Медицинская литература. Новинки

 

 

 

 

 

 

Оценка воспроизводимости результатов количественной ультразвуковой эластографии

Вы можете загрузить полный текст статьи в формате pdf

Цель работы – оценка воспроизводимости результатов количественной ультразвуковой эластографии одним и разными специалистами при исследовании матки у женщин. Обследовано 45 женщин, средний возраст которых составил 37 (23–65) лет. Параметрами вхождения в группу являлись неизмененный миометрий (отсутствие признаков диффузной и узловой патологии) и отсутствие в анамнезе консервативной миомэктомии и корпорального кесарева сечения. В процессе работы использовался режим ультразвуковой эластографии сдвиговой (поперечной) волны. Для оценки воспроизводимости результатов использовали среднее значение эластичности (модуль упругости Юнга) (Emean). Измерения проводили два врача ультразвуковой диагностики со стажем работы более 10 и более 3 лет. Метод Блэнда–Алтмана показал хорошее согласование измерений, полученных, с одной стороны, одним исследователем со стажем более 10 лет, с другой – одним исследователем со стажем более 3 лет, с третьей – двумя исследователями. Корреляционный анализ выявил сильные достоверные связи (коэффициент ранговой корреляции Спирмена – 0,86–0,91) при оценке воспроизводимости одним и двумя специалистами.

Ключевые слова:
ультразвуковое исследование, эластография сдвиговой (поперечной) волны, воспроизводимость одним специалистом, воспроизводимость разными специалистами, метод Блэнда–Алтмана, корреляционный анализ, коэф

Литература:
1. Krouskop T.A., Wheeler T.M., Kallel F. et al.
Elastic moduli of breast and prostate tissues under
compression // Ultrason. Imaging. 1998. V. 20. № 4.
P. 260–274.
2. Konofagou E., Ophir J. A new elastographic
method for estimation and imaging of lateral displacements, lateral strains, corrected axial strains
and Poisson’s ratios in tissues // Ultrasound Med.
Biol. 1998. V. 24. № 8. P. 1183–1199.
3. Ophir J., Cespedes I., Ponnekanti H. et al.
Elastography: a quantitative method for imaging
the elasticity of biological tissues // Ultrason.
Imaging. 1991. V. 13. № 2. P. 111–134.
4. Pesavento A., Perrey C., Krueger M., Ermert H.
A timeefficient and accurate strain estimation
concept for ultrasonic elastography using iterative
phase zero estimation // Trans. Ultrason.
Ferroelectr. Freq. Control. 1999. V. 46. № 5.
P. 1057–1067.
5. Konig K., Scheipers U., Pesavento A. et al. Initial
experiences with realtime elastography guided biopsies of the prostate // J. Urol. 2005. V. 174.
№1. P. 115–117.
6. Frauscher F., Gradl J., Pallwein L. Prostate ultrasound – for urologists only? // Cancer Imaging.
2005. V. 5. P. S76–S82.
7. Garra B.S. Cespedes E.I., Ophir J. et al.
Elastography of breast lesions: initial clinical
results // Radiology. 1997. V. 202. № 1. P. 79–86.
8. Thomas A., Fischer T., Frey H. et al. Real-time
elastography – an advanced method of ultrasound:
First results in 108 patients with breast lesions //
Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2006. V. 28. № 3.
P. 335–340.
9. Itoh A., Ueno E., Tohno E. et al. Breast disease:
clinical application of US elastography for diagnosis // Radiology. 2006. V. 39. № 2. P. 341–350.
10. Thomas A., Degenhardt F., Farrokh A. et al.
Significant differentiation of focal breast lesions:
calculation of strain ratio in breast sonoelastography // Acad. Radiol. 2010. V. 17. № 5. P. 558–563.
11. Lyshchik A., Higashi T., Asato R. et al. Thyroid
gland tumor diagnosis at US elastography // Radiology. 2005. V. 237. № 1. P. 202–211.
12. Dighe M., Bae U., Richardson M.L. et al.
Differential diagnosis of thyroid nodules with US
elastography using carotid artery pulsation //
Radiology. 2008. V. 248. № 2. P. 662–669.
13. Fukunary N., Arai K., Naakamura A. et al. Clinical
evaluation of elastography for the differential
diagnosis of thyroid follicular tumors // Abstracts
from the 12th Congress of World Federation for
Ultrasound in Medicine and Biology. J. Ultrasound
Med. Biol. 2009. V. 35. № 8. P. S230.
14. Varghese T., Shi H. Elastographic imaging of
thermal lesions in liver invivo using diaphragmatic stimuli // Ultrason. Imaging. 2004. V. 26. № 1.
P. 18–28.
15. Fukuda K., Mori M., Koma M. Analysis of train
patterns of common liver tumors using real-time
tissue elastography // Abstracts from the 12th
Congress of World Federation for Ultrasound in
Medicine and Biology. J. Ultrasound Med. Biol.
2009. V. 35. № 8. P. S153.
16. Prasad P., Schmulewitz N., Patel A. et al.
Detection of occult liver metastases during EUS for
staging of malignancies // Gastrointest. Endosc.
2004. V. 59. № 1. P. 49–53.
17. Emelianov S.Y., Lubinski M.A., Weitzel W.F. et al.
Elasticity imaging for early detection of renal
pathology // Ultrasound Med. Biol. 1995. V. 21.
№ 7. P. 871–883.
18. Furukawa M.K., Kubota A., Hanamura H.,
Furukawa M. Clinical application of real-time tissue elastography to head and neck cancer – evaluation of cervical lymph node metastasis with realtime tissue elastography // Nippon Jibiinkoka
Gakkai Kaiho. 2007. V. 110. № 7. P. 503–505.
19. Alam F., Naito K., Horiguchi J. et al. Accuracy of
sonographic elastography in the differential diagnosis of enlarged cervical lymph nodes: comparison
with conventional Bmode sonography // Am. J.
Roentgenol. 2008. V. 191. № 2. P. 604–610.
20. Levinson S.F., Shinagawa M., Sato T. Sonoelastic
determination of human skeletal muscle elasticity // J. Biomech. 1995. V. 28. № 10. P. 1145–1154.
21. Thomas A., Kummel S., Gemeinhardt O., Fischer T.
Realtime sonoelastography of the cervix: tissue
elasticity of the normal and abnormal cervix //
Acad. Radiol. 2007. V. 14. № 2. P. 193–200.
22. Thomas A. Imaging of the cervix using sonoelastography // Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2006. V. 28.
№3. P. 356–357
23. Ami O., Lamazou F., Mabille M. et al. Real-time
transvaginal elastosonography of uterine fibroids // Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2009. V. 34.
№4. P. 486–488.
24. Preis K., SwiatkowskaFreund M., Pankrac Z.
Elastography in the examination of the uterine
cervix before labor induction // Ginekol. Pol. 2010.
V. 81. № 10. P. 757–761.
25. Hobson M.A., Kiss M.Z., Varghese T. et al. In vitro
uterine strain imaging: preliminary results // J.
Ultrasound Med. 2007. V. 26. № 7. P. 899–908.
26. Сенча А.Н., Могутов М.С., Беляев Д.В., Сергеева Е.Д. Ультразвуковая эластография в диагностике рака щитовидной железы // Ультразвуковая и функциональная диагностика. 2010. № 3.
С. 8–16.
27. Park S. Inter and intraobserver agreement in the
interpretation of ultrasound elastography of breast
lesions // Abstracts of Radiological Society of
North America 93rd Scientific Assembly and
Annual Meeting. Chicago, 2007. P. 53.
28. Burnside E.S., Hall T.J., Sommer A.M. et al.
Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast
masses with US strain imaging // Radiology. 2007.
V. 245. № 2. P. 401–410.
29. Regner D.M., Hesley G.K., Hangiandreou N.J. et
al. Breast lesions: evaluation with US strain imaging – clinical experience of multiple observers //
Radiology. 2006. V. 238. № 2. P. 425–437.
30. Sarvazyan A.P., Rudenko O.V., Swanson S.D. et al.
Shear wave elasticity imaging: a new ultrasonic
technology of medical diagnostics // Ultrasound
Med. Biol. 1998. V. 24. № 9. P. 1419–1435.
31. Dutt V., Kinnick R.R., Muthupillai R. et al.
Acoustic shearwave imaging using echo ultrasound compared to magnetic resonance elastography // Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2000. V. 26. № 3.
P. 397–403.
32. Bercoff J., Pernot M., Tanter M., Fink M.
Monitoring thermallyinduced lesions with supersonic shear imaging // Ultrason. Imaging. 2004.
V. 26. № 2. P. 71–84.
33. Tanter M., Touboul D., Gennisson J.L. et al. Highresolution quantitative imaging of cornea elasticity
using supersonic shear imaging // IEEE Trans.
Med. Imaging. 2009. V. 28. № 12. P. 1881–1893.
34. Muller M., Gennisson J.L., Deffieux T. et al.
Quantitative viscoelasticity mapping of human
liver using supersonic shear imaging: preliminary
in vivo feasibility study // Ultrasound Med. Biol.
2009. V. 35. № 2. P. 219–229.
35. Tanter M., Bercoff J., Athanasiou A. et al.
Quantitative assessment of breast lesion viscoelasticity: initial clinical results using supersonic shear
imaging // Ultrasound Med. Biol. 2008. V. 34. № 9.
P. 1373–1386.
36. Bland J.M., Altman D.G. Statistical methods for
assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement // Lancet. 1986. V. 1. № 8476.
P. 307–310.
37. Гланц С. Медико-биологическая статистика. М.:
Практика, 1999. 462 с.
38. Evans A., Whelehan P., Thomson K. et al.
Quantitative shear wave ultrasound elastography:
initial experience in solid breast masses // Breast
Cancer Res. 2010. V. 12. № 6. P. R104.
39. Piscaglia F., Salvatore V., Di Donato R. et al.
Accuracy of Virtual Touch Acoustic Radiation
Force Impulse (ARFI) Imaging for the Diagnosis of
Cirrhosis during Liver Ultrasonography //
Ultraschall Med. 2011. V. 32. № 2. P. 167–175.

Assessment of the Shear Wave Elastography Reproducibility

The aim of the study was to estimate the inter1 and intraobserver reproducibility of the share wave elastography of the uterus. 45 women aged from 23 up to 65 years old (mean age 37) were examined. Patients with unaltered myometrium (diffuse and nodal pathology absence) and with lack of the conservative myomectomy and cesarean in the anamnesis were included in the study. The mean value of the Young's elasticity modulus (Emean) was used for the data reproducibility assessment. The measurements were done by two physicians with more than 10 and 3 years experience in ultrasonography. The Blend1Altman method showed the good agreement of the results acquired by the first operator with experience more than 10 years, by the second operator with experience more than 3 years, and by the both operators. The correlation analysis revealed the good significant elasticity measurements correlation in inter1 and intraobserver reproducibility assessment (Spearman rank correlation coefficient ranged from 0.86 to 0.91).

Keywords:
ultrasound diagnostics, shear wave elastography, interobserver reproducibility, intraobserver reproducibility, Bland-Altman analysis, correlation analysis, and Spearman rank correlation coefficient.