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) ›› 2024, Vol. 21 ›› Issue (09) : 865 -871. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2024.09.007

腹部超声影像学

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
汪洪斌1, 张红霞1, 何文1,(), 杜丽娟1, 程令刚1, 张雨康1, 张萌1   
  1. 1. 100160 首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院超声科
  • 收稿日期:2024-03-03 出版日期:2024-09-09
  • 通信作者: 何文

Ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound features of low-grade appendiceal mucinous tumor and appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma

Hongbin Wang1, Hongxia Zhang1, Wen He1,(), Lijuan Du1, Linggang Cheng1, Yukang Zhang1, Meng Zhang1   

  1. 1. Department of Ultrasound,Beijing Tiantan Hospital,Capital Medical University,Beijing 100160,China
  • Received:2024-03-03 Published:2024-09-09
  • Corresponding author: Wen He
引用本文:

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]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 865-871.

Hongbin Wang, Hongxia Zhang, Wen He, Lijuan Du, Linggang Cheng, Yukang Zhang, Meng Zhang. Ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound features of low-grade appendiceal mucinous tumor and appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma[J]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2024, 21(09): 865-871.

目的

探讨低级别阑尾黏液性肿瘤(LAMN)与阑尾黏液腺癌(AMAC)的超声图像及实验室检查的差异,以提高诊断准确率。

方法

回顾性分析2009 年1 月至2023 年10 月首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院经手术病理证实的阑尾黏液性肿瘤(AMN)患者的超声及超声造影图像,根据术后病理结果分为LAMN 及AMAC 2 组,采用Fisher 精确概率法对比分析2 组病例超声图像特征和实验室检查(包括感染指标和肿瘤标志物)的差异。

结果

最终46 例患者纳入研究,其中LAMN组29 例,AMAC 组17 例,LAMN 组术前诊断准确率为59%(17/29),而AMAC 组为47%(8/17)。2 组间超声图像特征中肿块性质(囊性/囊实性)、边界、壁结节、钙化、内部回声、洋葱皮样改变、分隔、与周围组织粘连、超声造影表现、是否合并腹膜假黏液瘤(PMP)差异均具有统计学意义(P 均<0.05)。LAMN 组72%(21/29)的患者肿块呈囊性,28%(8/29)呈囊实性,而AMAC 组100%(17/17)呈囊实性;LAMN 组89%(26/29)肿块边界清晰,AMAC 组76%(13/17)边界不清晰;LAMN 组中14%(4/29)患者有壁结节,AMAC 组中88%(15/17)患者有壁结节;LAMN 组中7%(2/29)患者囊壁有钙化,AMAC 组中59%(10/17)患者囊壁有钙化;LAMN 组52%(15/29)患者内部回声均匀,AMAC 组100%(17/17)患者内部回声均杂乱;LAMN 组34%(10/29)患者肿块内部呈洋葱皮样改变,而AMAC 组均无此征象;LAMN 组14%(4/29)患者肿块内部有分隔,AMAC 组88%(15/17)患者肿块内部有分隔;LAMN 组中7%(2/29)患者肿块与周围组织有粘连,AMAC 组94%(16/17)患者肿块与周围组织有粘连;LAMN 组中7%(2/29)患者肿块超声造影呈高增强,AMAC 组82%(14/17)患者肿块超声造影呈高增强,以厚壁结节样高增强为主,余患者肿块均呈无增强;LAMN 组中7%(2/29)患者合并PMP,AMAC 组65%(11/17)患者合并PMP。AMAC 组肿瘤标志物(癌胚抗原、糖类抗原19-9、糖类抗原125、糖类抗原242、神经元特异性烯醇化酶)升高患者例数多于LAMN 组,2 组间差异均具有统计学意义(P 均<0.05)。AMAC 组感染指标(白细胞、中性粒细胞、C 反应蛋白)升高患者多于LAMN 组,2 组间差异均具有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。

结论

LAMN 和AMAC 超声及超声造影表现、血清肿瘤标志物及感染指标均存在一定差异,多项差异特征结合对于提高二者诊断准确率具有较大帮助。

Objective

To investigate the difference in ultrasonographic features and laboratory findings between low-grade appendiceal mucinous tumors (LAMN) and appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinoma (AMAC) in order to improve their diagnostic accuracy.

Methods

The ultrasonographic and contrast-enhanced ultrasound images of patients with appendiceal mucinous tumors confirmed by surgery and pathology at our hospital from January 2009 to October 2023 were retrospectively analyzed. According to the postoperative pathological results, the patients were divided into two groups: patients with LAMNs and those with AMAC. The Fisher exact probability method was used to compare the differences in ultrasound images and laboratory tests(tumor markers and infection indexes) between the two groups.

Results

Forty-six patients were included in the study, including 29 in the LAMN group and 17 in the AMAC group. Preoperative diagnostic accuracy was 59% in the LAMN group and 47% in the AMAC group. There were significant differences in the characteristics of mass (cystic/cystic-solid), boundary, wall nodule, calcification, internal echo, “onion skin” appearance, septa, adhesion to surrounding tissue, contrast-enhanced ultrasound findings, and whether peritoneal pseudomyxoma (PMP) was combined between the two groups (P<0.05). The mass was cystic in 72% (21/29) of patients in the LAMN group and cystic-solid in 28% (8/29), compared with cystic-solid in 100% (17/17) of patients in the AMAC group. The boundary was clear in 89% (26/29) of patients in the LAMN group and unclear in 76% (13/17) of patients in the AMAC group. Wall nodules were present in 14%(4/29) of patients in the LAMN group and 88% (15/17) in the AMAC group. The capsule wall was calcified in 7% (2/29) of patients in the LAMN group and 59% (10/17) in the AMAC group. Forty-two percent (15/29)of patients in the LAMN group had uniform internal echo, and 100% (17/17) of patients in the AMAC group had chaotic internal echo. Thirty-four percent (10/29) of patients in the LAMN group showed “onion skin”appearance, while no such sign was found in the AMAC group. The masses of 14% (4/29) of patients in the LAMN group and 88% (15/17) in the AMAC group had internal septa. In the LAMN group, 7% (2/29) of patients had adhesion to the surrounding tissue, and in the AMAC group, this percentage was 94% (16/17).In the LAMN group, 7% (2/29) of the patients showed high enhancement in CEUS, and in the AMAC group,82% (14/17) of the patients showed high enhancement in CEUS, mainly thick-walled nodules, while the masses in the remaining patients showed no enhancement. Peritoneal pseudomyxoma (PMP) was found in 7% (2/29) of patients in the LAMN group and 65% (11/17) in the AMAC group. The number of patients with elevated tumor markers in the AMAC group was higher than that of the LAMN group, and there were statistically significant differences in carcinoembryonic antigen, carbohydrate antigen 199, carbohydrate antigen 125, carbohydrate antigen 242, and neuron-specific enolase between the two groups (P<0.05).There were more patients with elevated infection indexes in the AMAC group than in the LAMN group, and there were statistically significant differences in white blood cell count, neutrophils, and C-reactive protein between the two groups (P<0.05).

Conclusion

The diagnostic accuracy for LAMNs and AMAC can be significantly improved by ultrasonography and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography combined with serum tumor markers and infection indicators.

表1 2组阑尾黏液性肿瘤患者基本临床资料比较
图1 阑尾黏液腺癌患者超声声像图示右下腹囊实性包块伴多发分隔,内部回声杂乱不均匀
图2 阑尾黏液腺癌患者超声声像图示囊壁多发钙化灶
图3 低级别阑尾黏液性肿瘤患者超声声像图示洋葱皮样改变
图4 低级别阑尾黏液性肿瘤患者超声造影呈薄壁无增强
图5 阑尾黏液腺癌患者超声造影呈周边厚壁结节状高增强
图6 阑尾黏液腺癌患者超声声像图示肿瘤破裂(箭头所示为破裂口)
图7 阑尾黏液腺癌患者超声声像图示腹膜假黏液瘤
表2 2 组阑尾黏液性肿瘤超声图像特征比较[例(%)]
表3 2 组阑尾黏液性肿瘤患者肿瘤标志物及感染指标比较[例(%)]
1
Shaib WL, Assi R, Shamseddine A, et al. Appendiceal mucinous neoplasms: diagnosis and management [J]. Oncologist, 2018, 23(1):137.
2
Bosman FT, Carneiro F, Hruban RH, et al. WHO Classification of Tumours of the Digestive System [M]. Lyon: IARC Press, 2010: 1-155.
3
崔晨, 朱淑娥. 阑尾黏液性肿瘤超声误漏诊分析 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2022, 19(1): 47-50.
4
Behera PK, Rath PK, Panda R, et al. Primary appendiceal mucinous adenocarcinama [J]. Indian J Surg, 2011, 73(2): 146-148.
5
Vavinskaya V, Baumgartner JM, Ko A, et al. Low-grade appendiceal mucinous neoplasm involving the endometrium and presenting with mucinous vaginal discharge [J]. Case Rep Obstet Gynecol, 2016,23(10): 1-4.
6
Dellaportas D, Vlahos N, Polymeneas G, et al. Collision tumor of the appendix:mucinous cystadenoma and carcinoid. A case report [J].Chirurgia (Bucur), 2014, 109(6): 843-845.
7
Sugarbaker PH. When and when not to perform a right colon resection with mucinous appendicealneoplasms [J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2017,24(3): 729-732.
8
Lien WC, Huang SP, Chi CL, et al. Appendiceal outer diameter as an indicator for differentiating appendicealmucocele from appendicitis [J].Am J Emerg Med, 2006, 24(7): 801-805.
9
栾好梅, 苗立英, 葛辉玉, 等. 超声在阑尾黏液性肿瘤诊断中的价值 [J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2014, 30(9): 814-817.
10
张淼, 郭瑞军, 卢瑞刚, 等. 老年人阑尾黏液性肿瘤的超声诊断分析 [J]. 中华老年医学杂志, 2015, 34(6): 659-661.
11
王雨萌, 李岩, 刘冬. 超声在阑尾黏液性肿瘤危险度评估中的价值[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2023, 39(7): 787-790.
12
Leshchinskiy S, Ali N, Akselrod D. The onion skin sign of appendicealmucocele [J]. Abdom Radiol(NY), 2018, 43(9): 2527-2528.
13
Kwak HD, Ju JK. A prospective study of discrepancy between clinical and pathological diagnosis of appendiceal mucinous neoplasm [J]. Ann Surg Treat Res, 2020, 98(3): 124-129.
14
梁娴, 黄利, 刘光清. 超声造影在阑尾黏液性肿瘤鉴别诊断中的应用 [J]. 中国医学装备, 2020, 17(5): 126-129.
15
陈敬. 阑尾黏液性肿瘤与卵巢黏液性囊腺瘤的临床病理分析 [J].实用妇科内分泌电子杂志, 2019, 6(24): 27.
16
Basak F, Hasbahceci M, Yucel M, et al. Does it matter if it is appendix mucocele instead of appendicitis? Case series and brief review of literature [J]. J Cancer Res Ther, 2018, 14(6): 1355-1360.
17
倪紫薇, 柴玲姗, 周静, 等. 低级别阑尾黏液性肿瘤35 例临床病理特点分析 [J]. 中国实用外科杂志, 2021, 41(8): 924-927.
18
Tajima T, Tajiri T, Mukai M, et al. Single-center analysis of appendiceal neoplasms [J]. Oncol Lett, 2018, 15(5): 6393-6399.
19
王栋华, 杜联芳, 陈红燕, 等. 阑尾黏液性肿瘤的临床与超声表现及良恶性鉴别 [J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2016, 32(6): 563-565.
[1] 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]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 852-858.
[2] 包艳娟, 杨小红, 张涛, 赵胜, 张莉. 阴道斜隔综合征的超声诊断与临床分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 859-864.
[3] 农云洁, 黄小桂, 黄裕兰, 农恒荣. 超声在多重肺部感染诊断中的临床应用价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 872-876.
[4] 刘思锐, 赵辰阳, 张睿, 张一休, 杨萌. 多普勒超声对孕鼠子宫动脉不同节段血流动力学参数的评估[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 877-883.
[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]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 884-889.
[6] 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]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 890-898.
[7] 张晓燕, 武玺宁, 张一休, 刘真真, 孝梦甦, 李建初. 超声医学科人文素养教育提升医患沟通能力的调查分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 899-903.
[8] 杜祖升, 赵博文, 张帧, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 陈冉, 毛彦恺. 应用二维斑点追踪成像技术评估孕周及心尖方向对中晚孕期正常胎儿左心房应变的影响[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(09): 843-851.
[9] 郝玥萦, 毛盈譞, 张羽, 汪佳旭, 韩林霖, 匡雯雯, 孟瑶, 杨秀华. 超声引导衰减参数成像评估肝脂肪变性及其对心血管疾病风险的预测价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 770-777.
[10] 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]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 778-784.
[11] 张商迪, 赵博文, 潘美, 彭晓慧, 陈冉, 毛彦恺, 陈阳, 袁华, 陈燕. 中晚孕期胎儿心房内径定量评估心房比例失调胎儿心脏畸形的价值[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 785-793.
[12] 叶婷婷, 李清莹, 陈华, 曾华萍, 王诗雅, 巫敏, 郭娟, 陈梦华, 唐婵贤, 梁凤婷, 王慧芳. 全栈式自动盆底超声与手动方式获取并测量最小肛提肌裂孔平面的一致性评价[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 794-801.
[13] 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]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 802-808.
[14] 刘真真, 葛志通, 赵瑞娜, 彭思婷, 董一凡, 王欣, 张睿, 朱庆莉, 李建初, 杨筱. 北京协和医院超声医学科住院医师读片会教学效果研究[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 809-813.
[15] 王佳佳, 詹韵韵, 姜凡, 孙碧云, 毕玉, 李如冰, 彭梅. Peyton四步教学法在超声住院医师规范化培训颈部淋巴结分区中的应用[J]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(08): 814-818.
阅读次数
全文


摘要