乳腺组织标志物在乳腺病变MRI评价中的作用及临床意义

Haiqing Liu, Hanchen Zhang, Ziliang Cheng, W. Zeng, C. Gong, Yue Hu, Zhuo Wu
{"title":"乳腺组织标志物在乳腺病变MRI评价中的作用及临床意义","authors":"Haiqing Liu, Hanchen Zhang, Ziliang Cheng, W. Zeng, C. Gong, Yue Hu, Zhuo Wu","doi":"10.3760/CMA.J.CN431274-20190104-00025","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective \nThis study compares the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of two types of breast tissue markers to investigate the appropriate clinical application of the markers. \n \n \nMethods \nBreast MRI of 69 patients (78 masses) with breast tissue markers had been placed were analyzed retrospectively from November 2015 to August 2018 in our hospital. The sizes and shapes of breast tissue markers were assessed in axial fat-suppressed T2-weighted images, T1-weighted images and contrast-enhanced T1-weighed images. \n \n \nResults \nThe length of the coil nickel-free stainless steel markers were greater than ribbon titanium markers, with statistical difference in fat-suppressed T2-weighted images (P=0.039). In contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images, all coil nickel-free stainless steel markers showed >6 mm diameter and round shape, and ribbon titanium markers showed >6 mm diameter (n=20) or ≤6 mm diameter (n=8), and round (n=20), dot (n=7) or band (n=1) shapes. The categories of sizes and shapes in two types of breast tissue markers both had statistical significance (P<0.001, P<0.001). \n \n \nConclusions \nSmall breast lesions with breast tissue markers are not suitable for MRI evaluation. The artifact of ribbon titanium markers is smaller than coil nickel-free stainless steel markers, so they have less impact for lesions. The choice of the breast tissue markers and image evaluation methods should depend on the different clinical conditions. \n \n \nKey words: \nMagnetic resonance imaging; Breast neoplasms; Fiducial markers; Titanium; Stainless steel","PeriodicalId":15276,"journal":{"name":"中国医师杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effect of breast tissue marker on MRI evaluation for breast lesions and clinical significance\",\"authors\":\"Haiqing Liu, Hanchen Zhang, Ziliang Cheng, W. Zeng, C. Gong, Yue Hu, Zhuo Wu\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/CMA.J.CN431274-20190104-00025\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective \\nThis study compares the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of two types of breast tissue markers to investigate the appropriate clinical application of the markers. \\n \\n \\nMethods \\nBreast MRI of 69 patients (78 masses) with breast tissue markers had been placed were analyzed retrospectively from November 2015 to August 2018 in our hospital. The sizes and shapes of breast tissue markers were assessed in axial fat-suppressed T2-weighted images, T1-weighted images and contrast-enhanced T1-weighed images. \\n \\n \\nResults \\nThe length of the coil nickel-free stainless steel markers were greater than ribbon titanium markers, with statistical difference in fat-suppressed T2-weighted images (P=0.039). In contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images, all coil nickel-free stainless steel markers showed >6 mm diameter and round shape, and ribbon titanium markers showed >6 mm diameter (n=20) or ≤6 mm diameter (n=8), and round (n=20), dot (n=7) or band (n=1) shapes. The categories of sizes and shapes in two types of breast tissue markers both had statistical significance (P<0.001, P<0.001). \\n \\n \\nConclusions \\nSmall breast lesions with breast tissue markers are not suitable for MRI evaluation. The artifact of ribbon titanium markers is smaller than coil nickel-free stainless steel markers, so they have less impact for lesions. The choice of the breast tissue markers and image evaluation methods should depend on the different clinical conditions. \\n \\n \\nKey words: \\nMagnetic resonance imaging; Breast neoplasms; Fiducial markers; Titanium; Stainless steel\",\"PeriodicalId\":15276,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中国医师杂志\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中国医师杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.CN431274-20190104-00025\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中国医师杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/CMA.J.CN431274-20190104-00025","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的比较两种乳腺组织标记物的MRI表现,探讨其临床应用的合理性。方法回顾性分析我院2015年11月至2018年8月69例放置乳腺组织标记物的肿块(78例)。在轴向脂肪抑制t2加权图像、t1加权图像和对比度增强t1加权图像中评估乳腺组织标记物的大小和形状。结果卷状无镍不锈钢标记物长度大于带状钛标记物,脂肪抑制t2加权图像差异有统计学意义(P=0.039)。在对比增强的t1加权图像中,所有线圈无镍不锈钢标记物均为> 6mm直径和圆形,带状钛标记物均为> 6mm直径(n=20)或≤6mm直径(n=8),圆形(n=20),点状(n=7)或带状(n=1)形状。两类乳腺组织标志物的大小、形状分类均有统计学意义(P<0.001, P<0.001)。结论有乳腺组织标记物的乳腺小病变不适合MRI评价。带状钛标记器的神器比线圈无镍不锈钢标记器小,因此对病变的影响较小。乳腺组织标志物和影像评价方法的选择应根据不同的临床情况而定。关键词:磁共振成像;乳腺肿瘤;基准标记;钛;不锈钢
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Effect of breast tissue marker on MRI evaluation for breast lesions and clinical significance
Objective This study compares the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) appearance of two types of breast tissue markers to investigate the appropriate clinical application of the markers. Methods Breast MRI of 69 patients (78 masses) with breast tissue markers had been placed were analyzed retrospectively from November 2015 to August 2018 in our hospital. The sizes and shapes of breast tissue markers were assessed in axial fat-suppressed T2-weighted images, T1-weighted images and contrast-enhanced T1-weighed images. Results The length of the coil nickel-free stainless steel markers were greater than ribbon titanium markers, with statistical difference in fat-suppressed T2-weighted images (P=0.039). In contrast-enhanced T1-weighted images, all coil nickel-free stainless steel markers showed >6 mm diameter and round shape, and ribbon titanium markers showed >6 mm diameter (n=20) or ≤6 mm diameter (n=8), and round (n=20), dot (n=7) or band (n=1) shapes. The categories of sizes and shapes in two types of breast tissue markers both had statistical significance (P<0.001, P<0.001). Conclusions Small breast lesions with breast tissue markers are not suitable for MRI evaluation. The artifact of ribbon titanium markers is smaller than coil nickel-free stainless steel markers, so they have less impact for lesions. The choice of the breast tissue markers and image evaluation methods should depend on the different clinical conditions. Key words: Magnetic resonance imaging; Breast neoplasms; Fiducial markers; Titanium; Stainless steel
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
中国医师杂志
中国医师杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
20937
期刊介绍:
期刊最新文献
Effect of sivelestat sodium on early inflammatory reaction and pulmonary edema in rats with smoke inhalation induced lung injury Effect of CEA on neurological function and coagulation function in patients with ischemic stroke Intraoperative real-time imaging-guided laparoscopic liver resection Application progress of laparoscopy in the treatment of liver tumors Analysis of risk of endobronchial biopsy-induced bleeding in different locations of lung cancer
×
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