目的分析MRI检查联合血清CA125、人附睾蛋白4(human epididymis protein 4,HE4)水平检测对卵巢癌诊断效能。方法回顾分析本院2016年1月至2018年3月收治的94例卵巢癌患者的临床资料。观察MRI检查的影像学表现及血清HE4、血清CA125检查所...目的分析MRI检查联合血清CA125、人附睾蛋白4(human epididymis protein 4,HE4)水平检测对卵巢癌诊断效能。方法回顾分析本院2016年1月至2018年3月收治的94例卵巢癌患者的临床资料。观察MRI检查的影像学表现及血清HE4、血清CA125检查所得结果进行分析诊断;对比血清HE4、血清CA125、MRI检查以及血清HE4、血清CA125、MRI三种联合检查对卵巢癌的准确性、敏感性、特异性。结果血清HE4、血清CA125、MRI三种联合检查对卵巢癌的诊断灵敏性、特异性和准确性分别为98.94%、97.87%、98.94%,明显高于单一的血清HE4、血清CA125及MRI检查卵巢癌的诊断灵敏性、特异性和准确性,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经MRI检查、血清HE4及血清CA125均可有效的显示卵巢癌的影像学特点,但是将MRI检查、血清HE4及血清CA125联合可以显著提高卵巢癌的准确性、敏感性、特异性,鉴别出卵巢肿瘤的性质,值得临床上广泛应用。展开更多
Background Accurate evaluation of response following chemotherapy treatment is essential for surgical decision making in patients with breast cancer. Modalities that have been used to monitor response to neo-adjuvant ...Background Accurate evaluation of response following chemotherapy treatment is essential for surgical decision making in patients with breast cancer. Modalities that have been used to monitor response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy （NAC） include physical examination （PE）, ultrasound （US）, and magnetic resonance imaging （MRI）. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PE, US, and MRI in predicting the response to NAC in patients with breast cancer. Methods According to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors guidelines, the largest unidimensional measurement of the tumor diameter evaluated by PE, US, and MRI before and after NAC was classified into four grades, including clinical complete response, clinical partial response, clinical progressive disease, clinical stable disease, and compared with the final histopathological examination. Results Of the 64 patients who received NAC, the pathologic complete response （pCR） was shown in 13 of 64 patients （20%）. The sensitivity of PE, US, and MRI in predicting the major pathologic response was 73%, 75%, and 80%, respectively, and the specificity was 45%, 50%, and 50% respectively. For predicting a pCR, the sensitivity of PE, US, and MRI was 46%, 46%, and 39%, respectively, and the specificity was 65%, 98%, and 92% respectively. Conclusions Compared with final pathologic findings, all these three clinical and imaging modalities tended to obviously underestimate the pCR rate. A more appropriate, universal, and practical standard by clinical and imaging modalities in predicting the response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in vivo is essential.展开更多
文摘目的分析MRI检查联合血清CA125、人附睾蛋白4(human epididymis protein 4,HE4)水平检测对卵巢癌诊断效能。方法回顾分析本院2016年1月至2018年3月收治的94例卵巢癌患者的临床资料。观察MRI检查的影像学表现及血清HE4、血清CA125检查所得结果进行分析诊断;对比血清HE4、血清CA125、MRI检查以及血清HE4、血清CA125、MRI三种联合检查对卵巢癌的准确性、敏感性、特异性。结果血清HE4、血清CA125、MRI三种联合检查对卵巢癌的诊断灵敏性、特异性和准确性分别为98.94%、97.87%、98.94%,明显高于单一的血清HE4、血清CA125及MRI检查卵巢癌的诊断灵敏性、特异性和准确性,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论经MRI检查、血清HE4及血清CA125均可有效的显示卵巢癌的影像学特点,但是将MRI检查、血清HE4及血清CA125联合可以显著提高卵巢癌的准确性、敏感性、特异性,鉴别出卵巢肿瘤的性质,值得临床上广泛应用。
文摘Background Accurate evaluation of response following chemotherapy treatment is essential for surgical decision making in patients with breast cancer. Modalities that have been used to monitor response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy （NAC） include physical examination （PE）, ultrasound （US）, and magnetic resonance imaging （MRI）. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of PE, US, and MRI in predicting the response to NAC in patients with breast cancer. Methods According to the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors guidelines, the largest unidimensional measurement of the tumor diameter evaluated by PE, US, and MRI before and after NAC was classified into four grades, including clinical complete response, clinical partial response, clinical progressive disease, clinical stable disease, and compared with the final histopathological examination. Results Of the 64 patients who received NAC, the pathologic complete response （pCR） was shown in 13 of 64 patients （20%）. The sensitivity of PE, US, and MRI in predicting the major pathologic response was 73%, 75%, and 80%, respectively, and the specificity was 45%, 50%, and 50% respectively. For predicting a pCR, the sensitivity of PE, US, and MRI was 46%, 46%, and 39%, respectively, and the specificity was 65%, 98%, and 92% respectively. Conclusions Compared with final pathologic findings, all these three clinical and imaging modalities tended to obviously underestimate the pCR rate. A more appropriate, universal, and practical standard by clinical and imaging modalities in predicting the response to neo-adjuvant chemotherapy in vivo is essential.
