摘要
目的比较超声妇科影像报告和数据系统(GI-RADS)分类与恶性风险指数4(RMI 4)鉴别卵巢良恶性肿块的价值。方法回顾性分析经病理证实的342例卵巢肿块患者的资料,以GI-RADS分类1～4a类为良性,4b～5类为恶性,RMI 4取450作为界值,判定良恶性肿块,并与病理结果对照,计算GI-RADS分类与RMI 4诊断卵巢良恶性肿瘤的效能。结果 GI-RADS分类与RMI 4鉴别诊断卵巢良恶性肿块的敏感度分别为70.71%(70/99)、53.54%(53/99),特异度分别为98.77%(240/243)、95.47%(232/243),阳性预测值分别为95.89%(70/73)、82.81%(53/64),准确率分别为90.64%(310/342)、83.33%(285/342),ROC曲线AUC分别为0.91、0.81,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05)。结论超声GI-RADS分类鉴别卵巢良恶性肿块的价值优于RMI 4。
Objective To compare the value of gynecologic imaging reporting and data system (GI-RADS) and risk of malignancy index 4 (RMI 4) in differential diagnosis of benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms. Methods Data of 342 patients with ovarian neoplasms confirmed by pathology were analyzed retrospectively.Taking pathological results as gold standards,GI-RADS 1-4a as benign tumor,GI-RADS 4b-5 as malignant tumor,RMI 4=450 as critical points of benign and malignant ones,the diagnostic performance of GI-RADS and RMI 4 were calculated and compared. Results The sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value, accuracy,AUC of GI-RADS and RMI 4 for differentiating benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms were 70.71%(70/99)and 53.54%(53/99),98.77%(240/243) and 95.47%(232/243),95.89%(70/73) and 82.81%(53/64),90.64%(310/342) and 83.33%(285/342),0.91 and 0.81,respectively ( all P <0.05). Conclusion GI-RADS classification is better than RMI 4 in differentiating benign and malignant ovarian neoplasms.
作者
黄冰冰
陈秋月
吕国荣
HUANG Bingbing;CHEN Qiuyue;LYU Guorong(Department of Ultrasound,the Second Affiliated Hospital of Fujian Medical University,Quanzhou 362000,China;Department of Ultrasound,the Second Affiliated Hospital ofXiamen Medical College,Xiamen 361021,China;Collaborative InnovationCenter for Maternal and Infant Health Service Application Technology,Quanzhou Medical College,Quanzhou 362100,China)
出处
《中国医学影像技术》
CSCD
北大核心
2019年第4期569-572,共4页
Chinese Journal of Medical Imaging Technology
基金
福建省教育厅B类科技项目(JB12103)
泉州医学高等专科学校母婴健康服务应用技术协同创作中心经费资助
关键词
卵巢肿瘤
超声检查
ovarian neoplasms
ultrasonography
