pattern and enhanced edge of the lesion were independent risk factors for the diagnosis of type Ⅱ PRCC (P<0.05, OR=3.854 and 4.388, respectively). ROC curve analysis showed that the area under the curve of the two indicators in combination to diagnose type Ⅱ PRCC was 0.724, with a sensitivity of 0.881 and specificity of 0.500.

Conclusion

CEUS examination can provide valuable information for the differential diagnosis of type Ⅰ and type Ⅱ PRCC.

图1 Ⅰ型乳头状肾细胞癌患者组织病理和肾超声检查结果(患者男性,65岁)。图a为组织病理可见细胞嗜碱性,乳头结构被覆单层或少数几层立方状细胞(HE ×200);图b为常规超声见右肾中上极见一低回声团块,边界欠清楚,形态尚规则;图c为彩色多普勒血流显像示肿块周边见少许点状血流信号;图d为超声造影皮质期示肿块晚于正常肾皮质显影;图e为超声造影示肿块与正常肾皮质相比呈低增强,强化尚均匀,强化边缘规整;图f为超声造影延迟期示肿块早于正常肾皮质消退
图2 Ⅱ型乳头状肾细胞癌患者组织病理和肾超声检查结果(患者男性,52岁)。图a为病理检查可见细胞嗜酸性,乳头被覆多层细胞(HE ×200);图b为常规超声示左肾上极见一低回声团块,边界尚清楚,形态不规则;图c为彩色多普勒血流显像示肿块周边见条带状血流;图d为超声造影皮质期示肿块同步于肾皮质显影;图e为超声造影示肿块与肾皮质相比,呈低增强,强化不均匀,强化边缘不规整;图f为超声造影延迟期示肿块早于正常肾皮质消退
表1 Ⅰ型与Ⅱ型乳头状肾细胞癌的临床特征、常规超声及超声造影特征比较
项目 Ⅰ型(n=36) Ⅱ型(n=42) 统计值 P
年龄(岁,
x¯
±s
55.8±12.8 52.6±10.7 t=1.174 0.244
性别[例(%)] χ2=0.410 0.522

28(77.8) 30(71.4)

8(22.2) 12(28.6)
肿瘤位置[例(%)] χ2=1.521 0.218

13(36.1) 21(50.0)

23(63.9) 21(50.0)
手术方式[例(%)] χ2=9.813 0.007

病灶剔除术

17(47.2) 17(40.5)

部分肾切术

8(22.2) 1(2.4)

根治性肾切术

11(30.6) 24(57.1)
术后病理最大径[cm,MQR)] 3.1(2.1,4.0) 4.0(3.0,5.5) U=555.500 0.043
肿块最大径[cm,MQR)] 2.6(2.1,4.9) 3.7(2.8,4.4) U=589.000 0.094
肿块回声[例(%)] χ2=3.580 0.180

低回声

23(63.9) 34(81.0)

等回声

4(11.1) 4(9.5)

高回声

9(25.0) 4(9.5)
肿块边界[例(%)] χ2=0.561 0.454

清楚

10(27.8) 15(35.7)

不清楚

26(72.2) 27(64.3)
肿块形态[例(%)] χ2=0.667 0.414

规则

13(36.1) 19(45.2)

不规则

23(63.9) 23(54.8)
肿块CDFI[例(%)] χ2=1.251 0.263

有血流

16(44.4) 24(57.1)

无血流

20(55.6) 18(42.9)
造影模式[例(%)] χ2=5.539 0.019

快进快退

11(30.6) 24(57.1)

慢进快退

25(69.4) 18(42.9)
强化程度[例(%)] χ2=2.227 0.325

低强化

28(77.8) 31(73.8)

等强化

4(11.1) 2(4.8)

高强化

4(11.1) 9(21.4)
强化均匀性[例(%)] χ2=0.206 0.650

均匀

12(33.3) 12(28.6)

不均匀

24(66.7) 30(71.4)
假包膜[例(%)] - 0.275

2(5.6) 6(14.3)

34(94.4) 36(85.7)
造影后肿块边界[例(%)] χ2=2.206 0.137

清楚

24(66.7) 21(50.0)

不清楚

12(33.3) 21(50.0)
造影后肿块边缘[例(%)] χ2=6.798 0.009

规整

26(72.2) 18(42.9)

不规整

10(27.8) 24(57.1)
表2 不同超声造影指标区分两型乳头状肾细胞癌的二元Logistic回归分析
图3 不同影像指标区分两型乳头状肾细胞癌的受试者操作特征曲线
1
Kovacs G, Akhtar M, Beckwith BJ, et al. The Heidelberg classification of renal cell tumours [J]. J Pathol, 1997, 183(2): 131-133.
2
Truong LD, Shen SS. Immunohistochemical diagnosis of renal neoplasms [J]. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2011, 135(1): 92-109.
3
Ricketts C, De Cubas A, Fan H, et al. The cancer genome atlas comprehensive molecular characterization of renal cell carcinoma [J]. Cell Reports, 2018, 23(12): 313-326.
4
Giles RH, Choueiri TK, Heng DY, et al. Recommendations for the management of rare kidney cancers [J]. Eur Urol, 2017, 72(6): 974-983.
5
周青, 陈琴. 超声造影对肾脏实性肿瘤的定性诊断价值 [J]. 中国医学影像学杂志, 2018, 26(8): 602-605,611.
6
魏淑萍, 傅宁华, 杨斌, 等. 肾透明细胞癌的超声造影特点分析 [J]. 临床超声医学杂志, 2013, 15(5): 295-298.
7
Mukherjee S, Patra CR. Therapeutic application of anti-angiogenic nanomaterials in cancers [J]. Nanoscale, 2016, 8(25): 12444-12470.
8
张晴, 魏淑萍, 钱晓芹. 不同病理亚型乳头状肾细胞癌的常规超声及超声造影特征分析 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2020, 17(10): 999-1005.
9
Dong XQ, Shen Y, Xu LW, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound for detection and diagnosis of renal clear cell carcinoma [J]. Chin Med J (Engl), 2009, 122(10): 1179-1183.
10
Xue LY, Lu Q, Huang BJ, et al. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma with contrast-enhanced ultrasonography [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2016, 63(4): 361-371.
11
Kim JK, Kim TK, Ahn HJ, et al. Differentiation of subtypes of renal cell carcinoma on helical CT scans [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2002, 178(6): 1499-1506.
12
Sheir KZ, El-Azab M, Mosbah A, et al. Differentiation of renal cell carcinoma subtypes by multislice computerized tomography [J]. J Urol, 2005, 174(2): 451-455.
13
Ascenti G, Gaeta M, Magno C, et al. Contrast-enhanced second-harmonic sonography in the detection of pseudocapsule in renal cell carcinoma [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2004, 182(6): 1525-1530.
14
Peckova K, Martinek P, Pivovarcikova K, et al. Cystic and necrotic papillary renal cell carcinoma: prognosis, morphology, immunohistochemical, and molecular-genetic profile of 10 cases [J]. Ann Diagn Pathol, 2017, 26: 23-30.
15
Wang XY, Kang LK, Lan CY. Contrast-enhanced ultrasonography in diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions [J]. Eur J Gynaecol Oncol, 2014, 35(4): 415-420.
16
Florczyk U, Jazwa A, Maleszewska M, et al. Nrf2 regulates angiogenesis: effect on endothelial cells, bone marrow-derived proangiogenic cells and hind limb ischemia [J]. Antioxid Redox Signal, 2014, 20(11): 1693-1708.
17
Valcarcel-Ares MN, Gautam T, Warrington JP, et al. Disruption of Nrf2 signaling impairs angiogenic capacity of endothelial cells: implications for microvascular aging [J]. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci, 2012, 67(8): 821-829.
18
Linehan WM, Spellman PT, Ricketts CJ, et al. Comprehensive molecular characterization of papillary renal-cell carcinoma [J]. N Engl J Med, 2016, 374(2): 135-145.
19
Chapman EJ, Harnden P, Chambers P, et al. Comprehensive analysis of CDKN2A status in microdissected urothelial cell carcinoma reveals potential haploinsufficiency, a high frequency of homozygous co-deletion and associations with clinical phenotype [J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2005, 11(16): 5740-5747.
20
Harada H, Nakagawa K, Iwata S, et al. Restoration of wild-type p16 down-regulates vascular endothelial growth factor expression and inhibits angiogenesis in human gliomas [J]. Cancer Res, 1999, 59(15):3783-3789.
21
Jinzaki M, Tanimoto A, Mukai M, et al. Double-phase helical CT of small renal parenchymal neoplasms: correlation with pathologic findings and tumor angiogenesis [J]. J Comput Assist Tomogr, 2000, 24(6): 835-842.
22
徐作峰, 万广生, 谢晓燕, 等. 肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤超声造影表现的研究 [J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2008, 24(11): 1046-1048.
23
徐美, 崔煜艳, 马刚, 等. 超声造影对肾血管平滑肌脂肪瘤与肾透明细胞癌的鉴别诊断价值 [J]. 中国医刊, 2021, 56(1): 97-99.
24
Young JR, Coy H, Douek M, et al. Type 1 papillary renal cell carcinoma: differentiation from Type 2 papillary RCC on multiphasic MDCT [J]. Abdom Radiol (NY), 2017, 42(7): 1911-1918.
25
Doshi AM, Ream JM, Kierans AS, et al. Use of MRI in differentiation of papillary renal cell carcinoma subtypes: qualitative and quantitative analysis [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2016, 206(3): 566-572.
[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] 汪洪斌, 张红霞, 何文, 杜丽娟, 程令刚, 张雨康, 张萌. 低级别阑尾黏液性肿瘤与阑尾黏液腺癌超声及超声造影特征分析[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 865-871.
[6] 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.
[7] 宋勇, 李东炫, 王翔, 李锐. 基于数据挖掘法分析3 种超声造影剂不良反应信号[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 890-898.
[8] 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.
[9] 王博冉, 乔春梅, 李春歌, 王欣, 王晓磊. 超声造影评估类风湿关节炎亚临床滑膜炎疾病进展的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 802-808.
[10] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[11] 洪玮, 叶细容, 刘枝红, 杨银凤, 吕志红. 超声影像组学联合临床病理特征预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗完全病理缓解的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 571-579.
[12] 马晓菊, 梁潇, 段云友, 袁丽君, 赵萍. NBAV脂质纳泡对ApoE -/-小鼠动脉粥样硬化病变的评估和干预[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 608-616.
[13] 项文静, 徐燕, 茹彤, 郑明明, 顾燕, 戴晨燕, 朱湘玉, 严陈晨. 神经学超声检查在产前诊断胼胝体异常中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(05): 470-476.
[14] 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.
[15] 张琛, 秦鸣, 董娟, 陈玉龙. 超声检查对儿童肠扭转缺血性改变的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2024, 14(06): 565-568.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?