...
首页> 外文期刊>AJR: American Journal of Roentgenology : Including Diagnostic Radiology, Radiation Oncology, Nuclear Medicine, Ultrasonography and Related Basic Sciences >Comparison of assessment of preoperative pulmonary vasculature in patients with non - Small cell lung cancer by non-contrast- and 4D contrast-enhanced 3-T MR angiography and contrast-enhanced 64-MDCT
【24h】

Comparison of assessment of preoperative pulmonary vasculature in patients with non - Small cell lung cancer by non-contrast- and 4D contrast-enhanced 3-T MR angiography and contrast-enhanced 64-MDCT

机译:非对比和4D对比增强的3-T MR血管造影和对比增强的64-MDCT评估非小细胞肺癌患者术前肺血管系统的比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article is to prospectively and directly compare the capabilities of non-contrast-enhanced MR angiography (MRA), 4D contrast-enhanced MRA, and contrast-enhanced MDCT for assessing pulmonary vasculature in patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) before surgical treatment. SUBJECTS AND METHODS. A total of 77 consecutive patients (41 men and 36 women; mean age, 71 years) with pathologically proven and clinically assessed stage I NSCLC underwent thin-section contrast-enhanced MDCT, non-contrast-enhanced and contrast-enhanced MRA, and surgical treatment. The capability for anomaly assessment of the three methods was independently evaluated by two reviewers using a 5-point visual scoring system, and final assessment for each patient was made by consensus of the two readers. Interobserver agreement for pulmonary arterial and venous assessment was evaluated with the kappa statistic. Then, sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy for the detection of anomalies were directly compared among the three methods by use of the McNemar test. RESULTS. Interobserver agreement for pulmonary artery and vein assessment was substantial or almost perfect (κ = 0.72-0.86). For pulmonary arterial and venous variation assessment, there were no significant differences in sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy among non- contrast-enhanced MRA (pulmonary arteries: sensitivity, 77.1%; specificity, 97.4%; accuracy, 87.7%; pulmonary veins: sensitivity, 50%; specificity, 98.5%; accuracy, 93.2%), 4D contrast-enhanced MRA (pulmonary arteries: sensitivity, 77.1%; specificity, 97.4%; accuracy, 87.7%; pulmonary veins: sensitivity, 62.5%; specificity, 100.0%; accuracy, 95.9%), and thin-section contrast-enhanced MDCT (pulmonary arteries: sensitivity, 91.4%; specificity, 89.5%; accuracy, 90.4%; pulmonary veins: sensitivity, 50%; specificity, 100.0%; accuracy, 95.9%) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION. Pulmonary vascular assessment of patients with NSCLC before surgical resection by non-contrast-enhanced MRA can be considered equivalent to that by 4D contrast-enhanced MRA and contrast-enhanced MDCT.
机译:目的。本文的目的是前瞻性和直接比较非造影剂MR血管造影(MRA),4D造影剂MRA和造影剂MDCT评估非小细胞肺癌患者肺血管系统的能力( NSCLC)。主题和方法。经病理证实和临床评估的I期非小细胞肺癌的连续77例患者(41例男性和36例女性,平均年龄71岁)接受了薄层对比增强MDCT,无对比增强和对比增强MRA以及外科手术治疗。两位审阅者使用5分视觉评分系统独立评估了这三种方法的异常评估能力,并通过两位读者的共识对每位患者进行了最终评估。观察者之间的肺动脉和静脉评估协议通过kappa统计量进行评估。然后,使用McNemar检验直接比较了这三种方法中检测异常的敏感性,特异性和准确性。结果。肺动脉和静脉评估的观察者之间的共识是实质性的或几乎完美的(κ= 0.72-0.86)。对于肺动脉和静脉变异评估,非对比增强MRA之间的敏感性,特异性和准确性无显着差异(肺动脉:敏感性77.1%;特异性97.4%;准确性87.7%;肺静脉:敏感性,50%;特异性为98.5%;准确度为93.2%),4D对比增强MRA(肺动脉:敏感性为77.1%;特异性为97.4%;准确性为87.7%;肺静脉:敏感性为62.5%;特异性为100.0 %;准确度为95.9%)和薄层对比增强的MDCT(肺动脉:敏感性为91.4%;特异性为89.5%;准确性为90.4%;肺静脉:敏感性为50%;特异性为100.0%;准确性为95.9%)(p> 0.05)。结论。非增强MRA对手术切除前NSCLC患者的肺血管评估可认为与4D增强MRA和增强MDCT等效。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号