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 (11) : 1180 -1186. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2022.11.005

妇产科超声影像学

鉴别附件肿块良恶性的超声模型诊断效能分析
栗嘉楠1, 李秋洋1, 徐虹1, 谌梅1, 汪龙霞1,()   
  1. 1. 100853 北京,解放军医学院 解放军总医院第一医学中心超声诊断科
  • 收稿日期:2021-11-30 出版日期:2022-11-01
  • 通信作者: 汪龙霞
  • 基金资助:
    首都特色——超声新技术在剖宫产术后切口瘢痕妊娠诊断及早期治疗中的应用(Z171100001017141)

Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound models in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses

Jianan Li1, Qiuyang Li1, Hong Xu1, Mei Shen1, Longxia Wang1,()   

  1. 1. Ultrasound Department, First Center in Chinese PLA General Hospital, Chinese PLA Medical School, Beijing 100853, China
  • Received:2021-11-30 Published:2022-11-01
  • Corresponding author: Longxia Wang
引用本文:

栗嘉楠, 李秋洋, 徐虹, 谌梅, 汪龙霞. 鉴别附件肿块良恶性的超声模型诊断效能分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(11): 1180-1186.

Jianan Li, Qiuyang Li, Hong Xu, Mei Shen, Longxia Wang. Diagnostic efficacy of ultrasound models in differentiating benign and malignant adnexal masses[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2022, 19(11): 1180-1186.

目的

对术前评估附件肿块良恶性的常用超声诊断模型的诊断效能进行比较分析。

方法

收集2017年10月至2021年9月在解放军总医院第一医学中心超声诊断科经阴道或经直肠超声检查诊断为附件肿块并行手术治疗的患者资料,采用3种常用的附件肿块良恶性鉴别的超声模型,即简单法则(SR)、逻辑回归模型2(LR2)和卵巢-附件影像报告和数据系统(O-RADS),分别对附件肿块超声特征进行评估,判断肿块良恶性,以病理结果作为金标准,绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线,计算并比较3种方法的诊断效能:采用DeLong方法比较ROC曲线AUC的差异;采用配对χ2检验比较敏感度、特异度的差异,采用χ2检验及Fisher精确检验比较阳性预测值和阴性预测值的差异。

结果

本研究纳入151例肿块,其中良性肿块106例(70.20%),恶性肿块45例(29.80%)。SR、LR2和O-RADS准确诊断附件肿块良恶性的AUC分别为0.901(0.842~0.944)、0.940(0.890~0.972)和0.926(0.872~0.963),SR的AUC低于LR2,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.034),SR与O-RADS、LR2与O-RADS之间的AUC比较差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。SR的敏感度为100%,特异度为80.19%,阳性预测值为68.18%,阴性预测值为100%;LR2诊断恶性肿块的最佳阈值为>0.125,此时敏感度为95.56%,特异度为85.85%,阳性预测值为74.14%,阴性预测值为97.85%;O-RADS诊断恶性肿块的最佳阈值为>3类,此时敏感度为100%,特异度为78.30%,阳性预测值为66.18%,阴性预测值为100%。O-RADS、LR2和SR 3种超声模型的敏感度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05)。SR与LR2、SR与O-RADS特异度比较,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05),O-RADS的特异度低于LR2,差异具有统计学意义(P=0.021)。O-RADS误诊的肿块中,有3例肿块后方伴有声影,这3例肿块SR全部诊断正确。本研究中26例有后方声影的附件肿块,病理结果全部为良性病变。3种超声模型均未能正确评估良恶性的附件肿块有12例,其中3例经超声造影检查诊断为良性,与病理结果相符。另有6例(炎症4例,子宫内膜异位囊肿破裂2例)患者,均有典型临床表现及化验结果,结合临床资料,可避免误诊。

结论

SR、LR2和O-RADS这3种超声模型对于诊断附件恶性肿块具有相似且较高的敏感度,但O-RADS的诊断特异度较低。肿块后方声影作为良性指标纳入O-RADS超声模型中有可能提高其判断肿块良恶性的准确性。超声造影检查可作为鉴别附件肿块良恶性的补充方法。结合病史、临床症状及化验指标有助于附件肿块良恶性的诊断。

Objective

To compare the value of different models in the diagnosis of the adnexal masses.

Methods

We retrospectively collected patients with adnexal masses detected by transvaginal or transrectal ultrasound at the department of ultrasound of First Center in Chinese PLA General Hospital from October 2017 to September 2021. Simple rules (SR), Logistic regression model 2 (LR2), and ovarian-adnexal reporting and data system (O-RADS) were used to evaluate the ultrasound features of the cases, and the pathological results were used as the reference standards. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic efficacy of the three models. The area under the ROC curve (AUC) values were compared by the DeLong method. The paired chi-square test was used to compare sensitivities and specificities. The chi-square test and Fisher's exact test were used to compare positive predictive values (PPV) and negative predictive values (NPV).

Results

Among the 151 masses, 106 (70.20%) were benign and 45 (29.80%) were malignant according to the pathological results. The AUC values of SR, LR2, and O-RADS were 0.901 (0.842-0.944), 0.940 (0.890-0.972), and 0.926 (0.872-0.963), respectively. The AUC of SR was significantly lower than that of LR2 (P=0.034), but there was no significant difference between SR and O-RADS, or between LR2 and O-RADS (P>0.05 for both). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV of SR were 100%, 80.19%, 68.18%, and 100%, respectively. The cutoff for LR2 was>0.125, and the sensitivity, specificity, PPV and NPV were 95.56%, 85.85%, 74.14%, and 97.85%, respectively. The cutoff for O-RADS was>3, and the sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV were 100%, 78.30%, 66.18%, and 100%, respectively. There was no significant difference in sensitivity, PPV, or NPV between O-RADS, LR, and SR. No significant difference was detected in specificity between SR and LR2, SR and O-RADS (P>0.05). The specificity of O-RADS was significantly lower than that of LR2 (P=0.021). There were three adnexal masses that showed acoustic shadows among masses misdiagnosed by O-RADS, all of which were diagnosed correctly by SR. All of the 26 masses that presented with acoustic shadows in our study were pathologically confirmed to be benign. There were 12 adnexal masses misdiagnosed by all the three models, three of which were diagnosed to be benign masses by contrast enhanced ultrasound and confirmed by pathology. Another six patients (4 patients with inflammation and 2 patients with rupture of endometriosis masses) showed typical clinical symptoms and laboratory examination results.

Conclusion

SR, LR, and O-RADS have similar sensitivity, but the specificity of O-RADS is the lowest. Using acoustic shadows of adnexal masses as one of the principles of O-RADS to recognize benign masses may improve the accuracy of that model. Contrast enhanced ultrasound, clinical symptoms, and laboratory examination can help to differentiate benign and malignant adnexal masses.

表1 151例附件肿块病理检查结果
表2 良性和恶性附件肿块的超声特征(例)
图1 SR、LR2与O-RADS诊断卵巢附件肿块良恶性的受试者工作特征曲线注:SR为简单法则,LR2为逻辑回归模型,O-RADS为卵巢-附件影像报告和数据系统
表3 SR、LR2和O-RADS 3种超声模型诊断附件肿块良恶性的诊断效能
图2 左附件区多房囊实性肿块,大小约6.5 cm×4.9 cm×4.9 cm,边界清楚,血流评分4分,腹水1.8 cm。简单法则(SR)评估为恶性,逻辑回归模型2(LR2)计算恶性概率为88.05%(按照LR2最佳阈值>0.125,评估为恶性),卵巢-附件影像报告和数据系统(O-RADS)评估为5类(按照O-RADS最佳阈值>3类,评估为恶性)。病理结果为子宫内膜样癌,为恶性附件肿块
图3 左卵巢可见一多房囊实性包块,大小约4.7 cm×2.9 cm×5.0 cm,边界清楚,内可见多发分隔,部分囊腔内可见偏高回声结节。彩色多普勒血流成像示结节内未见血流信号,分隔上可见血流信号,血流评分为3分(图a)。简单法则(SR)评估为恶性;逻辑回归模型2(LR2)计算恶性概率为36.14%(按照LR2最佳阈值>0.125,评估为恶性);卵巢-附件影像报告和数据系统(O-RADS)评估为5类(按照O-RADS最佳阈值>3类,评估为恶性)。超声造影后该包块内未见造影剂增强(图b),符合良性改变。病理检查结果为浆液黏液型囊腺瘤,为良性附件肿块
图4 左附件区可见一巨大多房囊实性肿块,与周围组织粘连,大小约15.2 cm×7.4 cm×9.5 cm,边界不清,囊性部分呈网格样改变,彩色多普勒血流成像示实性部分可见较丰富血流信号,血流评分为3分。腹腔内可见1.0 cm腹水。简单法则(SR)评估为恶性;逻辑回归模型2(LR2)计算恶性概率为88.11%(按照LR2最佳阈值>0.125,评估为恶性);卵巢-附件影像报告和数据系统(O-RADS)评估为5类(按照O-RADS最佳阈值>3类,评估为恶性)。患者1年前行盆腔粘连松解术,2个月前开始,下腹部坠痛伴会阴部水肿,白细胞计数升高,数值为13.06×109/L[正常参考值:(3.5~10)×109/L],中性粒细胞比值升高,为0.839(正常参考值:0.50~0.70),淋巴细胞比值降低,为0.103(正常参考值:0.20~0.40),符合炎症表现。病理结果为左附件急、慢性炎细胞浸润和脓肿形成,符合炎症性疾病,为良性附件肿块
1
Timmerman D, Testa AC, Bourne T, et al. Simple ultrasound-based rules for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2008, 31(6): 681-690.
2
Bristow R, Smith A, Zhang Z, et al. Ovarian malignancy risk stratification of the adnexal mass using a multivariate index assay [J]. Gynecol Oncol, 2013, 128(2): 252-259.
3
Froyman W, Landolfo C, De Cock B, et al. Risk of complications in patients with conservatively managed ovarian tumours (IOTA5): a 2-year interim analysis of a multicentre, prospective, cohort study [J]. Lancet Oncol, 2019, 20(3): 448-458.
4
Alcázar J, Pascual M, Graupera B, et al. External validation of IOTA simple descriptors and simple rules for classifying adnexal masses [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 48(3): 397-402.
5
Jacobs I, Oram D, Fairbanks J, et al. A risk of malignancy index incorporating CA 125, ultrasound and menopausal status for the accurate preoperative diagnosis of ovarian cancer [J]. Br J Obstet Gynaecol, 1990, 97(10): 922-929.
6
Timmerman D, Van Calster B, Testa A, et al. Predicting the risk of malignancy in adnexal masses based on the Simple Rules from the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis group [J]. Am J Obstet Gynecol, 2016, 214(4): 424-437.
7
Basha M, Refaat R, Ibrahim S, et al. Gynecology Imaging Reporting and Data System (GI-RADS): diagnostic performance and inter-reviewer agreement [J]. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(11): 5981-5990.
8
Froyman W, Wynants L, Landolfo C, et al. Validation of the Performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis (IOTA) methods in the diagnosis of early stage ovarian cancer in a non-screening population [J]. Diagnostics (Basel), 2017, 7(2): 32.
9
Yazbek J, Raju S, Ben-Nagi J, et al. Effect of quality of gynaecological ultrasonography on management of patients with suspected ovarian cancer: a randomised controlled trial [J]. Lancet Oncol, 2008, 9(2): 124-131.
10
刘明松, 任月芳, 金燕, 等. 非妇科专业方向超声医师应用IOTA简易准则的效果 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2021, 18(3): 296-300.
11
Timmerman D, Ameye L, Fischerova D, et al. Simple ultrasound rules to distinguish between benign and malignant adnexal masses before surgery: prospective validation by IOTA group [J]. BMJ, 2010, 341: c6839.
12
Hidalgo J, Ros F, Aubá, M et al. Prospective external validation of IOTA three-step strategy for characterizing and classifying adnexal masses and retrospective assessment of alternative two-step strategy using simple-rules risk [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2019, 53(5): 693-700.
13
Amor F, Vaccaro H, Alcázar J, et al. Gynecologic imaging reporting and data system: a new proposal for classifying adnexal masses on the basis of sonographic findings [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2009, 28(3): 285-291.
14
Van Holsbeke C, Van Calster B, Testa A, et al. Prospective internal validation of mathematical models to predict malignancy in adnexal masses: results from the international ovarian tumor analysis study [J]. Clin Cancer Res, 2009, 15(2): 684-691.
15
Timmerman D, Testa A, Bourne T, et al. Logistic regression model to distinguish between the benign and malignant adnexal mass before surgery: a multicenter study by the International Ovarian Tumor Analysis Group [J]. J Clin Oncol, 2005, 23(34): 8794-8801.
16
Andreotti R, Timmerman D, Strachowski L, et al. O-RADS US risk stratification and management system: a consensus guideline from the ACR Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System Committee [J]. Radiology, 2020, 294(1): 168-185.
17
Hiett AK, Sonek JD, Guy M, et al. Performance of IOTA simple rules, simple rules risk assessment, ADNEX model and O-RADS in discriminating between benign and malignant adnexal lesions in North American population [J]. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol, 2022, 59(5): 668-676.
18
Basha M, Metwally M, Gamil S, et al. Comparison of O-RADS, GI-RADS, and IOTA simple rules regarding malignancy rate, validity, and reliability for diagnosis of adnexal masses [J]. Eur Radiol, 2021, 31(2): 674-684.
[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] 罗刚, 泮思林, 陈涛涛, 许茜, 纪志娴, 王思宝, 孙玲玉. 超声心动图在胎儿心脏介入治疗室间隔完整的肺动脉闭锁中的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(06): 605-609.
[11] 黄佳, 石华, 张玉国, 胡佳琪, 陈茜. 胎儿左头臂静脉正常与异常超声图像特征及其临床意义[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(06): 610-617.
[12] 袁泽, 庄丽. 超声检测胎儿脐动脉和大脑中动脉血流对胎儿宫内窘迫的诊断价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(06): 618-621.
[13] 蒋佳纯, 王晓冰, 陈培荣, 许世豪. 血清学指标联合常规超声及超声造影评分诊断原发性干燥综合征的临床价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2023, 20(06): 622-630.
[14] 廖梅, 张红君, 金洁玚, 吕艳, 任杰. 床旁超声造影对肝移植术后早期肝动脉血栓的诊断价值[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 630-634.
[15] 杨天池, 韩威, 邱枫, 祁佳慧. 术中胰腺超声弹性成像在胰腺质地评估中的应用[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 646-650.
阅读次数
全文


摘要