...
首页> 外文期刊>British Journal of Radiology >Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/ magnetic resonance mammography: initial results
【24h】

Diagnostic accuracy of fused positron emission tomography/ magnetic resonance mammography: initial results

机译:熔融正电子发射断层扫描/磁共振乳腺X线摄影的诊断准确性:初步结果

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of fused fluoro-deoxy-D-glucose positron emission tomography/magnetic resonance mammography (FDG-PET/MRM) in breast cancer patients and to compare FDG-PET/ MRM with MRM. Methods: 27 breast cancer patients (mean age 58.9 + 9.9 years) underwent MRM and prone FDG-PET. Images were fused software-based to FDG-PET/MRM images. Histopathology served as the reference standard to define the following parameters for both MRM and FDG-PET/MRM: sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy for the detection of breast cancer lesions. Furthermore, the number of patients with correctly determined lesion focality was assessed. Differences between both modalities were assessed by McNemars test (p<0.05). The number of patients in whom FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical approach was determined. Results: 58 breast lesions were evaluated. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy were 93%, 60%, 87%, 75% and 85% for MRM, respectively. For FDG-PET/MRM they were 88%, 73%, 90%, 69% and 92%, respectively. FDG-PET/MRM was as accurate for lesion detection (p=1) and determination of the lesions' focality (p=0.7722) as MRM. In only 1 patient FDG-PET/MRM would have changed the surgical treatment. Conclusion: FDG-PET/MRM is as accurate as MRM for the evaluation of local breast cancer. FDG-PET/MRM defines the tumours' focality as accurately as MRM and may have an impact on the surgical treatment in only a small portion of patients. Based on these results, FDG-PET/MRM cannot be recommended as an adjunct or alternative to MRM.
机译:目的:本研究的目的是评估氟-脱氧-D-葡萄糖正电子发射断层显像/磁共振乳腺摄影(FDG-PET / MRM)在乳腺癌患者中的诊断准确性,并比较FDG-PET / MRM和MRM 。方法:27例乳腺癌患者(平均年龄58.9 + 9.9岁)接受了MRM和俯卧FDG-PET检查。图像基于软件与FDG-PET / MRM图像融合。组织病理学是为MRM和FDG-PET / MRM定义以下参数的参考标准:敏感性,特异性,阳性预测值(PPV),阴性预测值(NPV)和检测乳腺癌病变的准确性。此外,评估了正确确定病灶灶性的患者数量。两种方式之间的差异通过McNemars检验评估(p <0.05)。确定了FDG-PET / MRM将改变手术方式的患者人数。结果:评估了58个乳腺病变。 MRM的敏感性,特异性,PPV,NPV和准确性分别为93%,60%,87%,75%和85%。对于FDG-PET / MRM,它们分别为88%,73%,90%,69%和92%。 FDG-PET / MRM与MRM一样,对于病变检测(p = 1)和确定病灶聚焦性(p = 0.7722)一样准确。只有1名患者的FDG-PET / MRM会改变手术治疗方法。结论:FDG-PET / MRM在评估局部乳腺癌方面与MRM一样准确。 FDG-PET / MRM与MRM一样准确地定义了肿瘤的局灶性,可能仅对一小部分患者的手术治疗产生影响。基于这些结果,不建议将FDG-PET / MRM作为MRM的辅助或替代。

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