表观扩散系数(ADC)在局部晚期宫颈癌患者淋巴结状态评估中的作用:我们的经验和回顾。

IF 0.9 Q4 RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING Polish Journal of Radiology Pub Date : 2022-08-10 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.5114/pjr.2022.118914
Benedetta Gui, Luca Russo, Laura Minordi, Maura Miccò, Salvatore Persiani, Giacomo Avesani, Vittoria Rufini, Valentina Fuoco, Rosa Autorino, Gabriella Ferrandina, Giovanni Scambia, Riccardo Manfredi
{"title":"表观扩散系数(ADC)在局部晚期宫颈癌患者淋巴结状态评估中的作用:我们的经验和回顾。","authors":"Benedetta Gui,&nbsp;Luca Russo,&nbsp;Laura Minordi,&nbsp;Maura Miccò,&nbsp;Salvatore Persiani,&nbsp;Giacomo Avesani,&nbsp;Vittoria Rufini,&nbsp;Valentina Fuoco,&nbsp;Rosa Autorino,&nbsp;Gabriella Ferrandina,&nbsp;Giovanni Scambia,&nbsp;Riccardo Manfredi","doi":"10.5114/pjr.2022.118914","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value measurement in the diagnosis of meta-static lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) and to present a systematic review of the literature.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams of patients with LACC were retrospectively eva-luated. Mean ADC, relative ADC (rADC), and correct ADC (cADC) values of enlarged LNs were measured and compared between positron emission tomography (PET)-positive and PET-negative LNs. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test and Student's <i>t</i>-test. ROC curves were generated for each parameter to identify the optimal cut-off value for differentiation of the LNs. A systematic search in the literature was performed, exploring several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 105 LNs in 34 patients were analysed. The median ADC value of PET-positive LNs (0.907 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [0.780-1.080]) was lower than that in PET-negative LNs (1.275 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [1.063-1.525]) (<i>p</i> < 0.05). rADC and cADC values were lower in PET-positive LNs (rADC: 0.120 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [-0.060-0.270]; cADC: 1.130 [0.980-1.420]) than in PET-negative LNs (rADC: 0.435 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [0.225-0.673]; cADC: 1.615 [1.210-1.993]) LNs (<i>p</i> < 0.05). ADC showed the highest area under the curve (AUC 0.808).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mean ADC, rADC, and cADC were significantly lower in the PET-positive group than in the PET-negative group. The ADC cut-off value of 1.149 × 10-3 mm<sup>2</sup>/s showed the highest sensitivity. These results confirm the usefulness of ADC in differentiating metastatic from non-metastatic LNs in LACC.</p>","PeriodicalId":47128,"journal":{"name":"Polish Journal of Radiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3d/27/PJR-87-47671.PMC9453471.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the evaluation of lymph node status in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: our experience and a review.\",\"authors\":\"Benedetta Gui,&nbsp;Luca Russo,&nbsp;Laura Minordi,&nbsp;Maura Miccò,&nbsp;Salvatore Persiani,&nbsp;Giacomo Avesani,&nbsp;Vittoria Rufini,&nbsp;Valentina Fuoco,&nbsp;Rosa Autorino,&nbsp;Gabriella Ferrandina,&nbsp;Giovanni Scambia,&nbsp;Riccardo Manfredi\",\"doi\":\"10.5114/pjr.2022.118914\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To evaluate the role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value measurement in the diagnosis of meta-static lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) and to present a systematic review of the literature.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams of patients with LACC were retrospectively eva-luated. Mean ADC, relative ADC (rADC), and correct ADC (cADC) values of enlarged LNs were measured and compared between positron emission tomography (PET)-positive and PET-negative LNs. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test and Student's <i>t</i>-test. ROC curves were generated for each parameter to identify the optimal cut-off value for differentiation of the LNs. A systematic search in the literature was performed, exploring several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 105 LNs in 34 patients were analysed. The median ADC value of PET-positive LNs (0.907 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [0.780-1.080]) was lower than that in PET-negative LNs (1.275 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [1.063-1.525]) (<i>p</i> < 0.05). rADC and cADC values were lower in PET-positive LNs (rADC: 0.120 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [-0.060-0.270]; cADC: 1.130 [0.980-1.420]) than in PET-negative LNs (rADC: 0.435 × 10<sup>-3</sup> mm<sup>2</sup>/s [0.225-0.673]; cADC: 1.615 [1.210-1.993]) LNs (<i>p</i> < 0.05). ADC showed the highest area under the curve (AUC 0.808).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mean ADC, rADC, and cADC were significantly lower in the PET-positive group than in the PET-negative group. The ADC cut-off value of 1.149 × 10-3 mm<sup>2</sup>/s showed the highest sensitivity. These results confirm the usefulness of ADC in differentiating metastatic from non-metastatic LNs in LACC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Polish Journal of Radiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-08-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/3d/27/PJR-87-47671.PMC9453471.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Polish Journal of Radiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.118914\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Polish Journal of Radiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/pjr.2022.118914","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:评价表观弥散系数(ADC)值测定在局部晚期宫颈癌(LACC)患者的后静态淋巴结(LNs)诊断中的作用,并对相关文献进行系统回顾。材料与方法:回顾性分析LACC患者的磁共振成像(MRI)检查结果。测量放大LNs的平均ADC、相对ADC (rADC)和正确ADC (cADC)值,并比较正电子发射断层扫描(PET)阳性和PET阴性LNs之间的差异。采用Mann-Whitney u检验和Student’st检验进行比较。为每个参数生成ROC曲线,以确定区分LNs的最佳截止值。对文献进行了系统的检索,探索了几个数据库,包括PubMed、Scopus、Cochrane图书馆和Embase。结果:共分析34例患者的105例ln。pet阳性LNs的中位ADC值(0.907 × 10-3 mm2/s[0.780 ~ 1.080])低于pet阴性LNs的中位ADC值(1.275 × 10-3 mm2/s [1.063 ~ 1.525]) (p < 0.05)。pet阳性LNs的rADC和cADC值较低(rADC: 0.120 × 10-3 mm2/s [-0.060-0.270];rADC: 0.435 × 10-3 mm2/s [0.225-0.673];cADC: 1.615 [1.210 ~ 1.993]), p < 0.05。ADC曲线下面积最高(AUC 0.808)。结论:pet阳性组ADC、rADC、cADC均值明显低于pet阴性组。ADC截止值为1.149 × 10-3 mm2/s,灵敏度最高。这些结果证实了ADC在鉴别LACC的转移性和非转移性LNs中的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
The role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) in the evaluation of lymph node status in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer: our experience and a review.

Purpose: To evaluate the role of apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) value measurement in the diagnosis of meta-static lymph nodes (LNs) in patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (LACC) and to present a systematic review of the literature.

Material and methods: Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) exams of patients with LACC were retrospectively eva-luated. Mean ADC, relative ADC (rADC), and correct ADC (cADC) values of enlarged LNs were measured and compared between positron emission tomography (PET)-positive and PET-negative LNs. Comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U-test and Student's t-test. ROC curves were generated for each parameter to identify the optimal cut-off value for differentiation of the LNs. A systematic search in the literature was performed, exploring several databases, including PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane library, and Embase.

Results: A total of 105 LNs in 34 patients were analysed. The median ADC value of PET-positive LNs (0.907 × 10-3 mm2/s [0.780-1.080]) was lower than that in PET-negative LNs (1.275 × 10-3 mm2/s [1.063-1.525]) (p < 0.05). rADC and cADC values were lower in PET-positive LNs (rADC: 0.120 × 10-3 mm2/s [-0.060-0.270]; cADC: 1.130 [0.980-1.420]) than in PET-negative LNs (rADC: 0.435 × 10-3 mm2/s [0.225-0.673]; cADC: 1.615 [1.210-1.993]) LNs (p < 0.05). ADC showed the highest area under the curve (AUC 0.808).

Conclusions: Mean ADC, rADC, and cADC were significantly lower in the PET-positive group than in the PET-negative group. The ADC cut-off value of 1.149 × 10-3 mm2/s showed the highest sensitivity. These results confirm the usefulness of ADC in differentiating metastatic from non-metastatic LNs in LACC.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Polish Journal of Radiology
Polish Journal of Radiology RADIOLOGY, NUCLEAR MEDICINE & MEDICAL IMAGING-
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Lung ultrasound in a nutshell. Lines, signs, some applications, and misconceptions from a radiologist's point of view. Ablation of pulmonary neoplasms: review of literature and future perspectives. Bone marrow lesions of the femoral head: can radiomics distinguish whether it is reversible? Summary of radiation dose management and optimization: comparison of radiation protection measures between Poland and other countries. Diagnosis and treatment of peritoneal carcinomatosis - a comprehensive overview.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1