BMC urology · 2024
Quantitative differentiation of non-invasive bladder urothelial carcinoma and inverted papilloma based on CT urography.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Jin Pengfei, Yang Liqin, Liu Yitao, Huang Jiehui, Wang Xu
Аннотация
PURPOSE: To investigate the value of CT urography (CTU) indicators in the quantitative differential diagnosis of bladder urothelial carcinoma (BUC) and inverted papilloma of the bladder (IPB).
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical and preoperative CTU imaging data of continuous 103 patients with histologically confirmed BUC or IPB were retrospectively analyzed. The imaging data included 6 qualitative indicators and 7 quantitative measures. The recorded clinical information and imaging features were subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to find independent risk factors for BUC, and a combined multi-indicator prediction model was constructed, and the prediction model was visualized using nomogram. ROC curve analysis was used to calculate and compare the predictive efficacy of independent risk factors and nomogram.
RESULTS: Junction smoothness, maximum longitudinal diameter, tumor-wall interface and arterial reinforcement rate were independent risk factors for distinguishing BUC from IPB. The AUC of the combined model was 0.934 (sensitivity = 0.808, specificity = 0.920, accuracy = 0.835), and its diagnostic efficiency was higher than that of junction smoothness (AUC=0.667, sensitivity = 0.654, specificity = 0.680, accuracy = 0.660), maximum longitudinal diameter (AUC=0.757, sensitivity = 0.833, specificity = 0.604, accuracy = 0.786), tumor-wall interface (AUC=0.888, sensitivity = 0.755, specificity = 0.808, accuracy = 0.816) and Arterial reinforcement rate (AUC=0.786, sensitivity = 0.936, specificity = 0.640, accuracy = 0.864).
CONCLUSION: Above qualitative and quantitative indicators based on CTU and the combination of them may be helpful to the differential diagnosis of BUC and IPB, thus better assisting in clinical decision-making.
KEY POINTS: 1. Bladder urothelial carcinoma (BUC) and inverted papilloma of the bladder (IPB) exhibit similar clinical symptoms and imaging presentations. 2. The diagnostic value of CT urography (CTU) in distinguishing between BUC and IPB has not been documented. 3. BUC and IPB differ in lesion size, growth pattern and blood supply. 4. The diagnostic efficiency is optimized by integrating multiple independent risk factors into the prediction model.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The clinical and preoperative CTU imaging data of continuous 103 patients with histologically confirmed BUC or IPB were retrospectively analyzed. The imaging data included 6 qualitative indicators and 7 quantitative measures. The recorded clinical information and imaging features were subjected to univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis to find independent risk factors for BUC, and a combined multi-indicator prediction model was constructed, and the prediction model was visualized using nomogram. ROC curve analysis was used to calculate and compare the predictive efficacy of independent risk factors and nomogram.
RESULTS: Junction smoothness, maximum longitudinal diameter, tumor-wall interface and arterial reinforcement rate were independent risk factors for distinguishing BUC from IPB. The AUC of the combined model was 0.934 (sensitivity = 0.808, specificity = 0.920, accuracy = 0.835), and its diagnostic efficiency was higher than that of junction smoothness (AUC=0.667, sensitivity = 0.654, specificity = 0.680, accuracy = 0.660), maximum longitudinal diameter (AUC=0.757, sensitivity = 0.833, specificity = 0.604, accuracy = 0.786), tumor-wall interface (AUC=0.888, sensitivity = 0.755, specificity = 0.808, accuracy = 0.816) and Arterial reinforcement rate (AUC=0.786, sensitivity = 0.936, specificity = 0.640, accuracy = 0.864).
CONCLUSION: Above qualitative and quantitative indicators based on CTU and the combination of them may be helpful to the differential diagnosis of BUC and IPB, thus better assisting in clinical decision-making.
KEY POINTS: 1. Bladder urothelial carcinoma (BUC) and inverted papilloma of the bladder (IPB) exhibit similar clinical symptoms and imaging presentations. 2. The diagnostic value of CT urography (CTU) in distinguishing between BUC and IPB has not been documented. 3. BUC and IPB differ in lesion size, growth pattern and blood supply. 4. The diagnostic efficiency is optimized by integrating multiple independent risk factors into the prediction model.