论文部分内容阅读
目的：评价肝血流灌注指数诊断肝转移癌的临床价值。方法：利用脉冲多普勒超声测定了４组１１０例肝动脉、门静脉血流量，并计算出相应的肝静脉血流与门静脉血流的比值ＤＦＲ和多普勒肝血流灌注指数ＤＰＩ。结果：４个组之间的肝脏总血灌注量相差不明显，Ｐ＞０．０５。肝转移癌组、原发性肝癌组的ＤＰＩ和ＤＦＲ分别为０．３６±０．１１、０．３４±０．１２和０．６０±０．２８、０．５７±０．３７，明显高于对照组、肝内无转移癌组，其ＤＰＩ和ＤＦＲ分别为０．１７±０．０５、０．２０±０．０９和０．２１±０．０８、０．２９±０．１４，Ｐ均＜０．０１。ＤＰＩ、ＤＦＲ诊断肝转移癌的灵敏度８４．６％、特异性８４．９％、正确率８２．４％。结论：本组资料表明，ＤＰＩ或ＤＦＲ不能区别肝转移癌和肝原发癌，但在已知患者有恶性肿瘤的情况下，ＤＰＩ、ＤＦＲ可成为临床早期检出肝转移瘤的十分有价值的指标
Objective: To evaluate the clinical value of hepatic perfusion index in the diagnosis of hepatic metastases. Methods: Pulsed Doppler ultrasound was used to measure the blood flow of hepatic artery and portal vein in four groups of 110 patients. The corresponding ratio of hepatic venous blood flow to portal venous blood flow DFR and Doppler hepatic perfusion index DPI were calculated. Results: There was no significant difference in total hepatic perfusion between the four groups, P>0.05. The DPI and DFR in the liver metastases and primary liver cancer groups were 0.36±0.11, 0.34±0.12 and 0.60±0.28 and 0.57±0.37, respectively. In the control group and non-metastatic liver cancer group, the DPI and DFR were 0.17±0.05, 0.20±0.09, 0.21±0.08, and 0.29±0.14, respectively. Both <0.01. The sensitivity of DPI and DFR in the diagnosis of liver metastases was 84.6%, the specificity was 84.9%, and the correct rate was 82.4%. Conclusion: This group of data shows that DPI or DFR can not distinguish between liver metastases and primary liver cancers. However, DPI and DFR can be valuable for early detection of liver metastases in patients with known malignancies. index