Department of Medical Ultrasound, The Fourth Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, Heilongjiang, China.
Clin Hemorheol Microcirc. 2023;85(3):249-259. doi: 10.3233/CH-231860.
To compare the diagnostic value of microvascular flow imaging (MVFI) with that of contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS) for the analysis of blood flow in benign and malignant cervical lymph nodes.
As a prospective study, 95 cervical enlarged lymph nodes (43 benign and 52 malignant) were observed in 95 patients using conventional ultrasonography (including gray and Color Doppler Flow Imaging), CEUS, and MVFI. Two researchers evaluated vascular parameters of MVFI (vascular distribution, internal vascular features, vascular index) and CEUS (enhancement mode, enhancement type) and compared the diagnostic effects of MVFI and CEUS.All results were compared with pathological findings.
There were significant differences in the vascular distribution and internal vascular features of benign and malignant lymph nodes on MVFI (P < 0.05). The vascular distribution of benign lymph nodes was mainly of the central and avascular types, the internal blood vessels were mostly normal, the vascular distribution of malignant lymph nodes was mainly mixed, the internal vessels were mainly tortuous and displaced. The optimal cut-off value of the benign and malignant lymph node vascular index (VI) was 15.55%, and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of the VI was 0.876. There were also significant differences in the enhancement mode and types of benign and malignant lymph nodes in CEUS (P < 0.05). The benign lymph nodes showed centrifugal perfusion, and the enhancement types were mostly type I and type II. Most malignant lymph nodes showed centripetal or mixed perfusion, and the enhancement types were usually type III and type IV. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of CEUS in the diagnosis of lymph node lesions were 84.2%, 84.6% and 83.7%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.845. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of MVFI in the diagnosis of lymph node lesions were 85.3%, 84.6%, and 86.0%, respectively, and the AUC was 0.886.
Both CEUS and MVFI are valuable in differentiating benign and malignant lesions of lymph nodes and have a similar diagnostic performance; however, MVFI is less invasive and simpler than CEUS. Therefore it is preferred for auxiliary examination of enlarged lymph nodes that are difficult to diagnose by conventional ultrasound.
比较微血管血流成像(MVFI)与超声造影(CEUS)分析良恶性宫颈淋巴结血流的诊断价值。
前瞻性研究 95 例患者共 95 个宫颈增大淋巴结(良性 43 个,恶性 52 个),采用常规超声(包括灰阶及彩色多普勒血流成像)、CEUS 和 MVFI 进行观察。两位研究者评估 MVFI 的血管参数(血管分布、内部血管特征、血管指数)和 CEUS(增强模式、增强类型),并比较 MVFI 和 CEUS 的诊断效果。所有结果均与病理结果进行比较。
MVFI 上良性和恶性淋巴结的血管分布和内部血管特征有显著差异(P<0.05)。良性淋巴结的血管分布以中央型和乏血管型为主,内部血管多正常;恶性淋巴结的血管分布以混合型为主,内部血管多迂曲、移位。良性和恶性淋巴结血管指数(VI)的最佳截断值为 15.55%,VI 的受试者工作特征曲线(ROC)下面积(AUC)为 0.876。CEUS 上良性和恶性淋巴结的增强模式和类型也有显著差异(P<0.05)。良性淋巴结呈离心性灌注,增强类型多为Ⅰ型和Ⅱ型;恶性淋巴结多呈向心性或混合性灌注,增强类型多为Ⅲ型和Ⅳ型。CEUS 诊断淋巴结病变的准确性、敏感度和特异度分别为 84.2%、84.6%和 83.7%,AUC 为 0.845。MVFI 诊断淋巴结病变的准确性、敏感度和特异度分别为 85.3%、84.6%和 86.0%,AUC 为 0.886。
CEUS 和 MVFI 均有助于鉴别良恶性淋巴结病变,诊断效能相当,但 MVFI 较 CEUS 具有创伤性小、操作简单的优势,对于常规超声难以诊断的增大淋巴结,可作为辅助检查方法。