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) ›› 2026, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (02) : 124 -131. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2026.02.003

浅表器官超声影像学

多模态超声对亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节良恶性的鉴别诊断价值
郑燕, 朱琳, 宋颖, 后利珠, 赵丹, 董凤林()   
  1. 215006 江苏苏州,苏州大学附属第一医院超声医学科
  • 收稿日期:2026-01-09 出版日期:2026-02-01
  • 通信作者: 董凤林
  • 基金资助:
    苏州大学临床医学科技高端平台和转化基地建设项目(ML12202723); 姑苏卫生人才计划项目(GSWS2023008); 苏州大学附属第一医院博习临床研究项目(BXLC002)

Diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound in differentiating benign from malignant subcentimeter breast nodules with microcalcifications

Yan Zheng, Lin Zhu, Ying Song, Lizhu Hou, Dan Zhao, Fenglin Dong()   

  1. Department of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital of Soochow University, Suzhou 215006, China
  • Received:2026-01-09 Published:2026-02-01
  • Corresponding author: Fenglin Dong
引用本文:

郑燕, 朱琳, 宋颖, 后利珠, 赵丹, 董凤林. 多模态超声对亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节良恶性的鉴别诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(02): 124-131.

Yan Zheng, Lin Zhu, Ying Song, Lizhu Hou, Dan Zhao, Fenglin Dong. Diagnostic value of multimodal ultrasound in differentiating benign from malignant subcentimeter breast nodules with microcalcifications[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2026, 23(02): 124-131.

目的

探讨多模态超声(包括常规超声、弹性超声、超声造影)在亚厘米级(直径≤1 cm)伴微钙化乳腺结节良恶性鉴别诊断中的价值。

方法

回顾性纳入2022年1月至2025年3月经病理证实的120例亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节患者。以病理结果为金标准,将患者分为良性组与恶性组,采用单因素分析方法(χ2检验、非参数检验)对比2组病灶的声像图特征差异(包括常规超声、弹性超声及超声造影),采用多因素Logistic回归分析筛选出独立危险因子,绘制受试者操作特征(ROC)曲线,评估各独立危险因子单独及联合诊断的效能。进一步将独立危险因子均呈阴性的结节定义为“超声低风险”结节,其余为“超声高风险”结节,计算该风险分层策略的阴性预测值。

结果

共纳入120例结节,其中良性75例,恶性45例。相较于良性组,恶性组结节多表现为长径偏大[9.00(7.00,10.00)mm vs 7.00(6.00,10.00)mm]、形态不规则(82.22% vs 61.33%)、边缘不光整(88.89% vs 24.00%)、簇状分布的微钙化更多见(40.00% vs 10.67%);弹性评分较高(4~5分:55.56% vs 18.67%);超声造影多表现为高增强(95.56% vs 54.67%)、增强后边缘不光整(62.22% vs 29.33%)、增强后范围增大(82.22% vs 16.00%),差异具有统计学意义(Z=-2.432,P=0.015;Z=-5.754,P=0.016;χ2=47.422,P<0.001;χ2=14.259,P<0.001;χ2=17.446,P<0.001;χ2=22.693,P<0.001;χ2=12.517,P<0.001;χ2=51.051,P<0.001)。多因素回归分析结果显示,边缘不光整、簇状分布的微钙化及增强后范围增大是诊断恶性结节的独立危险因子(OR=41.127,P<0.001;OR=15.088,P=0.005;OR=9.622,P=0.009)。相较于独立危险因子单独诊断,联合诊断有更高的诊断效能,AUC值、准确性、敏感度、特异度分别为0.940、90.83%、88.89%、92.00%。进行风险分层后,44例结节被划为“超声低风险”结节,其阴性预测值为97.72%(43/44)。

结论

多模态超声联合诊断对亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节良恶性具有优异的鉴别诊断效能。基于独立危险因子构建的“超声低风险”分层规则具有较高的阴性预测值,可为此类结节避免不必要的活检提供重要依据。

Objective

To evaluate the value of multimodal ultrasound—including conventional ultrasound, elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound—in the differential diagnosis of benign and malignant subcentimeter (≤1 cm) breast nodules with microcalcifications.

Methods

This retrospective study enrolled 120 patients with pathologically confirmed subcentimeter breast nodules with microcalcifications between January 2022 and March 2025. Using pathological results as the gold standard, the patients were divided into benign and malignant groups. Univariate analysis (χ2 test and non-parametric test) was performed to compare sonographic features (conventional ultrasound, elastography, and contrast-enhanced ultrasound) between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify independent risk factors. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to evaluate the diagnostic performance of each independent risk factor alone and in combination. Nodules negative for all independent risk factors were further defined as "ultrasound-low-risk" nodules, and the remaining nodules as "ultrasound-high-risk" nodules. The negative predictive value of this risk stratification strategy was calculated.

Results

A total of 120 nodules were included, comprising 75 benign and 45 malignant. Compared with the benign group, malignant nodules more frequently exhibited larger diameters [9.00 (7.00, 10.00) mm vs 7.00 (6.00, 10.00) mm], irregular shape (82.22% vs 61.33%), irregular margins (88.89% vs 24.00%), and clustered distribution of microcalcifications (40.00% vs 10.67%). Malignant nodules also showed higher elastography scores (grades 4-5: 55.56% vs 18.67%). On contrast-enhanced ultrasound, malignant nodules more commonly demonstrated high enhancement (95.56% vs 54.67%), irregular margins after enhancement (62.22% vs 29.33%), and enlarged lesion size after enhancement (82.22% vs 16.00%). All these differences were statistically significant (Z = –2.432, P = 0.015; Z = –5.754, P=0.016; χ2=47.422, P<0.001; χ2=14.259, P<0.001; χ2=17.446, P<0.001; χ2=22.693, P<0.001; χ2=12.517, P<0.001; and χ2=51.051, P<0.001, respectively). Multivariate logistic regression analysis identified irregular margins, clustered distribution of microcalcifications, and enlarged lesion size after enhancement as independent risk factors for malignant nodules (odds ratio [OR]=41.127, P<0.001; OR=15.088, P=0.005; OR=9.622, P=0.009). The combination of these factors yielded higher diagnostic performance than any single factor, with an area under the curve of 0.940, accuracy of 90.83%, sensitivity of 88.89%, and specificity of 92.00%. After risk stratification, 44 nodules were classified as "ultrasound-low-risk" nodules, with a negative predictive value of 97.72% (43/44).

Conclusion

Multimodal ultrasound combined diagnosis demonstrates excellent discriminatory efficacy for subcentimeter breast nodules with microcalcifications. The "ultrasound-low-risk" stratification rule based on independent risk factors achieves a high negative predictive value, offering important support for avoiding unnecessary biopsies in such nodules.

表1 2组亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节的多模态超声参数比较
图1 良恶性亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节超声及病理图。图a、e、i、m、q:高级别导管内癌伴局灶间质微浸润,常规超声(图a)显示结节呈低回声,形态不规则,边缘不光整,内部回声不均匀,可见簇状分布的微钙化;彩色多普勒血流成像(CDFI,图e)显示结节内见数个点状血流,Adler 2级;结节质地中等,弹性评分为4分(图i);超声造影呈高增强,范围较灰阶图像增大,边缘不光整(图m);图q为病理图(HE×100)。图b、f、j、n、r:乳腺浸润性导管癌,常规超声(图b)显示结节呈低回声,形态不规则,边缘不光整,内部回声不均匀,可见散在分布的微钙化;CDFI(图f)显示结节未见血流信号,Adler 0级;结节质地中等,弹性评分为3分(图j);超声造影呈均匀高增强,范围较灰阶图像增大,边缘光整(图n);图r为病理图(HE×200)。图c、g、k、o、s:纤维腺瘤,常规超声(图c)显示结节呈低回声,形态规则,边缘光整,内部回声不均匀,可见散在分布的微钙化;CDFI(图g)显示结节未见血流信号,Adler 0级;结节质地偏硬,弹性评分为4分(图k);超声造影呈低增强,范围与灰阶图像一致,边缘光整(图o);图s为病理图(HE×200)。图d、h、l、p、t:中级别导管内癌,常规超声(图d)显示结节呈低回声,形态规则,边缘光整,内部回声不均匀,可见一枚微钙化;CDFI(图h)显示结节内可见点状血流,Adler 1级;结节质地偏硬,弹性评分为4分(图l);超声造影呈均匀等增强,范围与灰阶图像一致,边缘光整(图p);图t为病理图(HE×200)
表2 多模态超声特征诊断亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节良恶性的多因素Logistic回归分析
图2 超声参数单独及联合诊断亚厘米级乳腺结节良恶性的受试者操作特征曲线
表3 独立危险因子独立及多参数联合诊断亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节良恶性的效能比较
表4 亚厘米级伴微钙化乳腺结节超声风险分层结果与病理对照(例)
1
Tse GM, Tan P, Pang ALM, et al. Calcification in breast lesions: pathologists' perspective [J]. J Clin Pathol, 2007, 61(2): 145-151.
2
Kunitake J, Sudilovsky D, Johnson L, et al. Biomineralogical signatures of breast microcalcifications [J]. Sci Adv, 2023, 9(8): e3152.
3
Quintana LM, Collins LC. Diagnostic pitfalls in breast cancer pathology with an emphasis on core needle biopsy specimens [J]. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2023, 147(9): 1025-1038.
4
John M, Eisenberg Center for Clinical Decisions and Communications Science. Core-needle biopsy for breast abnormalities [J]. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2016, 26(5): 1-4.
5
Wang J, Zhao R, Cheng J. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2022, 149: 110219.
6
于腾飞, 殷露, 田道然, 等. 超微血流成像和彩色多谱勒血流显像在乳腺BI-RADS 4类微小结节中的临床应用 [J]. 首都医科大学学报, 2023, 44(6): 921-927.
7
刘霞, 闫国珍, 李爱华, 等. 超声应变弹性成像及免疫组化指标诊断乳腺微小癌的临床价值研究[J]. 中国超声医学杂志, 2024, 40(6): 642-645.
8
Du Y, Wu Y, Chen M, et al. Application of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in the diagnosis of small breast lesions [J]. Clin Hemorheol Microcirc, 2018, 70(3): 291-300.
9
Adler D, Carson P, Rubin J, et al. Doppler ultrasound color flow imaging in the study of breast cancer: preliminary findings [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 1990, 16(6): 553-559.
10
罗葆明, 欧冰, 智慧, 等. 改良超声弹性成像评分标准在乳腺肿块鉴别诊断中的价值 [J]. 现代临床医学生物工程学杂志, 2006, 12(5): 396-398.
11
Logullo A, Prigenzi K, Nimir C, et al. Breast microcalcifications: past, present and future (Review) [J]. Mol Clin Oncol, 2022, 16(4): 81-88.
12
Sivaguru M, Schrup SE, Fouke KW, et al. Mechanisms of osteopontin-stabilized amorphous calcium phosphate calcification in benign and pre-malignant breast disease [J]. Sci Rep, 2025, 15(1): 23849.
13
Scimeca M, Giocondo R, Montanaro M, et al. BMP-2 variants in breast epithelial to mesenchymal transition and microcalcifications origin [J]. Cells, 2020, 9(6): 1381-1396.
14
Grimm LJ, Miller MM, Thomas SM, et al. Growth dynamics of mammographic calcifications: differentiating ductal carcinoma in situ from benign breast disease [J]. Radiology, 2019, 292(1): 77-83.
15
Mendelson EB, Bohm-Velez M, Berg WA, et al. ACR BI-RADS® Ultrasound. ACR BI-RADS® Atlas, Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System[M]. Reston: American College of Radiology, 2013: 110-111.
16
Lee HJ, Kim EK, Kim MJ, et al. Observer variability of breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS) for breast ultrasound [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2008, 65(2): 293-298.
17
Blank MAB, Antaki JF. Breast lesion elastography region of interest selection and quantitative heterogeneity: a systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2017, 43(2): 387-397.
18
赵子卓, 欧冰, 罗葆明, 等. 超声弹性成像对乳腺小实性病灶的鉴别诊断价值 [J]. 中华超声影像学杂志, 2010, 19(9): 787-789.
19
Wang J, Zhao R, Cheng J. Diagnostic accuracy of contrast-enhanced ultrasound to differentiate benign and malignant breast lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J]. Eur J Radiol, 2022, 149: 110219.
20
Zhang N, Sun L, Chen X, et al. Meta‐analysis of contrast‐enhanced ultrasound in differential diagnosis of breast adenosis and breast cancer [J]. J Clin Ultrasound, 2024, 52(9): 1402-1418.
21
Fu N, Li J, Wang B, et al. Diagnostic performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound in breast lesions: what diagnostic models could be used for lesions of different sizes? [J]. Gland Surg, 2023, 12(12): 1654-1667.
22
Kuzmiak CM, Sharpe RE, Lewin AA, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging of Ductal Carcinoma in Situ (DCIS) [J]. J Am Coll Radiol, 2025, 22(5): S274-S299.
23
Hwang ES, Hyslop T, Lynch T, et al. Active monitoring with or without endocrine therapy for low-risk ductal carcinoma in situ: the COMET randomized clinical trial [J]. JAMA, 2025, 333(11): 972-980.
[1] 崔蕊, 杨文利, 李栋军, 王子杨, 陈伟, 李逸丰, 沈琳, 刘倩, 李逸凡, 刘宸琛. L33-8s高频线阵超声探头在眼部睫状体离断诊断中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(04): 271-275.
[2] 张崇霄, 胡紫玥, 崔立坤, 王璐, 卢漫. 甲状腺乳头状癌术后淋巴结转移的超声特征[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(04): 283-291.
[3] 张玲玲, 肖沁妤, 方晓政, 周利杰. 超声特征联合Ki-67预测乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转移的价值[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(04): 292-299.
[4] 王博逸, 黄斌, 孙希希, 洪勇强, 吴圣波, 王涵, 亓倩倩. 热平衡术式在经皮子宫肌瘤微波消融治疗中的疗效评价[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2026, 23(04): 307-315.
[5] 王硕, 郑新宇. 乳腺癌术后同侧乳腺肿瘤复发的病理学认知与处理[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 133-137.
[6] 丁彩霞, 曲景辉, 裴英宏, 李静娜, 郑晓瑜, 徐岭植, 李思思. 基于RNA结合蛋白基因表达特征的乳腺癌预后预测模型构建及评价分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 138-147.
[7] 王美衡, 李杰, 陈策实, 许超汉. 乳腺癌串联重复表型的识别及分子功能特征分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 148-155.
[8] 范遥, 黄玉娥, 杨森果, 丁华, 张黔, 刘蜀. 线粒体基质导入因子23在三阴性乳腺癌中的表达及其作用机制[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 156-162.
[9] 王静坤, 计美妮, 王玉凤, 宣浩军. 真空辅助乳腺活检与空芯针穿刺活检在乳腺癌诊断中的对比研究[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 163-168.
[10] 程妹, 金亚彬, 马丁瑞, 程昊, 詹玉莲, 周丹. 基于深度学习的MRI图像分析在乳腺癌诊疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 169-173.
[11] 贾亚南, 尚迎晓, 甄江涛. 乳腺术后皮下高引流量淋巴漏1例[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(03): 303-304.
[12] 董妮, 肖康, 王齐成. 经直肠超声多参数联合检测对中低位直肠癌淋巴结转移的术前预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(03): 212-215.
[13] 刘海龙, 唐敏娟, 高悦. 肝血流超声参数联合血清内皮素1、核因子κB对肝硬化患者食管胃底静脉曲张破裂出血的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(03): 216-221.
[14] 郭建华, 郭黎黎, 吕莉. 高频超声联合彩色多普勒超声对肠套叠肠壁血流状态与复位成功率的评估价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(03): 236-242.
[15] 张洪涛, 于大中, 王静怡. 基于微血流成像联合超声造影的回归模型评估肝细胞癌微血管侵犯的临床价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(03): 248-255.
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?