| Literature DB >> 36101800 |
Libo Zhang1,2, Junyi Gu3, Ya Li4, Zhen Ren4, Bo Zhang1,3, Zuoren Yu1,2.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the clinical value of contrast-enhanced ultrasound combined with enhanced CT in the early diagnosis of primary hepatic carcinoma (PHC).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36101800 PMCID: PMC9462989 DOI: 10.1155/2022/7130533
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Contrast Media Mol Imaging ISSN: 1555-4309 Impact factor: 3.009
Routine data of patients.
| Observation indices | Malignant group ( | Benign group ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 57.19 ± 8.29 | 57.00 ± 8.54 | 0.078 | 0.938 |
| Gender | 1.493 | 0.222 | ||
| Male | 43 (61.43) | 11 (78.57) | ||
| Female | 27 (38.57) | 3 (21.43) | ||
| Clinical symptoms | ||||
| Nausea and vomiting | 51 (72.86) | 10 (71.43) | 0.012 | 0.913 |
| Fatigue and anorexia | 33 (47.14) | 7 (50.00) | 0.038 | 0.845 |
| Abdominal distension | 37 (52.86) | 8 (57.14) | 0.086 | 0.769 |
| Hepatic pain | 57 (81.43) | 11 (78.57) | 0.062 | 0.804 |
| Continuable low fever | 18 (25.71) | 4 (28.57) | 0.049 | 0.824 |
| History of chronic hepatic disease | 37 (52.86) | 3 (21.43) | 4.620 | 0.032 |
| Educational level | 0.010 | 0.919 | ||
| Below high school | 26 (37.14) | 5 (35.71) | ||
| High school and above | 44 (62.86) | 9 (64.29) | ||
| Smoking (average ≥1 piece/d, lasting for 1 year) | 34 (48.57) | 2 (14.29) | 5.600 | 0.018 |
| Drinking (≥60 tael/month) | 41 (58.57) | 3 (21.43) | 6.453 | 0.011 |
| Infection of HBV (positive HbsAg) | 55 (78.57) | 6 (42.86) | 7.454 | 0.006 |
Performance of contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
| Groups | Enhancement time (s) | Regression time (s) | Enhancement pattern of photography | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fast in fast out | Fast in same out | |||
| Malignant group ( | 17.57 ± 3.07 | 83.17 ± 10.23 | 32 (45.71) | 38 (54.29) |
| Benign group ( | 7.64 ± 3.04 | 230.71 ± 11.48 | 6 (42.86) | 8 (57.14) |
|
| 11.065 | 48.279 | 1.090 | |
|
| <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.296 | |
Figure 1Comparison of imaging features in 70 patients with PHC (%). Notes: the imaging features of contrast-enhanced ultrasound were as follows: arterial phase (66 cases with high enhancement and 4 cases with equal enhancement), portal phase (10 cases with equal enhancement and 60 cases with low enhancement), and lag phase (3 cases with equal enhancement and 67 cases with low enhancement). The imaging features of enhanced CT were as follows: arterial phase (55 cases with high enhancement and 15 cases with equal enhancement), portal phase (17 cases with equal enhancement and 53 cases with low enhancement), and lag phase (10 cases with equal enhancement and 60 cases with low enhancement). represents a significant difference in imaging features between the two inspection methods at arterial phase (X2 = 7.368, P < 0.001). represents a significant difference in imaging features between the two inspection methods at lag phase (X2 = 4.155, P=0.042).
Figure 2Imaging data of patients with PHC. (a) Shows a male PHC patient' picture of contrast-enhanced ultrasound at arterial phase, whose name was Chen Li and age was 69 years old. (b) Shows a male PHC patient' picture of contrast-enhanced ultrasound at arterial phase, whose name was Chen Gengui and age was 60 years old. (c) Shows a male PHC patient' picture of contrast-enhanced ultrasound at lag phase, whose name was Shen Dahong and age was 71 years old. (d) Shows a PHC patient' picture of contrast-enhanced ultrasound at lag phase, whose name was Chen Hongxiu and age was 63 years old.
Comparison of same pathological findings.
| Pathological findings | Joint diagnosis | Contrast-enhanced ultrasound | Enhanced CT | Summing | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| + | − | + | − | + | − | ||
| + | 65 | 5 | 60 | 10 | 57 | 13 | 70 |
| − | 1 | 13 | 3 | 11 | 4 | 10 | 14 |
| Summing | 66 | 18 | 63 | 21 | 61 | 23 | |
Diagnostic efficacy.
| Diagnostic methods | Accuracy | Sensitivity | Specificity | Positive predictive value | Negative predictive value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint diagnosis | 92.86 | 92.86 | 92.86 | 98.48 | 72.22 |
| Contrast-enhanced ultrasound | 84.52 | 85.71 | 78.57 | 95.24 | 52.38 |
| Enhanced CT | 79.76 | 81.43 | 71.43 | 93.44 | 43.48 |
Note: represented that P was less than 0.05 compared with joint diagnosis.
Area under the curve.
| Inspection variables | Area | Standard errora | Asymptotic sig.b | Asymptotic 95% confidence interval |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joint diagnosis | 0.929 | 0.044 | <0.001 | 0.000–1.000 |
| Contrast-enhanced ultrasound | 0.821 | 0.068 | <0.001 | 0.687–0.955 |
| Enhanced CT | 0.764 | 0.076 | 0.002 | 0.616–0.912 |
Notes: areferred to the nonparametric hypothesis; bmeant null hypothesis, namely, real area as 0.5; and sig. is the P value.
Figure 3ROC curve.