BMC medical imaging · 2020
Differential diagnosis between hepatic alveolar echinococcosis and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma with conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wa Zeng-Cheng, Du Ting, Li Xian-Feng, Xu Hui-Qing, Suo-Ang Qiu-Cuo, Chen Li-Da, Hu Hang-Tong, Wang Wei, Lu Ming-De
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Misclassifications of hepatic alveolar echinococcosis (HAE) as intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (ICC) may lead to inappropriate treatment strategies. The aim of this study was to explore the differential diagnosis with conventional ultrasound and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS).
METHODS: Sixty HAE lesions with 60 propensity score-matched ICC lesions were retrospectively collected. The 120 lesions were randomly divided into a training set (n = 80) and a testing set (n = 40). In the training set, the most useful independent conventional ultrasound and CEUS features was selected for differentiating between HAE and ICC. Then, a simplified US scoring system for diagnosing HAE was constructed based on selected features with weighted coefficients. The constructed US score for HAE was validated in both the training set and the testing set, and diagnostic performance was evaluated.
RESULTS: Compared with ICC lesions, HAE lesions were mostly located in the right lobe and had mixed echogenicity, a pseudocystic appearance and foci calcifications on conventional ultrasound. On CEUS, HAE lesions showed more regular rim-like enhancement than ICC lesions and had late washout with a long enhancement duration. The simplified US score consisted of echogenicity, pseudocystic/calcification, bile duct dilatation, enhancement pattern, enhancement duration, and marked washout. In the testing set, the sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR- and the area under the ROC curve for the score to differentiate HAE from ICC were 80.0, 81.3%, 4.27, 0.25 and 0.905, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The US score based on typical features from both conventional ultrasound and CEUS could accurately differentiate HAE from ICC.
METHODS: Sixty HAE lesions with 60 propensity score-matched ICC lesions were retrospectively collected. The 120 lesions were randomly divided into a training set (n = 80) and a testing set (n = 40). In the training set, the most useful independent conventional ultrasound and CEUS features was selected for differentiating between HAE and ICC. Then, a simplified US scoring system for diagnosing HAE was constructed based on selected features with weighted coefficients. The constructed US score for HAE was validated in both the training set and the testing set, and diagnostic performance was evaluated.
RESULTS: Compared with ICC lesions, HAE lesions were mostly located in the right lobe and had mixed echogenicity, a pseudocystic appearance and foci calcifications on conventional ultrasound. On CEUS, HAE lesions showed more regular rim-like enhancement than ICC lesions and had late washout with a long enhancement duration. The simplified US score consisted of echogenicity, pseudocystic/calcification, bile duct dilatation, enhancement pattern, enhancement duration, and marked washout. In the testing set, the sensitivity, specificity, LR+, LR- and the area under the ROC curve for the score to differentiate HAE from ICC were 80.0, 81.3%, 4.27, 0.25 and 0.905, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: The US score based on typical features from both conventional ultrasound and CEUS could accurately differentiate HAE from ICC.