丁华杰 那磊 刘会玲 吴文瑛
·临床研究与应用·
乳腺超声弹性成像BI-RADS 4级肿块校正及穿刺活检的诊断价值*
丁华杰 那磊 刘会玲 吴文瑛
目的:对比分析乳腺BI-RADS分级中4级肿块经超声弹性成像应变率比值校正及超声引导下穿刺活检术的诊断价值。方法:收集2014年1月至2016年6月120例承德医学院附属医院行乳腺肿块手术切除患者的资料,术前全部肿块BI-RADS分级为4级,经超声弹性成像应变率比值校正后行超声引导下穿刺活检术,以病理为金标准对比超声弹性成像应变率比值与穿刺活检的诊断价值。结果:120例乳腺患者BI-RADS 4级肿块经超声弹性成像应变率比值校正后,其中46例BI-RADS 4级不变、59例降为BI-RADS 3级、15例升为BI-RADS 5级,与病理结果对照,经超声弹性成像应变率比值校正及穿刺活检诊断的灵敏度、特异度及准确率分别为90.7%、81.8%、85.5%及88.8%、98.5%、95.0%,经超声弹性成像应变率比值校正与穿刺活检诊断乳腺恶性肿块的差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),诊断良性肿块的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:超声引导下穿刺活检术对乳腺BI-RADS 4级肿块有较高定性诊断价值,仅次于病理诊断,超声弹性成像应变率比值对乳腺BI-RADS 4级肿块分级校正及指导穿刺活检具有一定的临床价值。
乳腺肿块 超声 BI-RADS 弹性成像 穿刺活检
女性乳腺癌为常见恶性肿瘤,目前发病率已占女性恶性肿瘤的首位[1],是我国城市人群中死亡率增长最快的癌症之一。国内外公认的乳腺癌虽具有特定的声像图特点,但超声诊断对非典型乳腺癌仍十分困难[2]。本研究旨在通过对手术切除乳腺肿块的超声表现行BI-RADS分级,评价术前弹性成像应变率比值对BI-RADS分级校正及对超声引导下穿刺活检术的指导价值。
1.1 研究对象
收集2014年1月至2016年6月120例承德医学院附属医院对乳腺肿块行常规超声检查经BI-RADS分级为4级肿块患者的资料,均为女性,年龄为25~87岁,平均年龄为47.9岁,肿块大小为0.7~4.6 cm,肿块均为单发,未行介入治疗及放化疗,全部均经手术切除,其中良性66例、恶性54例。
1.2 仪器与方法
使用日立、飞利浦彩超诊断仪,高频探头,探头频率7~10 MHz。患者仰卧位,充分暴露双乳,先行常规超声检查。根据BI-RADS进行分级,选择研究对象为4级肿块,启动弹性成像模式,以病变区面积为基准,将弹性取样框调到病变区面积的2倍以上,控制压力指数在3、4之间,持续扫描2~5 s,确保所得图像清晰,呈现身体组织各个层次的硬度。获得图像后,测量病灶部位与同深度周围乳腺组织的弹性应变率比值。本研究以弹性应变率比值(SR)≥3.08诊断为恶性,SR<3.08诊断为良性[3],对BIRADS 4级肿块进行校正分级,超声引导下穿刺活检,穿刺针的规格为粗针16~22G,并以术后病理为金标准,与其进行对照分析。
1.3 统计学方法
应用SPSS 19.0统计软件进行分析。计数资料采用χ2检验。P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。
2.1 术前超声、弹性成像及穿刺活检结果
乳腺肿块行BI-RADS分级,3级以下为良性,4级以上为恶性。本研究120例患者肿块为BI-RADS 4级,可疑恶性。全部患者肿块行超声弹性成像应变率比值校正,校正后46例维持BI-RADS 4级、59例降为BI-RADS 3级、15例升为BI-RADS 5级。超声引导下穿刺活检结果良性72例,恶性48例。
2.2 术后病理结果
120例患者共120个肿块,良性66例中乳腺增生伴纤维腺瘤形成39例、乳腺腺病14例、导管内乳头状瘤3例、乳腺纤维腺瘤2例、分叶状肿瘤2例、炎症2例、腺病伴导管扩张4例,恶性54例中浸润性导管癌48例、黏液癌1例、原位癌4例、导管乳头状癌1例。
乳腺肿块BI-RADS 4级校正的超声弹性成像应变率比值与超声引导下穿刺活检对恶性肿块诊断差异具有统计学意义(χ2=44.082,P<0.05),良性肿块诊断差异无统计学意义(χ2=0.226,P>0.05,表1)。
120个BI-RADS 4级肿块经弹性成像应变率比值校正后共误漏诊15个(12.5%),超声引导下穿刺活检共误漏诊6个(5.0%)。超声弹性成像应变率比值鉴别乳腺良恶性的灵敏度高,但特异度及准确率低,超声引导下穿刺活检术的特异度及准确率高(表2)。
表1120 例乳腺患者肿块超声诊断方法与病理结果比较Table 1Comparison of ultrasonic diagnostic methods and pathological results in 120 cases
表2 不同超声诊断方法对乳腺肿块的诊断价值Table 2Diagnostic value of different ultrasound methods for breast masses
乳腺癌在女性恶性肿瘤中高居发病率首位,并日趋年轻化,早期诊断及治疗尤其重要,超声检查对乳腺疾病诊断具有十分重要的作用。BI-RADS分级是1992年由美国放射学会[4]提出并推荐采用,能较客观地评估乳腺肿块,便于各学科之间沟通交流,利于临床规范处理,其中BI-RADS 4级肿块可疑恶性,恶性的危险性范围为3.0%~94.0%,各亚型诊断统一性及可重复性较差,个人主观性强,另外乳腺良恶性肿块超声图像多有重叠,超声医生有时很难把握[5],因此本研究选择BI-RADS 4级,并不分亚型。
超声弹性成像是近几年发展起来的一种利用肿块软硬程度来判断其良恶性的技术,弹性成像取决于组织硬度,纤维成分越多硬度越大[6],而恶性肿瘤因侵袭破坏结缔组织引起大量纤维组织增生造成组织硬度大。在最初的临床应用中,多采用5分法、改良5分法或7分法,因个人主观性强而易误判。弹性成像应变率比值可量化反映病变相对硬度,减少主观偏倚,在超声诊断中被广泛应用。本研究中,120例乳腺患者常规超声BI-RADS 4级肿块均可疑恶性,但是术前超声定性诊断十分困难,而弹性成像能实时快速判断肿块相对软硬度,对BI-RADS分级的校正及良恶性诊断增加了鉴别信息,是术前良好的评估手段,可指导穿刺活检提高病理诊断率。黄健民等[7]研究表明,超声检查联合超声弹性成像检查较常规超声诊断灵敏度、特异度和准确率均提高,与本研究结果类似。本研究中,120例乳腺患者的BIRADS 4级肿块经弹性成像应变率比值校正后12例良性误判为恶性,增生组织及硬化性腺病的纤维成分多、质地坚硬而造成假阳性结果,因此组织变性及间质细胞丰富的良性病变易致假阳性结果[8],5例恶性误判为良性的病理结果显示伴有液化及较多黏液、导致质地较软出现假阴性结果。因此弹性成像应变率比值同样存在一定局限性,对于部分较大肿块或病理组织成分复杂肿块,可能存在弹性应变率比值交叉现象[9]。因此弹性成像应变率比值是常规超声检查的重要补充,有助于提高BI-RADS分级能力,提高诊断灵敏度、特异度及准确率,还可以提高医师诊断信心,对定性诊断有重要价值。
随着乳腺术式的改进,术前诊断成为临床治疗的重要指南。切除活检创伤较大且需在麻醉条件下实施,对患有基础疾病患者并不适用[10]。超声引导下穿刺活检术在逐渐改变术前诊断模式,此技术在世界范围迅速普及[11]。本研究漏诊恶性病例共6例,穿刺结果显示为乳腺良性增生、腺病、不典型增生,而术后病理诊断为乳腺浸润性癌及原位癌。1例良性梭型细胞肿瘤误诊为纤维腺瘤,1例浸润性导管癌诊断为小叶癌,穿刺活检的灵敏度低(88.8%)、特异度高(98.5%)、准确率高(95%)。4例穿刺前超声SR>3.08,表明肿块硬度较大,因此超声弹性成像可指导穿刺活检,提示临床医师需对肿块性质进一步综合评估以决定是否行手术切除活检。因此超声医师穿刺位点选择对病变性质判断尤为关键,这也是超声引导下穿刺活检较传统穿刺活检具有的优势。超声医师须掌握乳腺良恶性、交界性肿块的图像特点,砂砾样钙化可能与恶性肿块较密切,同时需结合临床特点等综合诊断分析[12-13]。另一重要问题是穿刺的质量,穿刺病理诊断不佳的原因是穿刺样本数量及超声引导下取材的准确性。弹性成像应变率比值能及时提示肿块软硬度,可在坚硬部分尽量多穿刺取材,有研究建议14G超声引导下穿刺活检至少取4~5条样本可使准确率达99%[14]。但也有观点认为取样数量对诊断无显著影响,对病变精确的超声定位更能提高检出阳性率[15],与本研究观点一致。
总之,术前超声弹性成像应变率比值校正对BIRADS分级及超声引导下穿刺活检术具有一定的指导价值。
[1]Feng QY,Ye FY,Zeng ZH,et al.Application of ultrasound elastography in breast tumor of benign and malignant lesions[J].Mod Diagn Treat,2013,24(7):1451-1452.[冯庆艺,叶富永,曾洲红,等.超声弹性成像在乳腺肿瘤良恶性病变中的应用[J].现代诊断与治疗,2013, 24(7):1451-1452.]
[2]Zhang ML,Huang ZZ,Zheng Y.Estimation and prediction of the incidence,mortality and prevalence of breast cancer in China in 2008 [J].Chin J Epidemiology,2012,33(10):1049-1051.[张敏璐,黄哲宙,郑颖.中国2008年女性乳腺癌发病、死亡和患病情况的估计及预测[J].中华流行病学杂志,2012,33(10):1049-1051.]
[3]Zhi H,Xiao XY,Yang HY,et al.Comparison of ultrasound imaging in the diagnosis of breast masses[J].Chin J Ultrasonography,2010,2: 142-144.[智慧,肖晓云,杨海云,等.超声弹性成像比值法与评分法在乳腺肿物诊断中的比较[J].中华超声影像学杂志,2010,2:142-144.]
[4]Pan SY,Zhou SF,Gao SH,et al.New perspectives on how to discover drugs from herbal medicines:CAM's outstanding contribution to modern therapeutics[J].Evid Based Complement Alternat Med, 2013,2013:6273-6275.
[5]Regini E,Bagnera S,Tota D,et al.Role of sonoelastography in characterising breast nodules.Preliminary experience with 120 lesions [J].Radiol Med,2010,15(4):551-562.
[6]Zhou XY,Bai JN,Jiang BL,et al.Value of ultrasonic elastography combined with contrast-enhanced ultrasond in diagnosis of benign and malignant breast lesions[J].J Chin Ultrasound Med,2015,17 (2):132-134.[周璇奕,白建宁,蒋蓓蕾,等.超声弹性成像联合超声造影诊断乳腺良恶性肿块的价值[J].临床超声医学杂志,2015,17(2): 132-134.]
[7]Huang JM,Hua JC,Jin QF.Diagnostic value of strain rate ratio measurement of ultrasonic elastography in breast neoplasm[J].China J Modern Med,2014,24(10):100-103.[黄健民,华金才,金巧芳.超声弹性成像应变率比值对乳腺肿块良恶性病灶的临床诊断价值研究[J].中国现代医学杂志,2014,24(10):100-103.]
[8]Evans A,Whelehan P,Thomson K,et al.Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses:value of shear wave elastography according to lesion stiffness combined with greyscale ultrasound according to BI-RADS classification[J].Br J Cancer,2012,107(2):224-229.
[9]Zhi H,Xiao XY,Yang HY,et al.Combination of BI-RADS and ultrasonic elastagraphy in differentiation of breast lesions[J].Chin J Ultrasound Med,2011,27(4):310-312.[智慧,肖晓云,杨海云,等.BIRADS诊断标准与UE结合对乳腺肿物诊断价值的探讨[J].中国超声医学杂志,2011,27(4):310-312.]
[10]Qin Sk,Ma J,Wu YL.Progress in clinical oncology in China(2013) [M].Beijing:People's Medical Publishing House,2013:218.[秦叔逵,马军,吴一龙.中国临床肿瘤学进展(2013)[M].北京:人民卫生出版社,2013:218.]
[11]Zhang FM,He Y,Ji XZ,et al.Application of high frequency US guided 14G core needle biopsy in the diagnosis of breast masses[J].Modern Oncology,2014,22(10):2338-2340.[张福明,何英,季秀珍,等.高频超声引导14G粗针活检在乳腺肿块诊断中的应用[J].现代肿瘤医学,2014,22(10):2338-2340.]
[12]Fu CY,Chen TW,Hong ZJ.Papillary breast lesions diagnosed by core biopsy require complete excision[J].Eur J Surg Oncol,2012,38(11): 1029-1035.
[13]Kim J,Han W,Lee JW,et al.Factors associated with upstaging from ductal carcinoma in situ following core needle biopsy to invasive cancer in subsequent surgical excision[J].Breast,2012,21(5):641-645.
[14]Suh YJ,Kim MJ,Kim EK,et al.Comparison of the underestimation rate in cases with ductal carcinoma in situ at ultrasound-guided core biopsy:14-gauge automated core-needle biopsy vs 8-or 11-gauge vacuum-assisted biopsy[J].Br J Radiol,2012,85(1016):e349-356.
[15]Solon JG,Power C,Al-Azawi D,et al.Ultrasound guided core biopsy: an effective method of detecting axillary nodal metastases[J].J Am Coll Surg,2012,214(1):12-17.
(2016-09-18收稿)
(2016-11-24修回)
Ultrasound elasticity imaging correction and biopsy diagnosis value in BI-RADS 4 breast mass
Huajie DING,Lei NA,Huiling LIU,Wenying WU
The Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College,Chengde 067000,China
This work was supported by Science and Technology Plan of Research and Development Program of Chengde,Hebei Province(No. 20157062)
Objective:To compare the diagnostic value of strain ratio correction in ultrasound elasticity imaging and ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy for the diagnosis of breast imaging reporting and data system(BI-RADS)4 breast mass.Methods:From January 2014 to June 2016 in the Affiliated Hospital of Chengde Medical College,120 patients with breast tumor resection and preoperative BI-RADS4 of all the masses were included in this study.The diagnostic value of contrast ultrasound elastography strain ratio correction and biopsy in ultrasound-guided percutaneous biopsy was evaluated with pathology as the gold standard.Results:In the 120 cases of grade BI-RADS4 mass by ultrasound elastography after correction,46 cases were graded BI-RADS4 without changing;59 cases were downgraded to BI-RADS3, and 15 cases were upgraded to BI-RADS5.The pathology,ultrasonic elastography strain ratio correction,biopsy diagnostic sensitivity, specificity,and accuracy were 90.7%,81.8%,85.5%,88.8%,98.5%,and 95.0%,respectively.A significant difference was found between ultrasonic elastography strain ratio correction and ultrasound-guided biopsy for the diagnosis of breast malignant mass(P<0.05),whereas no significant difference was found for the diagnosis of benign mass(P>0.05).Conclusion:Ultrasound-guided puncture biopsy is highly valuable in qualitative diagnosis of BI-RADS4 breast mass.After the pathological diagnosis,ultrasound elastography strain ratio has certain clinical value in BI-RADS4 guided biopsy and correction of mass classification.
breast mass,ultrasound,BI-RADS,elasticity imaging,biopsy
10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2016.23.074
承德医学院附属医院超声科(河北省承德市067000)
*本文课题受河北省承德市科技计划研究与发展计划项目(编号:20157062)资助
那磊dingding19820314@163.com
丁华杰专业方向为浅表器官肿瘤的超声多模式诊断及介入诊断与治疗。
E-mail:dingding19820314@163.com