The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass

Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Yiran Mao [verfasserIn] Jie Mu [verfasserIn] Jing Zhao [verfasserIn] Fan Yang [verfasserIn] Lihui Zhao [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2022

Schlagwörter:	Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Cancer Imaging - BMC, 2014, 22(2022), 1, Seite 8
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:22 ; year:2022 ; number:1 ; pages:8

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ025717529

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ025717529
003	DE-627
005	20230307091529.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ025717529
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a R895-920
050		0	\|a RC254-282
100	0		\|a Yiran Mao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	4	\|a The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
264		1	\|c 2022
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.
650		4	\|a Ultrasound
650		4	\|a Renal tumor
650		4	\|a SMI
650		4	\|a MFI
653		0	\|a Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine
653		0	\|a Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
700	0		\|a Jie Mu \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Jing Zhao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Fan Yang \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Lihui Zhao \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Cancer Imaging \|d BMC, 2014 \|g 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 \|w (DE-627)36374732X \|w (DE-600)2104862-9 \|x 14707330 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:22 \|g year:2022 \|g number:1 \|g pages:8
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_31
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_74
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_206
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2003
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 22 \|j 2022 \|e 1 \|h 8

Indexfelder

author_variant	y m ym j m jm j z jz f y fy l z lz
matchkey_str	article:14707330:2022----::hcmaaietdoclropefoiaiguebirvsuaiaigotatnacdlrsudirfoia
hierarchy_sort_str	2022
callnumber-subject-code	R
publishDate	2022
allfields	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025717529 (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Yiran Mao verfasserin aut The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses. Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Jie Mu verfasserin aut Jing Zhao verfasserin aut Fan Yang verfasserin aut Lihui Zhao verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 8
spelling	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025717529 (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Yiran Mao verfasserin aut The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses. Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Jie Mu verfasserin aut Jing Zhao verfasserin aut Fan Yang verfasserin aut Lihui Zhao verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 8
allfields_unstemmed	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025717529 (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Yiran Mao verfasserin aut The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses. Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Jie Mu verfasserin aut Jing Zhao verfasserin aut Fan Yang verfasserin aut Lihui Zhao verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 8
allfieldsGer	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025717529 (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Yiran Mao verfasserin aut The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses. Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Jie Mu verfasserin aut Jing Zhao verfasserin aut Fan Yang verfasserin aut Lihui Zhao verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 8
allfieldsSound	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 doi (DE-627)DOAJ025717529 (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng R895-920 RC254-282 Yiran Mao verfasserin aut The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass 2022 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses. Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens Jie Mu verfasserin aut Jing Zhao verfasserin aut Fan Yang verfasserin aut Lihui Zhao verfasserin aut In Cancer Imaging BMC, 2014 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 (DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9 14707330 nnns volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 kostenfrei https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 22 2022 1 8
language	English
source	In Cancer Imaging 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8
sourceStr	In Cancer Imaging 22(2022), 1, Seite 8 volume:22 year:2022 number:1 pages:8
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Cancer Imaging
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Yiran Mao @@aut@@ Jie Mu @@aut@@ Jing Zhao @@aut@@ Fan Yang @@aut@@ Lihui Zhao @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2022-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	36374732X
id	DOAJ025717529
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ025717529</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307091529.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ025717529</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R895-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC254-282</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yiran Mao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ultrasound</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Renal tumor</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SMI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">MFI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jie Mu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jing Zhao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fan Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lihui Zhao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Cancer Imaging</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2022), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)36374732X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2104862-9</subfield><subfield code="x">14707330</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	R - Medicine
author	Yiran Mao
spellingShingle	Yiran Mao misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Ultrasound misc Renal tumor misc SMI misc MFI misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
authorStr	Yiran Mao
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)36374732X
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	R895-920
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	14707330
topic_title	R895-920 RC254-282 The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass Ultrasound Renal tumor SMI MFI
topic	misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Ultrasound misc Renal tumor misc SMI misc MFI misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
topic_unstemmed	misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Ultrasound misc Renal tumor misc SMI misc MFI misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
topic_browse	misc R895-920 misc RC254-282 misc Ultrasound misc Renal tumor misc SMI misc MFI misc Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine misc Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Cancer Imaging
hierarchy_parent_id	36374732X
hierarchy_top_title	Cancer Imaging
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)36374732X (DE-600)2104862-9
title	The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ025717529 (DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221
title_full	The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
author_sort	Yiran Mao
journal	Cancer Imaging
journalStr	Cancer Imaging
callnumber-first-code	R
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2022
contenttype_str_mv	txt
container_start_page	8
author_browse	Yiran Mao Jie Mu Jing Zhao Fan Yang Lihui Zhao
container_volume	22
class	R895-920 RC254-282
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Yiran Mao
doi_str_mv	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
callnumber	R895-920
title_auth	The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
abstract	Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.
abstractGer	Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.
abstract_unstemmed	Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_31 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_74 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_206 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2003 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	1
title_short	The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass
url	https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2 https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221 https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330
remote_bool	true
author2	Jie Mu Jing Zhao Fan Yang Lihui Zhao
author2Str	Jie Mu Jing Zhao Fan Yang Lihui Zhao
ppnlink	36374732X
callnumber-subject	R - General Medicine
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2
callnumber-a	R895-920
up_date	2024-07-03T16:41:48.711Z
_version_	1803576838677594112
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ025717529</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20230307091529.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230226s2022 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ025717529</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">R895-920</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">RC254-282</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Yiran Mao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="4"><subfield code="a">The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2022</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Abstract Purposes To evaluate the value of Color Doppler Flow Imaging (CDFI), Superb Microvascular Imaging (SMI) and Contrast-enhanced Ultrasound Microflow Imaging (MFI) in display the microvascular blood flow signals in renal solid lesions. Methods 142 patients with 144 renal masses were examined by CDFI, SMI and MFI simultaneously. We compared the difference of blood flow grading and vascular architecture based on CDFI, SMI and MFI. Results The blood flow signals detection rates of CDFI, SMI and MFI were 78.5% (113/144), 88.9% (128/144) and 93.8% (135/144), respectively. Concentrated on blood flow grading, The coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 64.58% (93/144) and 81.25% (117/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Blood flow grade 2–3 in CDFI is significantly lower than SMI(x 2 = 5.557, P = 0.018) and MFI (x 2 = 10.165, P = 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 2.372, P = 0.499). Concentrated on vascular architecture, the coincidence rates of CDFI and SMI were 56.25% (81/144) and 75.69% (109/144) referring to MFI, respectively. Vascular architecture type IV and V in CDFI was significantly lower than SMI (x 2 = 18.217, P < 0.001) and MFI (x 2 = 29.518, P < 0.001). Whereas there was no significant difference between SMI and MFI (x 2 = 3.048, P = 0.550). The sensitivity and specificity of CDFI, SMI and MFI in the diagnosis of renal mass were 61.29% and 90.20%, 79.57% and 88.24%, 88.17% and 84.31% respectively. The areas under the ROC curve of the three were 0.757, 0.839 and 0.862, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference between CDFI and MFI (Z = 3.687, P = 0.0002), while there was no statistically significant difference between SMI and MFI (Z = 1.167, P = 0.2431). Conclusion SMI and MFI are superior to CDFI in showing blood flow signals in renal solid masses, and it can perform blood flow and vascular architecture more accurately. Advances in knowledge SMI is similar to MFI in its ability to display fine vessels and diagnostic efficiency, and has application value in the diagnosis and differential diagnosis of renal solid masses.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Ultrasound</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Renal tumor</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">SMI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">MFI</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Medical physics. Medical radiology. Nuclear medicine</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Neoplasms. Tumors. Oncology. Including cancer and carcinogens</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jie Mu</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Jing Zhao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Fan Yang</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lihui Zhao</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Cancer Imaging</subfield><subfield code="d">BMC, 2014</subfield><subfield code="g">22(2022), 1, Seite 8</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)36374732X</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2104862-9</subfield><subfield code="x">14707330</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:22</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2022</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:8</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/84e8578dfeda4c78a9cf207096ab3221</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-022-00458-2</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/1470-7330</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_31</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_74</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_206</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2003</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">22</subfield><subfield code="j">2022</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="h">8</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.400943

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

The comparative study of color doppler flow imaging, superb microvascular imaging, contrast-enhanced ultrasound micro flow imaging in blood flow analysis of solid renal mass

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?