Wu Jing-Ping, Shu Rui, Zhao Yu-Zhen, Ma Guo-Lin, Xue Wei, He Qi-Jia, Hao Mei-Na, Liu Yawu
Department of Ultrasonography, China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Beijing, China.
Department of Ultrasonography, Xijing Hospital, The Fourth Military Medical University, Xi'an, China.
J Clin Ultrasound. 2016 Jul 8;44(6):347-53. doi: 10.1002/jcu.22335. Epub 2016 Feb 18.
To evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of virtual touch tissue quantification (VTQ) and contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS), separately and in combination, in diagnosing malignant focal liver lesions (FLLs).
Forty-six patients with 55 FLLs (28 benign and 27 malignant) underwent both VTQ and CEUS. The diagnostic values of VTQ and CEUS, alone and in combination, were compared.
The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) of CEUS were 92.6% (25/27), 96.4% (27/28), 94.5% (52/55), 96.2% (25/26), and 93.1% (27/29), respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of VTQ with a cutoff of 2.22 m/s were 51.9% (14/27), 85.7% (24/28), 69.1% (38/55), 77.8% (14/18), and 64.9% (24/37), respectively. The diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, PPV, and NPV of VTQ and CEUS combined were 96.3% (26/27), 82.1% (23/28), 89.1% (49/55), 83.9% (26/31), and 95.8% (23/24), respectively. Comparing the accuracies of the three methods, the diagnostic values of CEUS and of the combination of CEUS with VTQ were significantly higher than those of VTQ alone (p ≤ 0.01). There was no significant difference between the combination of CEUS with VTQ and CEUS (p = 0.49).
CEUS is superior to VTQ in diagnosing malignant FLLs. Adding VTQ to CEUS did not improve the diagnosis of FLLs. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 44:347-353, 2016.
分别评估虚拟触诊组织定量（VTQ）和超声造影（CEUS）以及两者联合在诊断肝脏局灶性恶性病变（FLL）中的诊断效能。
46例患有55个FLL的患者（28个良性和27个恶性）接受了VTQ和CEUS检查。比较了VTQ和CEUS单独及联合应用时的诊断价值。
CEUS的诊断敏感性、特异性、准确性、阳性预测值（PPV）和阴性预测值（NPV）分别为92.6%（25/27）、96.4%（27/28）、94.5%（52/55）、96.2%（25/26）和93.1%（27/29）。以2.22 m/s为临界值时，VTQ的诊断敏感性、特异性、准确性、PPV和NPV分别为51.9%（14/27）、85.7%（24/28）、69.1%（38/55）、77.8%（14/18）和64.9%（24/37）。VTQ和CEUS联合应用时的诊断敏感性、特异性、准确性、PPV和NPV分别为96.3%（26/27）、82.1%（23/28）、89.1%（49/55）、83.9%（26/31）和95.8%（23/24）。比较三种方法的准确性，CEUS以及CEUS与VTQ联合应用的诊断价值显著高于单独使用VTQ（p≤0.01）。CEUS与VTQ联合应用和CEUS之间无显著差异（p = 0.49）。
在诊断肝脏局灶性恶性病变方面，CEUS优于VTQ。CEUS联合VTQ并未改善FLL的诊断。©2016威利期刊公司。《临床超声杂志》2016年第44卷：347 - 353页。
