4.3 Article

Differentiation between high- and low-grade urothelial carcinomas using contrast enhanced ultrasound

期刊

ONCOTARGET
卷 8, 期 41, 页码 70883-70889

出版社

IMPACT JOURNALS LLC
DOI: 10.18632/oncotarget.20151

关键词

contrast-enhanced ultrasonography; urothelial carcinoma; enhancement pattern; time-intensity curve

资金

  1. PLA General Hospital Miaopu Innovation Foundation [15KMM44]
  2. Sanya Medical Technology Innovation Foundation [2015YW32]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: To evaluate the value of contrast-enhanced ultrasonography (CEUS) in the differentiation of high and low grade urothelial carcinoma. Materials and Methods: 192 with 192 bladder lesions, including 110 high grade urothelial carcinoma and 82 low grade urothelial carcinoma were examined by CEUS. Among 192 tumors, enhancement patterns of 96 tumors between August 2010 and December 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Then from January 2013 to April 2015, compared with CEUS was performed on 96 tumors for prospective differential diagnosis. Sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value and negative predictive value were assessed. Results: With the CEUS view, dominant enhancement patterns were revealed as fast wash-in and slow wash-out for high grade urothelial carcinoma, fast wash-in and fast wash-out for low grade urothelial carcinoma, respectively. At CEUS, the prospective differentiation of bladder tumors showed sensitivity 86%, specificity 90%, accuracy 88%, positive predictive value 92%, and negative predictive value 82% for high grade tumors, while sensitivity 85%, specificity 89%, accuracy 88%, positive predictive value 85% and negative predictive value 89% for low grade tumors, respectively. Conclusions: Our study demonstrates the great potential of CEUS in the differentiation of high and low grade urothelial carcinoma. Since CEUS is an effective, inexpensive, and non-invasive method. It could be a reliable tool in the evaluation of patients with bladder tumors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据