Buy J N, Ghossain M A, Hugol D, Hassen K, Sciot C, Truc J B, Poitout P, Vadrot D
Department of Radiology, Hôtel Dieu de Paris, France.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1996 Feb;166(2):385-93. doi: 10.2214/ajr.166.2.8553953.
To evaluate the importance of color Doppler combined with conventional sonography in characterizing adnexal masses and to compare the results with those of spectral Doppler analysis alone and conventional sonography alone.
One hundred and fifteen women with 132 adnexal masses (98 benign, three borderline, and 31 malignant) were prospectively studied with conventional and Doppler sonography (transabdominal in all patients and transvaginal in 111). Three methods differentiated benign from borderline and malignant masses. In the first, conventional sonography was used. In the second, conventional sonography was combined with color Doppler. In this method, the presence of color flow in an echogenic portion classified as indeterminate or malignant by conventional sonography indicated malignancy; the absence of color flow in an echogenic portion classified as indeterminant or malignant at conventional sonography indicated benignancy; the presence or absence of color flow in a regular wall or septum indicated benignancy. The third method used spectral Doppler analysis. Malignancy was indicated by a resistive index (RI) less than or equal to 0.4, a pulsatility index (PI) less than or equal to 1, or a peak systolic velocity (PSV) greater than or equal to 15 cm/sec.
Using conventional sonography alone, accuracy was 83%, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 82%. Using conventional sonography and color Doppler, accuracy was 95%, sensitivity was 88%, and specificity was 97%. Using spectral Doppler analysis and an RI less than or equal to 0.4, accuracy was 77%, sensitivity was 18%, and specificity was 98%. For a PI less than or equal to 1, accuracy was 68%, sensitivity was 71%, and specificity was 67%. For a PSV greater than or equal to 15 cm/sec, accuracy was 72%, sensitivity was 47%, and and specificity was 81%.
Adding color Doppler to conventional sonography produced a specificity and positive predictive value higher than those of conventional sonography alone. Specificity increased from 82% to 97% (p < .001), and positive predictive value increased from 63% to 91%. RI, PI, and PSV were of limited value.
评估彩色多普勒联合传统超声检查在附件包块特征诊断中的重要性,并将结果与单纯频谱多普勒分析及单纯传统超声检查的结果进行比较。
对115例患有132个附件包块(98个良性、3个交界性和31个恶性)的女性进行前瞻性研究,采用传统超声检查和多普勒超声检查(所有患者均行经腹超声检查,111例患者同时行经阴道超声检查)。三种方法用于鉴别良性与交界性及恶性包块。第一种方法是单纯使用传统超声检查。第二种方法是传统超声检查联合彩色多普勒检查。在此方法中,在传统超声检查分类为不确定或恶性的回声部分出现血流信号提示为恶性;在传统超声检查分类为不确定或恶性的回声部分未出现血流信号提示为良性;规则壁或间隔中血流信号的有无提示为良性。第三种方法是使用频谱多普勒分析。阻力指数(RI)小于或等于0.4、搏动指数(PI)小于或等于1或收缩期峰值流速(PSV)大于或等于15 cm/秒提示为恶性。
单纯使用传统超声检查时,准确率为83%,敏感性为88%,特异性为82%。使用传统超声检查和彩色多普勒时,准确率为95%,敏感性为88%,特异性为97%。使用频谱多普勒分析且RI小于或等于0.4时,准确率为77%,敏感性为18%,特异性为98%。对于PI小于或等于1,准确率为68%,敏感性为71%,特异性为67%。对于PSV大于或等于15 cm/秒,准确率为72%,敏感性为47%,特异性为81%。
在传统超声检查中加入彩色多普勒,其特异性和阳性预测值高于单纯传统超声检查。特异性从82%提高到97%(p <.001),阳性预测值从63%提高到91%。RI、PI和PSV的价值有限。