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) ›› 2022, Vol. 19 ›› Issue (08) : 807 -812. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2022.08.014

腹部超声影像学

常规超声图像特征对胆囊息肉样病变的鉴别诊断价值
朱连华1, 韩鹏1, 姜波1, 李楠1, 焦子育1, 唐文博2, 费翔1,()   
  1. 1. 100853 北京,解放军总医院第一医学中心超声科
    2. 100853 北京,解放军总医院肝胆外科
  • 收稿日期:2020-12-28 出版日期:2022-08-01
  • 通信作者: 费翔

Value of conventional ultrasound image characteristics in differential diagnosis of gallbladder polyp lesions

Lianhua Zhu1, Peng Han1, Bo Jiang1, Nan Li1, Ziyu Jiao1, Wenbo Tang2, Xiang Fei1,()   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound, the First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
    2. Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, the First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital, Beijing 100853, China
  • Received:2020-12-28 Published:2022-08-01
  • Corresponding author: Xiang Fei
引用本文:

朱连华, 韩鹏, 姜波, 李楠, 焦子育, 唐文博, 费翔. 常规超声图像特征对胆囊息肉样病变的鉴别诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(08): 807-812.

Lianhua Zhu, Peng Han, Bo Jiang, Nan Li, Ziyu Jiao, Wenbo Tang, Xiang Fei. Value of conventional ultrasound image characteristics in differential diagnosis of gallbladder polyp lesions[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2022, 19(08): 807-812.

目的

探讨常规超声对最大径1.0~1.5 cm的胆固醇性息肉与胆囊腺瘤的鉴别诊断价值。

方法

回顾性分析2019年5月至2020年10月解放军总医院第一医学中心87例最大径为1.0~1.5 cm的胆囊息肉样病变患者的临床资料,所有患者均行常规超声检查,并取得术后病理检查。根据病理结果将其分为胆固醇性息肉组和胆囊腺瘤组。比较2组患者的年龄、性别,胆囊息肉样病变的最大径、纵横比、基底部宽度、息肉部位、回声特征、回声均匀性、边界、数量以及是否存在点状强回声、血流信号和结石。应用Logistic回归分析胆囊腺瘤的独立危险因素,采用ROC曲线评价不同超声特征诊断胆囊腺瘤的效能。

结果

87例患者中胆固醇性息肉65例,胆囊腺瘤22例。胆固醇性息肉组与胆囊腺瘤组的病变最大径、纵横比、病变存在点状强回声占比、存在血流信号占比以及存在结石占比进行比较[1.2(1.1,1.3)cm vs 1.2(1.1,1.4)cm,1.0(0.7,1.5)vs 0.6(0.5,0.7),73.85% vs 22.73%,9.23% vs 54.55%,3.08% vs 18.18%],差异均有统计学意义(Z=-2.048、-3.396,χ2=18.041、20.569、5.841,P均<0.05)。Logistic回归分析显示,仅胆囊息肉样病变的纵横比<0.8、无点状强回声和存在血流信号是胆囊腺瘤的独立危险因素(P均<0.05)。结合上述独立危险因素,常规超声诊断最大径为1.0~1.5 cm胆囊腺瘤的敏感度、特异度和准确性分别为86.36%、90.77%和89.66%,曲线下面积为0.906,其大于单一超声特征的ROC曲线下面积(P<0.05)。

结论

常规超声观察胆囊息肉样病变纵横比、是否存在点状强回声和血流信号对于最大径为1.0~1.5 cm的胆固醇性息肉与胆囊腺瘤的鉴别诊断具有较高的应用价值,可为胆囊息肉样病变患者治疗方案的选择提供可靠的诊断信息。

Objective

To assess the value of conventional ultrasound in the differential diagnosis of cholesterol polyp lesions and gallbladder adenomas with the maximum size from 1.0 to 1.5 cm.

Methods

From May 2019 to October 2020, the clinical data of 87 patients with gallbladder polyp lesions with the maximum size from 1.0 to 1.5 cm at the First Medical Center, Chinese PLA General Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. All patients underwent conventional ultrasound examination and pathological examination. According to the pathological findings, all patients were divided into either a cholesterol polyp lesion group or a gallbladder adenoma group. Patient age, gender, maximum size, anteroposterior/transverse diameter (A/T) ratio, stalk width, location, echogenicity, echogenicity uniformity, boundary, number, hyperechoic spot, blood flow signal, and gallstones were compared between the two groups. Logistic regression analysis was performed to identify the independent risk factors for gallbladder adenomas. ROC curve was used to evaluate the performance of conventional ultrasound in the diagnosis of gallbladder adenomas with the maximum size from 1.0 to 1.5 cm.

Results

Among the 87 patients with gallbladder polyp lesions, 65 had cholesterol polyp lesions and 22 had gallbladder adenomas. The maximum size, A/T ratio, percentage of lesions with hyperechoic spot, percentage of lesions with blood flow signal, and percentage of lesions with gallstones differed significantly between the cholesterol polyp lesion group and gallbladder adenoma group [ 1.2 (1.1, 1.3) cm vs 1.2 (1.1, 1.4) cm, Z=-2.048, P<0.05; 1.0 (0.7, 1.5) vs 0.6 (0.5, 0.7), Z=-3.396, P<0.05; 73.85% vs 22.73%, χ2=18.041, P<0.05; 9.23% vs 54.55%, χ2=20.569, P<0.05; 3.08% vs 18.18%, χ2=5.841, P<0.05]. Logistic regression analysis showed that only the A/T ratio less than 0.8, absence of hyperechoic spot, and presence of blood flow signal were independent risk factors for gallbladder adenomas (P<0.05). When combining all independent risk factors, the sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of conventional ultrasound in diagnosing gallbladder adenomas with the maximum size from 1.0 to 1.5 cm were 86.36%, 90.77%, and 89.66%, respectively, and the area under the ROC curve was 0.906. The area under the ROC curve of the risk factors combined was larger than that of either ultrasound feature alone (P<0.05).

Conclusion

A/T ratio, hyperechoic spot, and blood flow signal of gallbladder polyp lesions on conventional ultrasound images have high application value in the differential diagnosis of cholesterol polyp lesions and gallbladder adenomas with the maximum size from 1.0 to 1.5 cm, which provides reliable diagnostic information for the choice of treatment for patients with gallbladder polyp lesions.

表1 胆固醇性息肉患者与胆囊腺瘤患者的一般资料和超声图像特征比较
一般资料及超声特征 胆固醇性息肉(n=65) 胆囊腺瘤(n=22) 统计值 P
年龄[岁,MP25P75)] 38(29,45) 45(27,53) Z=0.840 0.401
性别[例(%)] χ2=0.870 0.351
37(56.92) 10(45.45)
28(43.08) 12(54.55)
最大径[cm,MP25P75)] 1.2(1.1,1.3) 1.2(1.1,1.4) Z=-2.048 0.041
纵横比[MP25P75)] 1.0(0.7,1.5) 0.6(0.5,0.7) Z=-3.396 0.001
基底部宽度[mm,MP25P75)] 4.0(3.0,5.0) 4.0(3.0,6.0) Z=-1.227 0.220
部位[例(%)] χ2=1.495 0.432
颈部 7(10.77) 1(4.55)
体部 47(72.31) 15(68.18)
底部 11(16.92) 6(27.27)
回声[例(%)] χ2=3.674 0.124
高回声 54(83.08) 15(68.18)
等回声 10(15.38) 5(22.73)
低回声 1(1.54) 2(9.09)
回声均匀性[例(%)] χ2=1.673 0.196
均匀 34(52.31) 8(36.36)
不均匀 31(47.69) 14(63.64)
边界[例(%)] χ2=1.242 0.569
光滑 40(61.54) 14(63.64)
分叶 15(23.08) 3(13.64)
颗粒 10(15.38) 5(22.73)
数量[例(%)] χ2=2.510 0.113
单发 23(35.38) 12(54.55)
多发 42(64.62) 10(45.45)
点状强回声[例(%)] χ2=18.041 <0.001
48(73.85) 5(22.73)
17(26.15) 17(77.27)
血流信号[例(%)] χ2=20.569 <0.001
6(9.23) 12(54.55)
59(90.77) 10(45.45)
结石[例(%)] χ2=5.841 0.034
2(3.08) 4(18.18)
63(96.92) 18(81.82)
表2 Logistic回归分析胆囊腺瘤的独立危险因素
图1 胆固醇性息肉常规超声图像。图a为灰阶超声示胆囊壁上一偏高回声结节(星号所示),纵横比为1.8,内可见点状强回声(箭头所示);图b为彩色多普勒超声示其内未见血流信号(星号所示为结节)
图2 胆囊腺瘤常规超声图像。图a为灰阶超声示胆囊壁上一偏低回声结节(星号所示),纵横比为0.6,内未见点状强回声;图b为彩色多普勒超声示其内可见血流信号(星号所示为结节)
图3 超声特征鉴别诊断胆囊息肉样病变的ROC曲线
表3 超声特征诊断胆囊腺瘤的ROC曲线分析
7
Wiles R, Thoeni RF, Barbu ST, et al. Management and follow-up of gallbladder polyps: Joint guidelines between the European Society of Gastrointestinal and Abdominal Radiology (ESGAR), European Association for Endoscopic Surgery and other Interventional Techniques (EAES), International Society of Digestive Surgery-European Federation (EFISDS) and European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) [J]. Eur Radiol, 2017, 27(9): 3856-3866.
8
Dilek ON, Karasu S, Dilek FH. Diagnosis and treatment of gallbladder polyps: current perspectives [J]. Euroasian J Hepatogastroenterol, 2019, 9(1): 40-48.
9
刘建东, 姜姗姗, 杨兴华, 等. 胆囊息肉样病变性质的术前预测分析 [J]. 中华普通外科杂志, 2017, 32(11): 956-961.
10
Choi TW, Kim JH, Park SJ, et al. Risk stratification of gallbladder polyps larger than 10 mm using high-resolution ultrasonography and texture analysis [J]. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(1): 196-205.
11
Sadamoto Y, Oda S, Tanaka M, et al. A useful approach to the differential diagnosis of small polypoid lesions of the gallbladder, utilizing an endoscopic ultrasound scoring system [J]. Endoscopy, 2002, 34(12): 959-965.
12
Zielinski MD, Atwell TD, Davis PW, et al. Comparison of surgically resected polypoid lesions of the gallbladder to their pre-operative ultrasound characteristics [J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2009, 13(1): 19-25.
13
Liu XS, Chen T, Gu LH, et al. Ultrasound-based scoring system for differential diagnosis of polypoid lesions of the gallbladder [J]. J Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2018, 33(6): 1295-1299.
14
姚贵宾, 刘力玮, 白雪松, 等. 胆囊息肉的超声观察随访及其危险因素 [J]. 中华肝胆外科杂志, 2020, 26(8): 606-610.
15
Sugiyama M, Atomi Y, Kuroda A, et al. Large cholesterol polyps of the gallbladder: diagnosis by means of US and endoscopic US [J]. Radiology, 1995, 196(2): 493-497.
16
Akiyama T, Sahara H, Seto K, et al. Gallbladder cancer associated with cholesterosis [J]. J Gastroenterol, 1996, 31(3): 470-474.
17
费翔, 罗渝昆, 焦子育, 等. 胆囊息肉样病变超声造影动脉期血管增强模式与息肉性质及大小的相关性 [J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2017, 14(7): 538-543.
18
Kim SY, Cho JH, Kim EJ, et al. The efficacy of real-time colour Doppler flow imaging on endoscopic ultrasonography for differential diagnosis between neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps [J]. Eur Radiol, 2018, 28(5): 1994-2002.
19
Park CH, Chung MJ, Oh TG, et al. Differential diagnosis between gallbladder adenomas and cholesterol polyps on contrast-enhanced harmonic endoscopic ultrasonography [J]. Surg Endosc, 2013, 27(4): 1414-1421.
20
Wiles R, Varadpande M, Muly S, et al. Growth rate and malignant potential of small gallbladder polyps--systematic review of evidence [J]. Surgeon, 2014, 12(4): 221-226.
21
Park HY, Oh SH, Lee KH, et al. Is cholecystectomy a reasonable treatment option for simple gallbladder polyps larger than 10 mm? [J]. World J Gastroenterol, 2015, 21(14): 4248-4254.
22
Fei X, Lu WP, Luo YK, et al. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound may distinguish gallbladder adenoma from cholesterol polyps: a prospective case-control study [J]. Abdom Imaging, 2015, 40(7): 2355-2363.
1
Xu A, Hu H. The gallbladder polypoid-lesions conundrum: moving forward with controversy by looking back [J]. Expert Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol, 2017, 11(11): 1071-1080.
2
Xu A, Zhang Y, Hu H, et al. Gallbladder polypoid-lesions: what are they and how should they be treated? a single-center experience based on 1446 cholecystectomy patients [J]. J Gastrointest Surg, 2017, 21(11): 1804-1812.
3
Wennmacker SZ, van Dijk AH, Raessens J, et al. Polyp size of 1 cm is insufficient to discriminate neoplastic and non-neoplastic gallbladder polyps [J]. Surg Endosc, 2019, 33(5): 1564-1571.
4
费翔, 罗渝昆, 唐杰, 等. 常规超声联合超声造影测评胆囊息肉不同径线方向大小、基底部宽度在鉴别息肉性质的初步临床研究 [J/CD]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2018, 15(1): 19-24.
5
Sun Y, Yang Z, Lan X, et al. Neoplastic polyps in gallbladder: a retrospective study to determine risk factors and treatment strategy for gallbladder polyps [J]. Hepatobiliary Surg Nutr, 2019, 8(3): 219-227.
6
Wu T, Sun Z, Jiang Y, et al. Strategy for discriminating cholesterol and premalignancy in polypoid lesions of the gallbladder: a single-centre, retrospective cohort study [J]. ANZ J Surg, 2019, 89(4): 388-392.
23
Bhatt NR, Gillis A, Smoothey CO, et al. Evidence based management of polyps of the gall bladder: A systematic review of the risk factors of malignancy [J]. Surgeon, 2016, 14(5): 278-286.
24
Kim JS, Lee JK, Kim Y, et al. US characteristics for the prediction of neoplasm in gallbladder polyps 10 mm or larger [J]. Eur Radiol, 2016, 26(4): 1134-1140.
[1] 魏淑婕, 惠品晶, 丁亚芳, 张白, 颜燕红, 周鹏, 黄亚波. 单侧颈内动脉闭塞患者行颞浅动脉-大脑中动脉搭桥术的脑血流动力学评估[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(10): 1046-1055.
[2] 张璇, 马宇童, 苗玉倩, 张云, 吴士文, 党晓楚, 陈颖颖, 钟兆明, 王雪娟, 胡淼, 孙岩峰, 马秀珠, 吕发勤, 寇海燕. 超声对Duchenne肌营养不良儿童膈肌功能的评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(10): 1068-1073.
[3] 朱连华, 费翔, 韩鹏, 姜波, 李楠, 罗渝昆. 高帧频超声造影在胆囊息肉样病变中的鉴别诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(09): 904-910.
[4] 张梅芳, 谭莹, 朱巧珍, 温昕, 袁鹰, 秦越, 郭洪波, 侯伶秀, 黄文兰, 彭桂艳, 李胜利. 早孕期胎儿头臀长正中矢状切面超声图像的人工智能质控研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(09): 945-950.
[5] 陈舜, 薛恩生, 叶琴. PDCA在持续改进超声危急值管理制度中的价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(09): 974-978.
[6] 周钰菡, 肖欢, 唐毅, 杨春江, 周娟, 朱丽容, 徐娟, 牟芳婷. 超声对儿童髋关节暂时性滑膜炎的诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 795-800.
[7] 刘欢颜, 华扬, 贾凌云, 赵新宇, 刘蓓蓓. 颈内动脉闭塞病变管腔结构和血流动力学特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 809-815.
[8] 郏亚平, 曾书娥. 含鳞状细胞癌成分的乳腺化生性癌的超声与病理特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(08): 844-848.
[9] 张丽丽, 陈莉, 余美琴, 聂小艳, 王婧玲, 刘婷. PDCA循环法在超声浅表器官亚专科建设中的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(07): 717-721.
[10] 纪凯伦, 郝少龙, 孙海涛, 韩威. 减重术后胆囊结石形成机制的新进展[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 100-103.
[11] 尚培中, 张润萍, 张伟, 贾国洪, 李晓武, 苗建军, 刘冰. 梗阻性黄疸临床防治新技术单中心应用研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 104-107.
[12] 李晓玉, 江庆, 汤海琴, 罗静枝. 围手术期综合管理对胆总管结石并急性胆管炎患者ERCP +LC术后心肌损伤的影响研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 57-60.
[13] 甄子铂, 刘金虎. 基于列线图模型探究静脉全身麻醉腹腔镜胆囊切除术患者术后肠道功能紊乱的影响因素[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 61-65.
[14] 袁成雪, 张宗霞, 许婷, 斯郎拉姆. 三种内镜手术治疗结肠息肉的效果及安全性观察[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(01): 78-81.
[15] 郭震天, 张宗明, 赵月, 刘立民, 张翀, 刘卓, 齐晖, 田坤. 机器学习算法预测老年急性胆囊炎术后住院时间探索[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(9): 955-961.
阅读次数
全文


摘要