中国癌症杂志 ›› 2018, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 123-127.doi: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2018.02.007

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

动态对比增强磁共振成像感兴趣区勾画技术在乳腺癌诊断中的临床研究

钱利萍1, 2,周长玉1,谢铁明3,刘玉凤1,喻迎星1,许茂盛1   

  1. 1. 浙江中医药大学第一临床医学院,浙江 杭州310006 ;
    2. 杭州市肿瘤医院放射科,浙江 杭州310002 ;
    3. 浙江省肿瘤医院放射科,浙江 杭州310022
  • 出版日期:2018-02-28 发布日期:2018-03-08
  • 通信作者: 许茂盛 E-mail:1243454330@qq.com
  • 基金资助:
    浙江省医药卫生省部培育计划(2015PYA007);浙江省医药卫生科技计划项目(2016RCB014)。

Clinical study on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI in tumor bed of breast cancer with different region of interest selections

QIAN Liping1, 2, ZHOU Changyu1, XIE Tieming3, LIU Yufeng1, YU Yingxing1, XU Maosheng1   

  1. 1. First Clinical Medical School, Zhejiang University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Hangzhou 310006, Zhejiang Province, China; 2. Department of Radiology, Hangzhou Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou 310002, Zhejiang Province, China; 3. Department of Radiology, Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou 310022, Zhejiang Province, China
  • Published:2018-02-28 Online:2018-03-08
  • Contact: XU Maosheng E-mail: 1243454330@qq.com

摘要: 背景与目的:动态对比增强磁共振技术(dynamic contrast enhanced MRI,DCE-MRI)在乳腺肿瘤良恶性鉴别诊断及新辅助化疗疗效评价中具有重要的临床价值,然而尚无标准定量测量方法。该研究旨在探讨DCE-MRI感兴趣区(region of interest,ROI)勾画技术在乳腺癌诊断中的临床研究,寻找最佳ROI勾画方法。方法:回顾性分析了经手术和病理证实的30例乳腺癌患者的动态对比增强MRI影像,分别由2位观察者利用iCAD软件,通过全部瘤床勾画(Whole)、最大强化层面勾画(SliceMax)、含最大强化层面连续3层勾画(Partial)和最大强化层面5%连续强化区勾画(5Max)等4种方法勾画乳腺癌瘤床ROI,获得不同ROI下相应的容量转移常数(volume transfer constant,Ktrans)、细胞外间隙容积比(extracellular volume fraction,Ve)和速率常数(rate constant,Kep),评价4种勾画方法观察者内及观察者间测量的一致性。结果:30例乳腺癌瘤床的ROI勾画方法中,两位不同观察者Whole法的Ktrans、Ve和Kep分别为1.26±0.54和1.25±0.53、0.75±0.23和0.73±0.22、1.93±1.46和1.95±1.51(P>0.05);Partial法为1.28±0.43和1.26±0.43、0.74±0.21和0.80±0.27、1.95±1.53和1.93±1.43(P>0.05);SliceMax法为1.30±0.33和1.32±0.33、0.77±0.20和0.73±0.24、1.82±1.53和1.87±1.45(P>0.05);5Max法为1.31±0.35和1.35±0.33、0.77±0.20和0.98±0.25、1.97±1.36和1.73±1.55(P<0.05)。4种ROI勾画方法中除5Max方法外,不同观察者利用其他3种勾画方法测量所得功能参数Ktrans、Ve和Kep之间相比差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),5Max测量方法测量所得参数与其他3种方法相比差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。利用Bland-Altman方法评价功能参数Ktrans观察者间一致性,得出Whole法、SliceMax法、Partial和5Max方法下测量偏倚及95%CI分别为0.002 vs-0.013~0.012、-0.003 vs -0.023~0.017、0.006 vs -0.018~0.029、-0.035 vs -0.054~0.018。结果提示前3种方法观察者间具有较好的一致性。结论:乳腺癌瘤床DCE-MRI不同ROI勾画技术中,Whole法、Partial法和SliceMax法均能获得良好的观察者内及观察者间一致性,适合推广应用。

关键词: 乳腺癌, 瘤床, 动态增强MRI, 感兴趣区

Abstract: Background and purpose: The technique of dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI (DCE-MRI) is widely applied in differential diagnosis between benign and malignant tumor and therapeutic estimation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy in clinic. However, there is no standard quantitative measurement method. This study aimed to assess the variability of different region of interest (ROI) selections for tumor bed of breast cancer using DCE-MRI, and to ascertain the optimal ROI delineation. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed DCE-MRI of 30 patients diagnosed with breast cancer by pathology. The ROIs were delineated by 2 different observers using iCAD software with 4 methods, including whole tumor (Whole), the slice containing the most enhancing voxels (SliceMax), 3 slices centered in SliceMax (Partial) and the 5% most enhancing contiguous voxels within SliceMax (5Max), to generate the volume transfer constant (Ktrans), the extracellular volume fraction (Ve) and rate constant (Kep). And the reproducibilities of the measurements were assessed using the Bland-Altman method. Results: In the analysis of ROIs delineation, the Ktrans, Ve and Kep reported by different observers were 1.26±0.54 vs 1.25±0.53, 0.75±0.23 vs 0.73±0.22 and 1.93±1.46 vs 1.95±1.51 (P>0.05) using the method of Whole, and 1.28±0.43 vs 1.26±0.43, 0.74±0.21 vs 0.80±0.27, 1.95±1.53 vs 1.93±1.43 (P>0.05) using the method of Partial, and 1.30±0.33 vs 1.32±0.33, 0.77±0.20 vs 0.73±0.24, 1.82±1.53 vs 1.87±1.45 (P>0.05) using the method of SliceMax, and 1.31±0.35 vs 1.35±0.33, 0.77±0.20 vs 0.98±0.25, 1.97±1.36 vs 1.73±1.55 using the method of 5Max (P<0.05). Using the methods of ROI delineation except 5Max, there was no significant difference between Ktrans, Ve and Kep reported by different observers. The bias vs limits of agreement were 0.002 vs -0.013 to 0.012, -0.003 vs -0.023 to 0.017, 0.006 vs -0.018 to 0.029, -0.035 vs -0.054 to 0.018 measured with Whole method, SliceMax, Partial and 5Max respectively using the Bland-Altman method. Conclusion: It may be reliable to measure functional parameters of primary tumors in breast cancer using DCE-MRI according to the methods of Whole, Partial and SliceMax.

Key words: Breast cancer, Tumor bed, Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI, Region of interest