分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
经验交流
DWI和动态对比增强MRI多参数鉴别腮腺Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤
胡涛 方学文 刘琼 邹玉坚 姚兆友 高云 张坤林

Cite this article as: Hu T, Fang XW, Liu Q, et al. Multiparameters of DWI and DCE-MRI in differentiation between parotid Warthin tumor and pleomorphic adenoma[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2021, 12(7): 55-59.本文引用格式:胡涛, 方学文, 刘琼, 等. DWI和动态对比增强MRI多参数鉴别腮腺Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(7): 55-59. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.011.


[摘要] 目的 探讨弥散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging,DWI)、动态对比增强磁共振成像(dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging,DCE-MRI)多参数鉴别诊断腮腺Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的价值。材料与方法 回顾性分析病理学证实的24例腮腺Warthin瘤患者共32个病灶、24例多形性腺瘤的MRI及临床资料。评估患者一般资料、表观弥散系数值(apparent diffusion coefficient,ADC)、T1初始信号强度值(previous signal intensity,SIpre)、增强后最大信号强度值(maximum signal intensity,SImax)、增强期末信号强度值(signal intensity of the end of enhancement,SIend)、达峰时间(time to peak,TTP)、廓清率 (wash-out ratio,WR)及时间信号强度曲线(time intensity curve,TIC)类型。用受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic,ROC)曲线分析组间有统计学差异的参数对Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的鉴别诊断效能。结果 Warthin瘤发病年龄与多形性腺瘤不同,前者大于后者(t=9.33,P<0.05);男女比例不同,前者以男性为主,后者以女性多见(P<0.05)。Warthin瘤ADC值[(0.634±0.201)×10-3 mm2/s]显著低于多形性腺瘤[(1.084±0.453)×10-3 mm2/s] (t=-5.00,P<0.05)。两者SIpre (t=4.01,P=0.0002)、WR (t=15.10,P<0.0001)、TTP (P<0.05)及TIC类型(P<0.05)差异有统计学意义。以ADC值=0.811×10-3 mm2/s为阈值,鉴别Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的AUC为0.845 (P<0.05),敏感度为83.3%,特异度为90.63%;TIC类型区分二者的AUC为0.961 (P<0.05),敏感度为95.45%,特异度为100%;ADC值与TIC类型联合区分二者的AUC为0.984 (P<0.05),敏感度为100%,特异度为96.88%。结论 DWI、DCE-MRI多参数及联合有助于鉴别Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤。
[Abstract] Objective To investigate the value of multiparametric features including diffusion weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in differentiation between parotid Warthin tumor and pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials andMethods Forty-eight patients were included in this study including 32 parotid Warthin tumors and 24 pleomorphic adenomas. Conventional and multiparametric MRI features were analyzed. Differences in conventional MRI features, ADCs, previous signal intensity (SIpre)、maximum signal intensity of enhancement (SImax) and signal intensity of the end of enhancement (SIend), wash-out ratio (WR), time to peak (TTP), and time-intensity curves (TICs) types between the two entities were determined by χ2 test and independent samples t-test. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves of parameters being statistically different between groups were drawn for differential diagnosis of Warthin tumor and PA of parotid gland, and the corresponding diagnostic efficacy were analyzed.Results The ages of Warthin tumors were significantly older than those of pleomorphic adenomas (t=9.33, P<0.05). The male to female ratios were significantly different between the two entities (P<0.05). The ADCs of Warthin tumors [(0.634±0.201)×10-3 mm2/s] were significantly lower than those of pleomorphic adenomas [(1.084±0.453)×10-3 mm2/s](t=-5.00, P<0.05). There were significant differences in SIpre (t=4.01, P=0.0002)、WR (t=15.10, P<0.0001)、TTP (P<0.05) and TIC types (P<0.05) between the two entities. Taking ADC=0.811×10-3 mm2/s as threshold drawing ROC for differential diagnosis of Warthin tumor and PA of parotid gland, the area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, were 0.845 (P<0.05), 83.3%, 90.63%. Taking TIC types drawing ROC, the AUC, sensitivity, specificity, were 0.961 (P<0.05), 95.45%, 100%. Taking ADCs combined with TIC types drawing ROC, the AUC, sensitivity, specificity, were 0.984 (P<0.05), 100%, 96.88%.Conclusions Multiparameters and combined parameters of DWI and DCE-MRI were helpful to differential diagnosis of Warthin tumor and pleomorphic adenoma of parotid.
[关键词] 腮腺;腺淋巴瘤;腺瘤,多形性;诊断,鉴别;磁共振成像
[Keywords] parotid gland;adenolymphoma;adenoma, pleomorphic;diagnosis, differential;magnetic resonance imaging

胡涛 1   方学文 1*   刘琼 2   邹玉坚 1   姚兆友 3   高云 1   张坤林 1  

1 广东省东莞市人民医院放射科,东莞 523000

2 广东省东莞市人民医院亚健康管理中心,东莞 523000

3 广东省东莞市人民医院口腔颌面外科,东莞 523000

方学文,E-mail:1264968430@qq.com

全体作者均声明无利益冲突。


收稿日期:2021-01-29
接受日期:2021-03-25
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.011
本文引用格式:胡涛, 方学文, 刘琼, 等. DWI和动态对比增强MRI多参数鉴别腮腺Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤[J]. 磁共振成像, 2021, 12(7): 55-59. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2021.07.011.

       Warthin瘤(又称腺淋巴瘤)和多形性腺瘤(pleomorphic adenoma,PA)是腮腺最常见的两种良性肿瘤,分别占腮腺良性肿瘤的80%和10%[1],但二者在生物学行为、临床手术方案及预后上不尽相同,PA术后复发率及恶变率高于Warthin瘤[2],因此术前准确诊断尤为重要。临床表现、CT、MRI常规表现鉴别二者有时会有一定困难。笔者探讨扩散加权成像(diffusion weighted imaging,DWI)、动态对比增强磁共振成像(dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging,DCE-MRI)多参数对二者的鉴别价值,旨在提高对Warthin瘤与PA的鉴别诊断水平。

1 材料与方法

1.1 一般资料

       回顾性分析我院2018年2月至2020年12月收集的经病理证实的腮腺Warthin瘤及PA患者。入组标准:成功行常规MRI检查,并有DCE-MRI和或DWI;图像无明显伪影,满足诊断要求;肿块直径>1 cm。排除标准:图像有明显金属伪影或头动伪影,影响腮腺肿块评估。入组的24例Warthin瘤中男24例,女0例,年龄(61.0±9.3)岁;其中18例单发病灶,4例2个病灶,2例3个病灶,共32个病灶;32个病灶中浅叶13个,深叶1个,跨深浅叶18个;右侧14个,左侧18个;肿块最大截面面积(5.0±4.2) cm2。入组的24例PA中男性8例,女性16例,年龄(36.5±8.9)岁,发生在浅叶16例,深叶0例,跨深浅叶8例;右侧11例,左侧13例;最大截面面积(3.9±2.1) cm2。48个病例临床多表现为耳后无痛性肿块,病程1周至20年。本研究经过本单位医学伦理委员会批准(批准文号:KYKT2021-002),免除受试者知情同意。

1.2 检查方法

       MRI检查采用西门子3.0 T Skyra MR扫描仪及20通道相控阵头颈联合线圈。48例患者依次行MRI平扫、DWI、DCE-MRI及常规增强MRI轴位、冠状位、矢状位,其中2例患者DCE-MRI因患者头动较明显,DCE-MRI图像不符合入组标准被剔除,但DWI图像满足入组要求继续入组。

       常规MRI扫描参数:轴位T1WI (TR 400 ms,TE 10 ms,矩阵384×288,FOV 22 cm×22 cm,扫描时间1 min 48 s)、轴位T2WI (TR 5000 ms,TE 90 ms,矩阵512×384,FOV 22 cm×22 cm,扫描时间2 min 35 s)、冠状位STIR (TR 3700 ms,TE 80 ms,矩阵320×256,FOV 26 cm×26 cm,扫描时间2 min 30 s),层厚3 mm,间距0.3 mm;在完成动态增强后行常规增强轴位(参数与轴位平扫一致)、冠状位(TR 400 ms,TE 10 ms,矩阵320×320,FOV 26 cm×26 cm,层厚3 mm,间距0.3 mm,扫描时间1 min 37 s)、矢状位(TR 400 ms,TE 10 ms,矩阵320×320,FOV 24 cm×24 cm,层厚3 mm,间距0.3 mm,扫描时间1 min 31 s)。对比剂应用马根维显,0.1 mmol/kg,经肘正中静脉注入,流率3 mL/s,注射完对比剂后生理盐水15 mL冲管。

       DWI扫描参数:采用西门子多b值高清弥散序列(resolve-diff)扫描, TR 3050 ms,TE 59 ms,层厚3.0 mm, 层间距0.3 mm,矩阵186×150,FOV 25 cm×16.7 cm,最后仅取b值0、800 s/mm2计算平均ADC图,总采集时间5 min 22 s。

       DCE-MRI扫描参数:采用西门子的t1-fl3D dynaviews-spair序列,TR 4.3 ms, TE 1.5 ms,NEX 1次,矩阵224×190,轴位扫描,层厚3 mm,层间距0.3 mm,FOV 25 cm×16.7 cm,共采集24个时相,预扫描2~3期,每一个时相扫描时间为9 s,总扫描时间约为3 min 33 s。

1.3 图像分析及后处理

       常规图像观察肿块部位、测量最大截面积。选择每个肿块最大截面,测量最大横径和纵径,计算最大截面面积。DWI及DCE-MRI图像传至工作站(Simens syngo MR E11)后处理,获得ADC图。参考平扫及增强图像,选取肿块实性区域,避开坏死囊变区,在ADC图上手动勾画ROI,ROI大小约30~50 mm2,测量3次取平均ADC值。DCE-MRI用同样方法选择ROI,记录T1初始信号强度值(previous signal intensity,SIpre)、增强后最大信号强度值(maximum signal intensity,SImax)、增强期末信号强度值(signal intensity of the end of enhancement,SIend)、达峰时间(time to peak,TTP),自动绘制时间信号强度曲线(time intensity curve,TIC)并计算廓清率(wash-out ratio,WR)。WR=(SImax-SIend)/(SImax-SIpre)×100。TIC形态可分四个类型:Ⅰ型,即持续上升型(TTP>120 s);Ⅱ型,即速升速降型(TTP≤120 s,WR值≥30%);Ⅲ型,速升缓降型(TTP≤120 s,WR值<30%);Ⅳ型,平坦型,无强化。

1.4 统计分析

       所有数据应用SPSS 22.0统计软件进行处理。Warthin瘤与PA比较时,侧别比较采用χ2检验,性别、TTP、TIC类型、分布位置采用Fisher精确概率法,年龄、肿块最大截面面积、ADC值、SIpre、SImax、SIend、WR采用两独立样本t检验。ADC值、TIC类型及采用二元Logistic回归将二者线性拟合形成的联合指标的鉴别诊断效能采用ROC曲线分析,根据约登指数选取阈值,计算鉴别诊断的敏感度、特异度及AUC。P<0.05认为差异有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 一般资料

       Warthin瘤与PA的发病年龄差异有统计学意义(t=9.33,P<0.05,表1),Warthin瘤发病年龄更大。Warthin瘤与PA的性别差异有统计学意义,Warthin瘤男性更多见(P<0.05,表1)。肿块最大截面面积、侧别及分布位置差异无统计学意义(P>0.05,表1图12)。

图1  男,49岁,右侧腮腺浅叶Warthin瘤。轴位T2WI (A)、轴位T1WI (B)、轴位DWI (C)示病变呈明显高信号。D:轴位ADC图,病变呈明显低信号,ADC值=0.377×10-3 mm2/s;E:动态增强图像上选取ROI;F:肿瘤的TIC曲线呈速升速降型(Ⅱ型)
图2  女,45岁,左侧腮腺跨深浅叶多形性腺瘤。轴位T2WI (A)、轴位T1WI (B)、轴位DWI (C)示呈高信号。D:轴位ADC图,病变呈高信号,ADC值=1.581×10-3 mm2/s; E:动态增强图像上选取ROI;F:肿瘤的TIC曲线呈持续上升型(Ⅰ型)
表1  Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的发病年龄、肿块最大截面面积、性别、侧别、肿块分布位置比较

2.2 DWI资料

       Warthin瘤与PA的ADC值差异有统计学意义,前者ADC值更低(t=-4.996,P值<0.05,表2图1D图2D)。

表2  Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤ADC值的比较

2.3 DCE-MRI资料

       Warthin瘤与PA在SIpre、WR、TTP、TIC的差异有统计学意义,Warthin瘤的SIpre、WR高于PA,Warthin瘤的TTP显著小于PA,Warthin瘤TIC以Ⅱ、Ⅲ型为主,更多为Ⅱ型,多形性腺瘤TIC以Ⅰ型为主(P<0.05,表3图1F图2F);二者在SImax及SIend的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05,表3)。

表3  Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤动态增强各参数的比较

2.4 DWI、DCE-MRI参数鉴别诊断Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的效能

       ROC曲线分析显示ADC值区分Warthin瘤与PA的AUC为0.845,95%置信区间为0.718~0.972,以ADC值的阈值为0.811×10-3 mm2/s

       诊断为Warthin瘤,ADC鉴别诊断的敏感度为83.3%,特异度为90.63%;TIC类型区分Warthin瘤与PA的AUC为0.961,95%置信区间为0.886~1.000,其敏感度为95.45%,特异度为100%。以ADC值<0.811×10-3 mm2/s,Ⅱ或Ⅲ型TIC诊断为Warthin瘤,ADC与TIC类型联合区分Warthin瘤与PA的AUC为0.984,95%置信区间为0.949~1.000,敏感度为100%,特异度为96.88% (图3)。

图3  ADC值、TIC类型及二者联合鉴别诊断Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的ROC曲线。ADC值:AUC=0.845,P<0.05;TIC类型:AUC=0.9609,P<0.05;联合指标:AUC=0.9844,P<0.05

3 讨论

       磁共振多参数对腮腺肿瘤良恶性的鉴别诊断的研究较多[3, 4, 5],对Warthin瘤与PA的鉴别诊断研究相对较少[6]。Warthin瘤和PA是腮腺最常见的良性肿瘤,多参数的联合应用对于二者鉴别有一定价值[7]。本研究结果显示,Warthin瘤发病年龄偏大,多为中老年人,PA年龄跨度大,年轻人为主,这与文献报道一致[8]。本研究中,Warthin瘤以男性更常见,PA以女性更多见,与文献报道一致[9, 10],也有学者发现PA中男女差异无统计学意义,而Warthin中男性多于女性[7]

       DWI成像后可以获得ADC值,ADC值可以反映细胞内外水分子运动受限的情况,值的大小间接反映肿瘤组织的细胞密度及核浆比例,细胞密度大、核浆比例高的组织中,水分子运动受限,ADC值较低,反之则ADC值较高。Warthin瘤因为由上皮细胞、滤泡样淋巴组织及蛋白囊腔组成,水分子扩散明星受限,ADC值较低,而PA细胞核浆比小,间质丰富,且囊变较多,水分子扩散受限轻微,故ADC值较高[11]。本研究结果显示Warthin瘤ADC值明显低于PA,与文献报道一致[12, 13],ADC值可以帮助鉴别Warthin瘤与PA[14]

       动态增强MRI能获得多参数,如SIpre、SImax、SIend、WR、TTP、TIC等,可以反映肿瘤组织的微血管分布、血流灌注、血管通透性等特性,能对肿瘤的血流动力学进行半定量分析。SIpre反映肿瘤T1WI时的初始信号强度,SImax反映增强后的最大信号强度值,SIend反映扫描终末时的信号强度。WR反映肿瘤细胞与间质比例,细胞与间质比例越小,细胞外间隙相对越大,保留对比剂时间越长,WR值越小,相反则WR值越大。TTP反映肿瘤的微血管密度,肿瘤的微血管密度越小,TTP值越大,相反则TTP越小[15]。TIC曲线能直观、准确地反映肿瘤的动态强化特征,是反映肿瘤血供情况的最佳指标之一。本研究结果显示,Warthin瘤T1初始信号强度值要高于PA,这可能同Warthin瘤富有腺管样囊腔结构、腔内富含黏蛋白及胆固醇堆积等,导致T1信号较高有关[16, 17],而PA具有丰富的黏液样基质成分,富含自由水,具有较长的T1信号[18]。PA的TTP大,WR小,TIC曲线类型主要为Ⅰ型,Warthin瘤TTP小、WR大,TIC曲线类型主要为Ⅱ、Ⅲ型,以Ⅱ型更多,与文献报道相仿[19, 20]。这是因为PA血管密度低,细胞-间质比例小,细胞外间隙相对大,对比剂进入慢,保留时间长,而Warthin瘤具有较高的血管密度、高细胞-间质比例,细胞外间隙相对小,对比剂进入快,保留时间短。多参数联合应用,有助于提高腮腺肿瘤的诊断效能[21, 22]。本研究结果显示,ADC值区分Warthin瘤与PA的AUC为0.845,95%置信区间为0.718~0.972,以ADC值=0.811×10-3 mm2/s为诊断阈值,小于该阈值诊断为Warthin瘤的敏感度83.3%,特异度为90.63%;TIC类型区分Warthin瘤与PA的AUC为0.961,95%置信区间为0.886~1.000,Ⅱ或Ⅲ型TIC诊断Warthin瘤的敏感度为95.45%,特异度达100%;联合ADC值与TIC类型鉴别Warthin瘤与PA曲线下面积为0.984,95%置信区间为0.949~1.000,其敏感度达100%,特异度达96.88%。从AUC 95%置信区间来看,TIC与ADC、联合预测指标与ADC、联合预测指标与TIC的鉴别诊断效能差异均没有统计学意义,但在数值上鉴别诊断效能确实表现为:联合预测指标>TIC>ADC。这表明多参数及联合应用,能高效鉴别Warthin瘤与PA,与文献报道相仿[1123]

       本研究存在的不足:(1)研究时间相对较短,样本量相对偏小,可能会影响Warthin瘤与PA鉴别特征的归纳、统计分析;(2) DCE-MRI采用半定量分析,不够定量分析准确。

       总之,Warthin瘤与PA在发病年龄、性别、ADC值、SIpre、WR、TTP、TIC曲线类型之间有所不同,当常规影像鉴别二者困难时,磁共振多参数联合应用对于鉴别二者有很重要价值。

1
Comoglu S, Ozturk E, Celik M, et al. Comprehensive analysis of parotid mass: a retrospectective study of 369 cases[J]. Auris Nasus arynx, 2018, 45(2): 320-327. DOI: 10.1016/j.anl.2017.04.003.
2
Hellquist H, Paiva-Correia A, Vander PV, et al. Analysis of the clinical relevance of histological classification of benign epithelial salivary gland tumours[J]. Adv Ther, 2019, 36(8): 1950-1974. DOI: 10.1007/s12325-019-01007-3.
3
Coudert H, Mirafzal S, Dissard A, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging of parotid tumors: a systematic review[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2020, 102(3): 121-130. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.08.002.
4
Elmokadem AH, Abdel Khalek AM, Abdel Wahab RM, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging for differentiation between parotid neoplasms[J]. Can Assoc Radiol J, 2019, 70(3): 264-272. DOI: 10.1016/j.carj.2018.10.010.
5
Pietragalla M, Nardi C, Bonasera L, et al. The role of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhancement perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of salivary glands neoplasms[J]. Radiol Med, 2020, 125(9): 851-863. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01182-2.
6
Wang CW, Chu YH, Chiu DY, et al. Journal Club: The warthin tumor score: a simple and reliable method to distinguish warthin tumors from pleomorphic adenomas and carcinomas[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2018, 210(6): 1330-1337. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.17.18492.
7
姜虹, 陈青华, 王永哲, 等. 多参数MRI鉴别腮腺单发Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤的价值[J]. 中国耳鼻咽喉头颈外科, 2020, 27(3): 115-118.
Jiang H, Chen QH, Wang YZ, et al. Value of muItiparametric MRI in differentiation between solitary parotid Warthin tumor and pIeomorphic adenoma[J]. Chin J Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg, 2020, 27(3): 115-118.
8
褚相乐, 王勇, 王志芳, 等. 增强CT联合直方图分析鉴别诊断腮腺Warthin瘤与多形性腺瘤[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2020, 36(8): 1177-1182.
Chu XL, Wang Y, Wang ZF, et al. Enhanced CT combined with histogram analysis for differential diagnosis of Warthin tumor and polymorphic adenoma of parotid gland[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2020, 36(8): 1177-1182.
9
曾向廷, 郑少燕, 沈金辉, 等. MR动态增强定量分析对腮腺良恶性肿瘤的鉴别[J]. 影像诊断与介入放射学, 2015, 24(4): 277-282.
Zeng XT, Zheng SY, Shen JH, et al. Differential diagnosis of parotid masses by dynamic contrast-enhanced MR[J]. Diagn Imaging Interv Radiol, 2015, 24(4): 277-282.
10
Lee DH, Yoon TM, Lee JK, et al. Surgical treatment strategy in Warthin tumor of the parotid gland[J]. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol, 2019, 85(5): 546-550. DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2018.04.004.
11
童娟, 胡春洪, 王小林, 等. 扩散加权联合动态对比增强磁共振成像鉴别诊断腮腺良恶性肿瘤[J]. 中国医学影像技术, 2017, 33(8): 1197-1201.
Tong J, Hu CH, Wang XL, et al. Diffusion-weighted imaging combined with dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in parotid gland tumors[J]. Chin J Med Imaging Technol, 2017, 33(8): 1197-1201.
12
Aaka R. Multi-parametric MR imaging using pseudo-continuous arterial-spin labeling and diffusion-weighted MR imaging in differentiating subtypes of parotid tumors[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 63: 55-59. DOI: 10.1016/j.mri.2019.08.005.
13
Yamamoto T, Kimura H, Hayashi K, et al. Pseudo-continuous arterial spin labeling MR images in Warthin tumors and pleomorphic adenomas of the parotid gland: qualitative and quantitative analyses and their correlation with histopathologic and DWI and dynamic contrast enhanced MRI findings[J]. Neuroradiology, 2018, 60(8): 803-812. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-018-2046-9.
14
Matsusue E, Fujihara Y, Matsuda E, et al. Differentiating parotid tumors by quantitative signal intensity evaluation on MR imaging[J]. Clin Imaging, 2017, 46: 37-43. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2017.06.009.
15
Khalifa F,Soliman A,El-Baz A,et a1. Models and methods for analyzing DCE-MRI:a review[J]. Med Phys, 2014, 41(12): 124301. DOI: 10.1118/1.4898202.
16
Kato H, Kanematsu M, Watanabe H, et al. Salivary gland tumors of the parotid gland: CT and MR imaging findings with emphasis on intratumoral cystic components[J]. Neuroradiology, 2014, 56(9): 789-795. DOI: 10.1007/s00234-014-1386-3.
17
贾传海, 曹锐, 蒯新平, 等. 腮腺沃辛瘤常规及功能MRI特征与临床病理联系的研究[J]. 中华口腔医学杂志, 2019, 54(2): 94-100. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2019.02.004.
Jia CH, Cao R, Kuai XP, et al. Conventional and functional MRI features of parotid Warthin tumor: correlation with clinicopathological findings[J]. Chin J Stomatol, 2019, 54(2): 94-100.
18
Tartaglione T, Botto A, Sciandra M, et al. Differential diagnosis of parotid gland tumours: which magnetic resonance findings should be taken in account[J]. Acta Otorhinolaryngol Ital, 2015, 35(5): 314-20. DOI: 10.14639/0392-100X-693.
19
Ogawa T, Kojima I, Ishii R, et al. Clinical utility of dynamic-enhanced MRI in salivary gland tumors: retrospective study and literature review[J]. Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol, 2018, 275(6): 1613-1621. DOI: 10.1007/s00405-018-4965-9.
20
满育平, 马隆佰, 林华, 等. 多模态MRI对腮腺多形性腺瘤和腺淋巴瘤的诊断价值[J]. 放射学实践, 2018, 33(12): 1241-1245.
Man YP, Ma LB, Lin H, et al. Value of multimodal MRI in diagnosis of parotid pleomorphic adenoma and adenolymphoma[J]. Radiologic Practice, 2018, 33(12): 1241-1245.
21
Zheng N, Li R, Liu W, et al. The diagnostic value of combining conventional, diffusion-weighted imaging and dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for salivary gland tumors[J]. Br J Radiol, 2018, 91(1089): 20170707. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20170707.
22
Yabuuchi H, Kamitani T, Sagiyama K, et al. Characterization of parotid gland tumors: added value of permeability MR imaging to DWI and DCE-MRI[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(12): 6402-6412. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-07004-3.
23
Pietragalla M, Nardi C, Bonasera L, et al. The role of diffusion-weighted and dynamic contrast enhancement perfusion-weighted imaging in the evaluation of salivary glands neoplasms[J]. Radiol Med, 2020, 125(9): 851-863. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-020-01182-2.

上一篇 基于低频振幅分数和度中心性的躯体症状障碍静息态回行功能成像研究
下一篇 多参数MR 扫描评价术前肾细胞癌T 分期的临床意义
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2