检索历史 清除

目的：对比DWI与超声弹性成像诊断慢性乙型病毒性肝炎（CHB）肝纤维化分级的价值。方法前瞻性收集乙型肝炎病毒感染时间≥1年且准备行肝脏穿刺活检的69例CHB患者作为患者组，肝功能正常的健康体检者15名作为对照组。所有受试者均行上腹部DWI和超声弹力成像检查，二者的时间间隔在3 d内，分别测得肝ADC值和剪切波速度（SWV）值。患者组受试者行肝穿刺，并按照纤维化程度分为S0～S4级。采用单因素方差比较不同纤维化程度分级患者间肝脏ADC值、SWV值的差异，采用Spearman等级相关检验分析患者组肝脏纤维化程度与肝脏ADC值、SWV值的相关性，并采用ROC曲线分析肝脏ADC值、SWV值诊断肝纤维化的效能。结果69例患者中，S0、S1、S2、S3、S4级患者分别为11、13、12、15及18例。对照组、S0级组、S1级组、S2级组、S3级组、S4级组患者的ADC值分别为（1.39±0.09）×10-3、（1.39±0.08）×10-3、（1.38±0.10）×10-3、（1.20±0.06）×10-3、（1.12±0.07）×10-3、（1.01±0.07）×10-3mm2/s，SWV值分别为（1.17±0.07）、（1.16±0.08）、（1.23±0.10）、（1.48±0.14）、（1.85±0.14）、（1.97±0.12）m/s，各组间差异均有统计学意义（P均<0.01）。患者组ADC值与纤维化程度呈高度负相关（r=－0.894，P<0.01），SWV值与纤维化程度呈高度正相关（r=0.904，P<0.01）。ADC值预测≥S1级、≥S2级、≥S3级、S4级肝纤维化的ROC下面积分别为0.893、0.991、0.966、0.952， SWV值预测上述分级肝纤维化的ROC下面积分别为0.937、0.993、0.994、0.914。结论 DWI与超声弹性成像诊断肝纤维化分级均有较高价值，二者诊断效能相仿。

Objective To compare the diagnostic value of DWI and ultrasound elastography(UE) in staging hepatic fibrosis in patients with chronic viral hepatitis B(CHB). Methods Fifteen healthy volunteers (control group) and 69 patients with CHB (disease duration more than 1 year) (patient group) were prospectively recruited. All of the subjects underwent DWI and UE experiments twice with the interval of less than 3 days. Liver ADC and shear wave velocity(SWV) values were obtained for subsequent analysis. Sixty?nine patients who had biopsy were grouped according to their pathological grading of fibrosis, from S0 to S4. One?way ANOVA was used to compare the ADC and SWV values between the five different fibrosis groups and control group. Spearman correlation analysis was used to analyze the correlations between the ADC and SWV values and those staging factors. Finally, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was performed to compare the diagnostic performance of ADC and SWV values in discriminating different stages of hepatic fibrosis. Results Based on the pathological results, the 69 patients were reclassified to five subgroups with 11, 13, 12, 15 and 18 patients in the S0, S1, S2, S3 and S4 groups respectively. ADC values were(1.39±0.09)×10-3,(1.39±0.08)×10-3,(1.38±0.10)×10-3,(1.20±0.06)×10-3,(1.12±0.07)×10-3 and(1.01±0.07)×10-3mm2/s for the control group and stages S0 to S4 respectively.SWV values were(1.17±0.07),(1.16±0.08),(1.23±0.10),(1.48±0.14),(1.85±0.14)and(1.97±0.12)m/s for stages S0 to S4 and the control group respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed among them (P<0.01). Both ADC (r=-0.894,P<0.01) and SWV (r=0.904,P<0.01) values were highly correlated with the stages of liver fibrosis. The area under ROC(AUC) for predicting fibrosis stages (≥S1, ≥S2, ≥S3 and S4) with ADC values was 0.893, 0.991, 0.966 and 0.952 respectively. Accordingly, the AUC for SWV values were 0.937, 0.993, 0.994 and 0.914. Conclusions The two imaging methods of DWI and UE showed good and similar diagnostic performance in discriminating the different stages of hepatic fibrosis.