分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
子宫疾病MRI专题
增强T2*加权血管成像序列多定量参数鉴别子宫内膜癌与息肉的价值
孟醒 刘爱连 田士峰 鞠烨 宋清伟

Cite this article as: Meng X, Liu AL, Tian SF, et al. The value of ESWAN in diagnosis and differential diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma and endometrial polyp. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 11(7): 501-505.本文引用格式:孟醒,刘爱连,田士峰,等.增强T2*加权血管成像序列多定量参数鉴别子宫内膜癌与息肉的价值.磁共振成像, 2020, 11(7): 501-505. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.07.005.


[摘要] 目的 探讨增强T2*加权血管成像(enhanced T2* weighted angiography,ESWAN)定量参数鉴别子宫内膜癌(endometrial carcinoma,EC)与子宫内膜息肉(endometrial polyp,EP)的鉴别诊断的价值。材料与方法 对经手术病理确诊的25例EC和20例EP患者进行常规的1.5 T MRI和轴位3D ESWAN扫描。ESWAN采用5个回波,TR均为16.5 ms,TE分别为2.1、5.1、8.0、10.9、13.8 ms。由两名观察者分别对两组病变相位图中磁敏感信号(intratumoral susceptibility signal intensity,ITSS)显示情况进行评分,以Mann-Whitney秩和检验比较两组病变相位图ITSS显示的差异。由同样的两名观察者分别测量两组病例的ESWAN参数,包括幅度值、R2*值和T2*值。采用组内相关系数(intra-class correlation coefficients,ICC)检验两名观察者测量结果的一致性,采用独立样本t检验对两组病例各ESWAN参数值进行比较,对于有统计学差异的参数使用受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operator characteristic curve, ROC曲线)评估诊断效能。结果 两名观察者测量各组数据的一致性良好(ICC> 0.75)。EC组与EP组中ITSS评分分别为(1.60±1.29)分、(0.85±0.99)分,EC组>EP组,差异有统计学意义(Z=-2.011 ,P=0.044)。EC组的幅度值、R2*值、T2*值分别为817.77±269.65、(16.37±3.65) Hz、(70.56±20.99) ms;EP组的幅度值、R2*值、T2*值分别为885.43±254.36、(11.62±3.94) Hz、(121.91±54.13) ms。EC组的R2*值大于EP组,T2*值小于EP组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);两组间幅度值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。R2*值和T2*值对EC诊断的AUC分别是0.810、0.850,阈值分别是14.969 Hz、71.233 ms。结论 ESWAN定量参数中R2*值和T2*值对于鉴别EC和EP有一定价值,且在相位图上EC较EP有更多的ITSS出现。
[Abstract] Objective: The quantitative parameters of endometrial carcinoma (EC) and endometrial polyp (EP) under enhanced T2* weighted angiography (ESWAN) sequence were analyzed to explore the value of ESWAN in the differential diagnosis of endometrial carcinoma (EC) and endometrial polyp (EP).Materials and Methods: Routine MRI and ESWAN were performed on twenty-five pathologically-diagnosed EC patients and twenty EP patients. ESWAN adopted 5 echoes, with TR of 16.5 ms and TE of 2.1, 5.1, 8.0, 10.9 and 13.8 ms, respectively. Intratumoral susceptibility signal intensity (ITSS) display in the two groups of lesion phase diagrams was scored by two observers, and the Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to compare the differences in the ITSS display in the two groups of lesion phase. The ESWAN parameters (magnitude value, R2* value and T2* value) were measured by the same two observers in both groups. Intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC) was used to test the consistency of the measurement results of the two observers, independent sample t-test was used to compare the ESWAN parameter values of the two groups of patients, and ROC curve was used to evaluate the diagnostic efficacy of the parameters with statistical difference.Results: The two observers measured data in each group with good consistency (ICC> 0.75). The ITSS scores of EC group and EP group were (1.60±1.29) were higher than that of EP group (0.85±0.99), respectively, and the difference between EC group and EP group was statistically significant (Z=-2.011, P=0.044). The magnitude value, R2* value and T2* value of EC were 817.77±269.65, (16.37±3.65) Hz, (70.56±20.99) ms, respectively. The magnitude value, R2* value and T2* value of EP were 885.43±254.36, (11.62±3.94) Hz, (121.91±54.13) ms, respectively. The R2* value of EC was higher than that of EP, and the T2* value was lower than that of EP, with statistically significant differences (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in magnitude value between the two groups (P>0.05). The AUC of R2* value and T2* value for EC diagnosis were 0.810 and 0.850, respectively, and the threshold were 14.969 and 71.233, respectively.Conclusions: R2* and T2* values are valuable for identifying EC and EP, and EC has more ITSS than EP on the phase map.
[关键词] 子宫内膜肿瘤;磁共振成像;定量诊断;鉴别诊断
[Keywords] endometrial neoplasms;magnetic resonance imaging;quantitative diagnosis;differential diagnosis

孟醒 大连医科大学附属第一医院放射科,大连 116011;大连妇女儿童医疗中心放射科,大连 116033

刘爱连* 大连医科大学附属第一医院放射科,大连 116011

田士峰 大连医科大学附属第一医院放射科,大连 116011

鞠烨 大连医科大学附属第一医院放射科,大连 116011

宋清伟 大连医科大学附属第一医院放射科,大连 116011

通信作者:刘爱连,E-mail: liuailian@dmu.edu.cn

利益冲突:无。


基金项目: 首都科技领军人才培养工程 编号:Z181100006318003
收稿日期:2020-01-15
接受日期:2020-05-21
中图分类号:R445.2; R737.33 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.07.005
本文引用格式:孟醒,刘爱连,田士峰,等.增强T2*加权血管成像序列多定量参数鉴别子宫内膜癌与息肉的价值.磁共振成像, 2020, 11(7): 501-505. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2020.07.005.

       子宫内膜癌(endometrial carcinoma,EC)是高发的女性恶性肿瘤之一。子宫内膜息肉(endometrial polyp,EP)是一种子宫良性肿瘤性病变,主要为内膜局部过度生长所致。EC与EP临床表现相似,若不能准确诊断,会严重影响临床治疗及预后。MRI因具有多参数、多层面、多序列等成像特点,能很好地显示子宫解剖结构,故已成为诊断盆腔妇科疾病的常见手段之一。增强T2*加权血管成像(enhanced T2* weighted angiography,ESWAN)序列可以根据组织间磁敏感的差异获得幅度值、相位值、R2*值和T2*值等定量参数,从而反映组织血氧含量的变化[1]。现已应用在评估子宫内膜癌生物学行为等方面[2]。本研究主要研究ESWAN序列多定量参数对EC和EP的鉴别诊断的价值。

1 材料与方法

1.1 研究对象

       回顾性分析我院于2012年6月至2019年7月经手术病理诊断的EC或EP且进行常规的MRI和ESWAN的患者资料。纳入标准:(1)经手术病理证实为EC或EP,并且临床病理资料完整;(2)无MR检查禁忌证,术前行盆腔1.5 T MR检查(含ESWAN序列)。排除标准:(1)病灶最大径≤1.0 cm;(2)合并有其他的子宫疾病;(3)图像伪影影响子宫内膜的观察和测量;(4)在行MRI检查前,接受过活检或刮宫等诊疗。最终入组EC 25例,EP 20例。EC组患者年龄34~82岁,平均(57.2±12.2)岁,其中绝经前期9例,绝经期16例,其中19例临床表现为不规则阴道流血、流液,4例表现为月经量增多,1例表现为腹痛,1例为摘节育环时发现;ⅠA期15例,ⅡB期3例,Ⅱ期2例,Ⅲ期3例,Ⅳ期2例;病理类型包括内膜样腺癌23例,浆液性腺癌2例;EP组患者年龄34~81岁,平均(61.9±14.1)岁,其中绝经前期4例,绝经期16例,其中12例临床表现为阴道流液、流血等,2例为下腹痛,6例无明显临床表现体检时发现。

1.2 检查方法

       采用美国GE Signa HDxt 1.5 T MR和体部8通道相控阵线圈对患者行常规的盆腔和ESWAN检查。各序列及参数见表1

表1  磁共振扫描序列及参数
Tab. 1  MRI protocols and scanning parameters

1.3 数据测量

       将所得的检查图像上传到GE ADW 4.6工作站,利用Functool软件对ESWAN原始图像进行后处理,分别得到幅度图、相位图、R2*图、T2*图。将相位图中病灶内呈低信号的点状、细线样及点线样结构定义为磁敏感信号(intratumoral susceptibility signal intensity,ITSS)[3]。参考Park等[3]的方法对病灶内部的ITSS的显示情况进行评分:0分,没有ITSS;1分,1~5个点状低信号或细线样低信号最大径<5 mm;2分,6~10个点状或细线样低信号最大径5~10 mm;3分,≥11个点状或呈现为细线样低信号最大径>10 mm。评分采用双盲法,由两名分别拥有8年和5年MR诊断经验的影像医师分别对两组图像进行一次ITSS评分,如果两名医师的结果不一致,则以第三名高级职称的影像诊断医师结果为准。由同样两名观察者在不知晓病理结果的前提下分别在工作站上完成两组病变幅度值、R2*值和T2*值的测量:大小约1.0 cm2的感兴趣区(region of interest,ROI)放置于病灶截面最大的相邻三个层面肿瘤实质区病灶轴位最大截面,取三层面平均值,并记录下各参数值。

1.4 统计方法

       使用SPSS 22.0软件对各参数值进行统计学分析。以Mann-Whitney秩和检验比较两组评分差异,P <0.05为差异有统计学意义。采用组内相关系数(intra-class correlation coefficients,ICC)检验两名观察者对两组病灶幅度值、相位值、R2*值和T2*值测量结果的一致性,ICC <0.40为一致性差,0.40≤ICC<0.75为一致性中等,ICC≥0.75为一致性好。采用Kolmogorov-Smirov检验各参数是否符合正态分布,符合者采用独立样本t检验,均值以±s表示,P<0.05为差异有统计学意义,不符合者采用Mann-Whitney秩和检验,用M±s四分位间距表示。采用受试者工作特征曲线(receiver operator characteristic curve,ROC曲线)分析有统计学差异的参数的诊断效能,获得ROC曲线下面积(area under curve ,AUC)、阈值、敏感性和特异性。

2 结果

2.1 相位图ITSS显示情况

       两名观察者对两组病变相位图上ITSS的显示情况的评分结果及一致性检验见表2

表2  两名观察者对两组病变ITSS评分结果
Tab. 2  The ITSS scores of the two groups were obtained by two observers

2.2 两名观察者测量结果的一致性检验

       两名观察者测量两组病灶幅度值、R2*值和T2*值测量结果及一致性检验结果,各组数值一致性均很好,ICC> 0.75,见表3

表3  两名观察者测量两组病灶各参数值结果及一致性检验结果(±s)
Tab. 3  Results of parameters and consistency test of lesions in the two groups measured by two observers (±s)

2.3 两组病灶ESWAN各参数值的比较

       两组病灶各参数值均符合正态分布。EC组的R2*值大于EP组,T2*值小于EP组,差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05);两组间幅度值和相位值差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。具体结果见表4图1图2)。

图1  56岁EC患者,病理类型为子宫内膜样腺癌。图A为T2WI,图B~E分别为ESWAN后处理的幅度图、相位图、R2*图、T2*图,幅度值、R2*值、T2*值分别为647.95、16.26 Hz、66.64 ms,在相位图(C)上箭所示处可见点状及细线状ITSS信号,评分3分,图F为病理图(HE ×40)
图2  79岁EP患者,病理类型为子宫内膜息肉。图A为T2WI,图B~E分别为ESWAN后处理的幅度图、相位图、R2*图、T2*图,幅度值、R2*值、T2*值分别为688.33、13.95Hz、92.81 ms,在相位图上箭所示处可见细线状ITSS信号,评分2分,2F为病理图(HE ×40)
Fig. 1  The 56-year-old EC patient (pathological type is endometrial adenocarcinoma), T2WI image (A). B—E were magnitude, phase, R2* and T2* of ESWAN. The magnitude, R2* and T2* values were 647.95, 16.26 Hz and 66.64 ms, respectively. On the phase map (C), the points and thin lines of ITSS signal can be seen on the arrow, scoring 3 points.
Fig. 2  The 79-year-old EP patient (pathological type: endometrial polyp), T2WI image (A), B—E were magnitude, phase, R2* and T2* of ESWAN. The magnitude, R2* and T2* values were 688.33, 13.95 Hz and 92.81 ms, respectively. On the phase map (C), the thin line ITSS signal can be seen at the position indicated by the arrow, scoring 2 points.
表4  两组病灶各参数值比较结果(±s)
Tab. 4  Comparison results of lesion parameters between the two groups (±s)

2.4 各参数鉴别诊断的效能评估

       R2*值和T2*值对两组病灶的诊断效能见表5图3

图3  R2*值和T2*值诊断EC的ROC曲线
Fig. 3  ROC curve of R2* and T2* values for the diagnosis of EC.
表5  R2*值、T2*值对子宫内膜癌的诊断效能
Tab. 5  Diagnostic efficacy of R2* and T2* values in endometrial carcinoma

3 讨论

3.1 EC与EP鉴别诊断的必要性

       EP是一种息肉样赘生物,主要附着在宫腔内壁,并且向宫腔内凸入,月经过多、经期延长或绝经后出血为其主要临床表现。EC为上皮组织来源的恶性肿瘤,是女性生殖系统的三大恶性肿瘤之一,其发病率逐年升高,并且呈年轻化发展趋势[4],主要临床表现为阴道不规则流血。EC与EP临床表现相似,若不能准确诊断,会严重影响临床治疗及预后。目前临床上常采用的检查手段为活检,但由于样本量有限,有时不能准确定性,且部分患者存在宫颈或阴道狭窄,也不适用于此项检查[5]。MRI因具有多参数、多层面、多序列等成像特点,能很好地显示子宫解剖结构,故已成为诊断盆腔妇科疾病的常见手段之一。随着科技的发展,功能成像在临床诊断中的应用越来越多,不仅能反映组织血供,还可以监测代谢功能、分子扩散等变化,弥补了传统MR的不足之处。

       ESWAN技术在不同的TE时间采集多个回波,同时获得幅度值、相位值、R2*值和T2*[6],定量反映组织的磁敏感特征。在研究结果中两名观察者测量的ESWAN幅度值、R2*值和T2*值的一致性较好,提示其具有良好的稳定性。

3.2 ITSS鉴别EC和EP的价值

       幅度值主要表示磁矩的大小,能够体现磁敏感物质的含量。相位值表示磁矩的方向,顺磁性物质呈现低信号,而抗磁性物质呈现为高信号。ITSS表示磁敏感信号的强度,在相位图上显示为病变内的低信号区域,形态上为点状、线状或混杂结构,可以显示病变内的静脉血管和微出血[3]。本研究中EC在相位图上较EP显示出更多的ITSS。分析其原因,可能由于EC为恶性肿瘤,肿瘤内部常伴发血管、坏死、出血等结构,且生成的血管结构不稳定、形状不规则、分支紊乱,易形成动静脉畸形[7]。这些结构内含有较多的血氧代谢产物、铁等顺磁性物质,使磁场发生去相位,因此在相位图上显示出较多的ITSS[8,9]。在本研究中两组病例间幅度值无统计学差异,根据Xin等[6]和田士峰等[10]既往研究结果发现幅度图可显示组织的结构特点,更适合于观察病变的形态,而非定量分析。

3.3 R2*和T2*值鉴别EC和EP的价值

       R2*值为表观横向弛豫率,是由不同时间进行梯度重聚所测得的,T2*值为自由感应衰减产物,R2*值和T2*值呈负相关[11]。当血液的代谢产物去氧血红蛋白、含铁血黄素、正铁血红蛋白等顺磁性物质使磁场不均匀性发生去相位时,T2*值降低,R2*值升高[12]。本研究结果中,EC组的R2*值大于EP组,T2*值小于EP组。EC较EP会生成更多的新生血管[13],且EC为恶性肿瘤新陈代谢较高,会摄取更多的糖、蛋白质和氧气等营养物质[14],导致顺磁性物质浓度增高,从而引起T2*值减低,R2*值升高,与本研究结果相符。ROC曲线示R2*值和T2*值的AUC分别为0.810和0.850,对EC和EP的鉴别诊断有一定的价值。

       综上所述,ESWAN序列的R2*值和T2*值对EC与EP有较高的鉴别诊断价值,为临床治疗提供依据,值得推广应用。

[1]
Chen XQ, Niu JP, Peng RQ, et al. The early diagnosis of Parkinson’s disease through combined biomarkers. Acta Neurol Scand, 2019, 140(4): 268-273.
[2]
Tian SF, Liu AL, Song QW, et al. The value of R2* in quantitative evaluation of the biological behavior of endometrial carcinoma: a preliminary study. Chin J Clini Med Imaging, 2019, 30(2): 126-130.
田士峰,刘爱连,宋清伟,等.初探R2*值定量评估子宫内膜癌生物学行为的价值.中国临床医学影像杂志, 2019, 30(2): 126-130.
[3]
Park MJ, Kim HS, Jahng GH, et al. Semiquantitative assessment of intratumoral susceptibility signals using non-contrast-enhanced high-field high-resolution susceptibility-weighted imaging in patients with gliomas: comparison with MR perfusion imaging. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol, 2009, 30(7): 1402-1408.
[4]
Horn LC, Emons G, Aretz S, et al. S3 guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of carcinoma of the endometrium: requirements for pathology. Pathologe2019;40(1): 21-35.
[5]
Zhu Y, Liu Z, Du M, et al. Macrophages in patients with recurrent endometrial polyps could exacerbate Th17 responses. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol, 2018, 45(11): 1128-1134.
[6]
Xin JY, Gao SS, Liu JG, et al. The value of ESWAN in diagnosis and differential diagnosis of prostate cancer: Preliminary study. Magn Reson Imaging, 2017, 44: 26-31.
[7]
Zhu N, Weng S, Wang J, et al. Preclinical rationale and clinical efficacy of antiangiogenic therapy and immune checkpoint blockade combination therapy in urogenital tumors. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol, 2019, 145(12): 3021-3036.
[8]
Rumzan R, Wang JJ, Zeng C, et al. Iron deposition in the precentral grey matter in patients with multiple sclerosis: a quantitative study using susceptibility-weighted imaging. Eur J Radiol, 2013, 82(2): e95-99.
[9]
Wang WW, Niu TL, Miao YW, et al. SWI study on astrocytoma grading and differential diagnosis of astrocytoma and solitary metastases. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2015, 6(4): 246-252.
王微微,牛田力,苗延巍,等. SWI对星形细胞瘤分级及与单发转移瘤鉴别诊断的价值.磁共振成像, 2015, 6(4): 246-252.
[10]
Tian SF, Liu AL, Zhu W, et al. Correlation between multi-parameter quantitative measurement of enhanced T2*-weighted angiography sequence and the expression of proliferating cell nuclear antigen Ki-67 of endometrial carcinoma. Chin J Med Imaging, 2018, 26(11): 865-869.
田士峰,刘爱连,朱雯,等.增强T2*加权血管成像序列多参数定量测量与子宫内膜癌增殖抗原Ki-67表达的相关性.中国医学影像学杂志, 2018, 26(11): 865-869.
[11]
Karlsson M, Ekstedt M, Dahlström N, et al. Liver R2* is affected by both iron and fat: a dual biopsy-validated study of chronic liver disease. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2019, 50(1): 325-333.
[12]
Han X, Sun M, Wang M, et al. The enhanced T2 star weighted angiography (ESWAN) value for differentiating borderline from malignant epithelial ovarian tumors. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 118: 187-193.
[13]
Sunita BS, Sen A, Suhag V. To evaluate immunoreactivity of cyclooxygenase-2 in cases of endometrial carcinoma and correlate it with expression of p53 and vascular endothelial growth factor. J Cancer Res Ther, 2018, 4(6): 1366-1372.
[14]
Yang X. The role of metabolic syndrome in endometrial cancer: a review. Front Oncol, 2019, 9: 744.

上一篇 DTI及DTT在评估Ⅰ期子宫内膜癌肌层浸润深度的价值
下一篇 IVIM在预测高级别脑胶质瘤MGMT启动子甲基化状态的应用价值
  
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