46 research outputs found

    The Black Hole Mass - Galaxy Bulge Relationship for QSOs in the SDSS DR3

    Get PDF
    We investigate the relationship between black hole mass and host galaxy velocity dispersion for QSOs in Data Release 3 of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. We derive black hole mass from the broad Hbeta line width and continuum luminosity, and the bulge stellar velocity dispersion from the [OIII] narrow line width. At higher redshifts, we use MgII and [OII] in place of Hbeta and [OIII]. For redshifts z < 0.5, our results agree with the black hole mass - bulge velocity dispersion relationship for nearby galaxies. For 0.5 < z < 1.2, this relationship appears to show evolution with redshift in the sense that the bulges are too small for their black holes. However, we find that part of this apparent trend can be attributed to observational biases, including a Malmquist bias involving the QSO luminosity. Accounting for these biases, we find ~0.2 dex evolution in the black hole mass-bulge velocity dispersion relationship between now and redshift z ~ 1.Comment: Accepted by ApJ, 15 pages, 9 figure

    Statistical Properties of Radio Emission from the Palomar Seyfert Galaxies

    Get PDF
    We have carried out an analysis of the radio and optical properties of a statistical sample of 45 Seyfert galaxies from the Palomar spectroscopic survey of nearby galaxies. We find that the space density of bright galaxies (-22 mag <= M_{B_T} <= -18 mag) showing Seyfert activity is (1.25 +/- 0.38) X 10^{-3} Mpc^{-3}, considerably higher than found in other Seyfert samples. Host galaxy types, radio spectra, and radio source sizes are uncorrelated with Seyfert type, as predicted by the unified schemes for active galaxies. Approximately half of the detected galaxies have flat or inverted radio spectra, more than expected based on previous samples. Surprisingly, Seyfert 1 galaxies are found to have somewhat stronger radio sources than Seyfert 2 galaxies at 6 and 20 cm, particularly among the galaxies with the weakest nuclear activity. We suggest that this difference can be accommodated in the unified schemes if a minimum level of Seyfert activity is required for a radio source to emerge from the vicinity of the active nucleus. Below this level, Seyfert radio sources might be suppressed by free-free absorption associated with the nuclear torus or a compact narrow-line region, thus accounting for both the weakness of the radio emission and the preponderance of flat spectra. Alternatively, the flat spectra and weak radio sources might indicate that the weak active nuclei are fed by advection-dominated accretion disks.Comment: 18 pages using emulateapj5, 13 embedded figures, accepted by Ap

    Ultra-broadband near-infrared upconversion for solar energy harvesting

    Get PDF
    Upconversion – the absorption of two or more photons resulting in radiative emission at a higher energy than the excitation – has the potential to enhance the efficiency of solar energy harvesting technologies, most notably photovoltaics. However, the required ultra-high light intensities and the narrow absorption bands of lanthanide ions limit efficient solar utilisation. In this paper, we report results from exciting upconverters with concentrated sunlight at flux densities up to 2300 suns, where the radiation is restricted to photon energies below the bandgap of silicon (corresponding to a wavelength Ξ» = 1200 nm). Upconversion to Ξ» = 980 nm is achieved by using hexagonal erbium-doped sodium yttrium fluoride (Ξ²-NaYF4: Er3+) in a fluoropolymer matrix. Upconversion has a nonlinear relation with irradiance, therefore at a high irradiance a threshold occurs where the process becomes linear. For Ξ²-NaYF4:25%Er3+, we find a two-photon threshold under concentrated sunlight at 320 suns. Notably, this threshold is lower than under corresponding laser excitation and can be related to all resonantly excited Er3+ ion levels and excited stated absorption. These results highlight a pathway that utilises a far broader portion of the solar spectrum for photovoltaics

    The relation between dynamics and star formation in barred galaxies

    Full text link
    We analyze optical and near-infrared data of a sample of 11 barred spiral galaxies, in order to establish a connection between star formation and bar/spiral dynamics. We find that 22 regions located in the bars, and 20 regions in the spiral arms beyond the end of the bar present azimuthal color/age gradients that may be attributed to star formation triggering. Assuming a circular motion dynamic model, we compare the observed age gradient candidates with stellar populations synthesis models. A link can then be established with the disk dynamics that allows us to obtain parameters like the pattern speed of the bar or spiral, as well as the positions of resonance radii. We subsequently compare the derived pattern speeds with those expected from theoretical and observational results in the literature (e.g., bars ending near corotation). We find a tendency to overestimate bar pattern speeds derived from color gradients in the bar at small radii, away from corotation; this trend can be attributed to non-circular motions of the young stars born in the bar region. In spiral regions, we find that ~ 50% of the color gradient candidates are "inverse", i.e., with the direction of stellar aging contrary to that of rotation. The other half of the gradients found in spiral arms have stellar ages that increase in the same sense as rotation. Of the 9 objects with gradients in both bars and spirals, six (67%) appear to have a bar and a spiral with similar Omega_p, while three (33%) do not.Comment: Accepted for publication in Ap

    Π£Π»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС с контрастированиСм Π² Π°Π»Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΌΠ΅ диагностики солидных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ

    Get PDF
    Most often any kidney lesions are primary renal, but sometimes they can be secondary (metastases, lymphoma). Every year renal cell carcinoma tends to a significant increase in the incidence. Today there are many available methods of examination, however difficulties often remain in the differential diagnosis of kidney lesions. The article discusses about the modern possibilities of methods in the identification and assessment of kidney lesions, their role in determining the tactics of patient management and key approaches in imaging characterization of these masses using CT and PET, MRI and CEUS. The analysis of the modern literature has shown that the currently existing radiation diagnostic methods do not provide an absolute opportunity for differential diagnosis of rare kidney tumors. CEUS, according to various authors, demonstrates high efficiency indicators, but does not exceed these indicators in comparison with CT and MRI. Contrast-enhanced ultrasound is a potentially safe method and can be used as a method for additional examination to characterize indeterminate renal lesions.Π‘ΠΎΠ»ΠΈΠ΄Π½Ρ‹Π΅ новообразования ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ Ρ‡Π°Ρ‰Π΅ всСго ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡŽΡ‚ ΠΏΠ΅Ρ€Π²ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠ΅ происхоТдСниС, Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠ΅ ΠΌΠΎΠ³ΡƒΡ‚ Π±Ρ‹Ρ‚ΡŒ Π²Ρ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‡Π½Ρ‹ΠΌΠΈ (мСтастазы, Π»ΠΈΠΌΡ„ΠΎΠΌΠ°). ЗлокачСствСнныС пораТСния ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ Π½Π° сСгодняшний дСнь ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡŽΡ‚ Ρ‚Π΅Π½Π΄Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΡŽ ΠΊ сущСствСнному Π΅ΠΆΠ΅Π³ΠΎΠ΄Π½ΠΎΠΌΡƒ росту. НСсмотря Π½Π° мноТСство доступных ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² обслСдования, Π½Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π΄ΠΊΠΎ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡŽΡ‚ трудности Π² Π΄ΠΈΡ„Ρ„Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ диагностикС ряда ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ. Π’ ΡΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΠ΅ Ρ€Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ соврСмСнныС возмоТности Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π² выявлСнии ΠΈ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ, ΠΈΡ… Ρ€ΠΎΠ»ΡŒ Π² ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠΊΠΈ вСдСния ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠ². ΠšΡ€ΠΎΠΌΠ΅ Ρ‚ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, прСдставлСны ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ…ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹ ΠΊ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ характСристик этих ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ с ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡ‰ΡŒΡŽ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ (КВ) ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠ·ΠΈΡ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎ-эмиссионной Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ (ПЭВ), ΠΌΠ°Π³Π½ΠΈΡ‚Π½ΠΎ-рСзонансной Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ (МРВ), Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС (Π£Π—Π˜) с контрастированиСм. Анализ соврСмСнной Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΡƒΡ€Ρ‹ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π», Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎ ΡΡƒΡ‰Π΅ΡΡ‚Π²ΡƒΡŽΡ‰ΠΈΠ΅ Π½Π° сСгодняшний дСнь Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²Ρ‹Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹ диагностики Π½Π΅ Π΄Π°ΡŽΡ‚ Π°Π±ΡΠΎΠ»ΡŽΡ‚Π½ΡƒΡŽ Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ Π² ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π΄ΠΈΡ„Ρ„Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ диагностики Ρ€Π΅Π΄ΠΊΠΈΡ… ΠΎΠΏΡƒΡ…ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ. ЭхоконтрастированиС ΠΏΠΎ Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹ΠΌ Ρ€Π°Π·Π»ΠΈΡ‡Π½Ρ‹Ρ… Π°Π²Ρ‚ΠΎΡ€ΠΎΠ² дСмонстрируСт высокиС ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΠΈ эффСктивности, Π½ΠΎ Π½Π΅ ΠΏΡ€Π΅Π²Ρ‹ΡˆΠ°Π΅Ρ‚ эти ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΠΈ Π² сравнСнии с КВ ΠΈ МРВ. ΠšΠΎΠ½Ρ‚Ρ€Π°ΡΡ‚Π½ΠΎ-усилСнноС Π£Π—Π˜ β€” ΠΏΠΎΡ‚Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎ бСзопасный ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ ΠΈ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ‚ Π±Ρ‹Ρ‚ΡŒ использован с Ρ†Π΅Π»ΡŒΡŽ дообслСдования ΡΠΎΠΌΠ½ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ

    ΠœΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС с контрастным усилСниСм солидных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ Π² сопоставлСнии с ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ

    Get PDF
    Introduction. Today, we have a lot of difficulties in the focal kidney lesions diagnosis, despite the many available radiation methods of examination. Computed tomography (CT) is the Β«gold standardΒ» of radiological diagnosis of kidney cancer (KC), which over the years of its existence has proven to be highly effectiveness. Ultrasound examination (US) is the best method for the primary diagnosis of solid kidney lesions. Multiparameter ultrasound (mpUS) with using contrast significantly supplements the information obtained in traditional scanning, significantly expanding the range of tasks to be solved. The article discusses the modern possibilities of radiology methods in the detection and assessment of kidney lesions, their role in determining the patient management tactics.Objective. Π’o explore the possibilities and compare the effectiveness of individual multiparameter ultrasound techniques (Bmode, CDI and PDI, ultrasoundcontrast) in assessing solid kidney formations with each other and computed tomography (CT), as a reference method of radiation diagnostics.Material and methods. Мultiparametric ultrasound examination (mpUS) using B-mode, doppler mapping and contrast enhancement (1,0 ml Sonovue) was performed in 79 patients with solid kidney lesions. Most of the detected lesions (n=65) were histologically verified, the rest (n=14) with signs of benign changes were subjected to dynamic control. All patients underwent contrast-enhanced computed tomography as a control method.Results. Π’he effectiveness of the B-mode was: sensitivity (Se) β€” 76,9%; specificity (Sp) β€” 29,6%; accuracy (A) β€” 60,7%, for the CDI mode, these indicators were Se β€” 80,7%; Sp β€” 37,1%; A β€” 65,8%. The use of contrast enhancement significantly increased the overall efficiency of multiparameter ultrasound: Se β€” 92,1%; Sp β€” 93,7%; A β€” 92,4% and showed comparable efficiency with CT: Sp β€” 94,9%; Se β€” 85,0%; A β€” 92,4%.Conclusions. CT to this day remains the Β«gold standardΒ» in the assessment of kidney lesions, however, ultrasound with contrast enhancement due to comparable efficiency, as well as taking into account the absence of radiation exposure, wide availability of equipment, high resolution, in the presence of contraindications to CT in a number of cases can act as a method of choice.Π’Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. НСсмотря Π½Π° мноТСство доступных Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² обслСдования, Π½Π° сСгодняшний дСнь, Π½Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π΄ΠΊΠΎ Π²ΠΎΠ·Π½ΠΈΠΊΠ°ΡŽΡ‚ трудности Π²  диагностикС ΠΎΡ‡Π°Π³ΠΎΠ²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ. ΠšΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½Π°Ρ томография (КВ), Π½Π°  сСгодняшний дСнь, являСтся Β«Π·ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‚Ρ‹ΠΌ стандартом» Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ диагностики Ρ€Π°ΠΊΠ° ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ (РП), которая Π·Π° Π³ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹ своСго сущСствования Π΄ΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»Π° Π²Ρ‹ΡΠΎΠΊΡƒΡŽ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ. Π£Π»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС (Π£Π—Π˜) являСтся ΠΎΠΏΡ‚ΠΈΠΌΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹ΠΌ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΌ ΠΏΠ΅Ρ€Π²ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ диагностики солидных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ. ΠœΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π£Π—Π˜ (ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜) с ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ эхоконтрастирования Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎ дополняСт ΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π½Π½ΡƒΡŽ Π² Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠΊΠ°Ρ… Ρ‚Ρ€Π°Π΄ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΠΎΠ½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ сканирования ΠΈΠ½Ρ„ΠΎΡ€ΠΌΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΡŽ, сущСствСнно Ρ€Π°ΡΡˆΠΈΡ€ΡΡ спСктр Ρ€Π΅ΡˆΠ°Π΅ΠΌΡ‹Ρ… Π·Π°Π΄Π°Ρ‡. Π’ ΡΡ‚Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΠ΅ Ρ€Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΠ²Π°ΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ соврСмСнныС возмоТности Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠ² Π² выявлСнии ΠΈ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ, ΠΈΡ… Ρ€ΠΎΠ»ΡŒ Π² ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠΊΠΈ вСдСния ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠ².ЦСль исслСдования: ΠΈΠ·ΡƒΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ возмоТности ΠΈ ΡΡ€Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ ΠΎΡ‚Π΄Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΊ ΠΌΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π£Π—Π˜ (Π’Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌ, Π¦Π”Πš ΠΈ Π­Π”Πš, эхоконтрастированиС) Π² ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ солидных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ ΠΌΠ΅ΠΆΠ΄Ρƒ собой ΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠ΅ΠΉ (КВ), ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ Ρ€Π΅Ρ„Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π½Ρ‚Π½Ρ‹ΠΌ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΌ Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ диагностики.ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ‹ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹. ΠœΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС (ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜) с ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π’-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΠ°, допплСровского картирования ΠΈ контрастного усилСния (1,0 ΠΌΠ» Боновью) ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΎ 79 ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°ΠΌ с солидными образованиями ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ. Π‘ΠΎΠ»ΡŒΡˆΠ°Ρ Ρ‡Π°ΡΡ‚ΡŒ выявлСнных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ (n=65) гистологичСски Π²Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ†ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½Ρ‹, ΠΎΡΡ‚Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Π΅ (n=14), ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡŽΡ‰ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΠΊΠΈ доброкачСствСнных ΠΈΠ·ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΉ, ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Π²Π΅Ρ€Π³Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡŒ динамичСскому ΠΊΠΎΠ½Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ»ΡŽ. Π’  качСствС ΠΊΠΎΠ½Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Π° всСм ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°ΠΌ Π²Ρ‹ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠ»Π°ΡΡŒ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½Π°Ρ томография с контрастированиСм.Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Ρ‹. Π­Ρ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ Π’-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΠ° составила: Ρ‡ΡƒΠ²ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ (Π§) β€” 76,9%; ΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ†ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ (Π‘) β€” 29,6%; Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ (Π’) β€” 60,7%, для Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΠ° Π¦Π”Πš Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΠΈ составили Π§ β€” 80,7%; Π‘ β€” 37,1%; Π’ β€” 65,8%. ΠŸΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ контрастного усилСния Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΠΎ повысило ΠΎΠ±Ρ‰ΡƒΡŽ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ ΠΌΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π£Π—Π˜: Π§ β€” 92,1%; Π‘ β€” 93,7%; Π’ β€” 92,4% ΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»ΠΎ ΡΠΎΠΏΠΎΡΡ‚Π°Π²ΠΈΠΌΡƒΡŽ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ с КВ: Π§ β€” 94,9%; Π‘ β€” 85,0%; Π’ β€” 92,4%.Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. КВ ΠΏΠΎ сСй дСнь остаСтся Β«Π·ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‚Ρ‹ΠΌ стандартом» Π² ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜ с контрастным усилСниСм Π·Π° счСт сопоставимой эффСктивности, Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ с ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ отсутствия Π»ΡƒΡ‡Π΅Π²ΠΎΠΉ Π½Π°Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠ·ΠΊΠΈ, ΡˆΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠΊΠΎΠΉ доступности оборудования, высокой Ρ€Π°Π·Ρ€Π΅ΡˆΠ°ΡŽΡ‰Π΅ΠΉ способности, ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΡ‚ΠΈΠ²ΠΎΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΊ  КВ Π²  рядС случаСв ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ΅Ρ‚ Π²Ρ‹ΡΡ‚ΡƒΠΏΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ Π² качСствС ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Π° Π²Ρ‹Π±ΠΎΡ€

    ΠœΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС с контрастным усилСниСм кистозных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡ΠΊΠΈ Π² сопоставлСнии с ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΎΠΌ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ

    Get PDF
    Objective: to evaluate the effectiveness and capabilities of multiparametric ultrasound (mpUS) with contrast enhanced in the assessment of renal cystic lesions and compare data with the results of computed tomography (CT).Patients and Methods. The study included 61 patients with cystic kidney tumors (category Bosniak β‰₯ II). Cysts of categories Bosniak β‰₯ III were morphologically verified, the rest (categories II-IIF) were under long-term dynamic control. All patients underwent mpUS including greyscale mode, color doppler imaging (CDI) and contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), as well as contrast-enhanced CT.Results. Contrast-enhanced mpUS with CEUS demonstrated high efficiency of the method: sensitivity (Se) – 97.2%; specificity (Sp) – 91.6%; accuracy (A) – 95.1%. The effectiveness of CT with contrast in the study group was 91.7%; 84.0%; 88.5% respectively. Also, mpUS showed a more accurate assessment of cystic tumors according to the Bosniak classification, in comparison with contrast-enhanced CT.Conclusions. Contrast-enhanced mpUS with CEUS demonstrated a significant increase in the effectiveness of the method as a whole, as well as higher rates in comparison with CT in the assessment of cystic formations of the kidneys. This technique should be considered as the method of choice in cases where CT is not possible, and it is recommended to include it in the algorithm for examining patients with cystic kidney tumors.ЦСль исслСдования: ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ ΠΈ возмоТности ΠΌΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ исслСдования (ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜) с эхоконтрастированиСм Π² ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ кистозных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ, ΡΡ€Π°Π²Π½ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ с Ρ€Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΊΠΎΠΌΠΏΡŒΡŽΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π½ΠΎΠΉ Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌΠΎΠ³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ (КВ) с контрастированиСм.ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹. Π’ исслСдовании ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ²Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡŒ Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ 61 Ρ‡Π΅Π»ΠΎΠ²Π΅ΠΊΠ° с кистозными ΠΎΡ‡Π°Π³Π°ΠΌΠΈ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ (катСгория Bosniak β‰₯ II). ΠšΠΈΡΡ‚Ρ‹ ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΉ Bosniak β‰₯ III гистологичСски ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ‚Π²Π΅Ρ€ΠΆΠ΄Π΅Π½Ρ‹, ΠΎΡΡ‚Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Π΅ (ΠΊΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΠΈ II–IIF) ΠΏΠΎΠ΄Ρ‚Π²Π΅Ρ€ΠΆΠ΄Π°Π»ΠΈΡΡŒ Π΄Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹ΠΌ динамичСским наблюдСниСм. ВсСм ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°ΠΌ Π²Ρ‹ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½Π΅Π½ΠΎ ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜, Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π°ΡŽΡ‰Π΅Π΅ Π² сСбя ΡΠ΅Ρ€ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹ΠΉ Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌ, допплСровскоС ΠΊΠ°Ρ€Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ (Π¦Π”Πš) ΠΈ контрастно-усилСнноС ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС (ΠšΠ£Π£Π—Π˜), Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ КВ с контрастированиСм.Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Ρ‹. ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜ с контрастным усилСниСм продСмонстрировало высокиС ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΠΈ эффСктивности ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Π°: Ρ‡ΡƒΠ²ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ – 97,2%, ΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ†ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ – 91,6%, Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ – 95,1%. АналогичныС ΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€Ρ‹ КВ с контрастированиСм Π² исслСдуСмой Π³Ρ€ΡƒΠΏΠΏΠ΅ составили 91,7, 84,0, 88,5% соотвСтствСнно. Π’Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜ продСмонстрировало Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΡƒΡŽ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΡƒ кистозных ΠΎΠΏΡƒΡ…ΠΎΠ»Π΅ΠΉ ΠΏΠΎ классификации Bosniak Π² сравнСнии с КВ с контрастированиСм.Π—Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. ΠΌΠΏΠ£Π—Π˜ с ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ эхоконтрастирования продСмонстрировало сущСствСнноС ΠΏΠΎΠ²Ρ‹ΡˆΠ΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ эффСктивности ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Π° Π² Ρ†Π΅Π»ΠΎΠΌ, Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ высокиС ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΠΈ Π² сравнСнии с КВ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΊΠ΅ кистозных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ. Π”Π°Π½Π½ΡƒΡŽ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΊΡƒ слСдуСт Ρ€Π°ΡΡΠΌΠ°Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ Π² качСствС ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Π° Π²Ρ‹Π±ΠΎΡ€Π° Π² случаях, ΠΊΠΎΠ³Π΄Π° Π²Ρ‹ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ КВ Π½Π΅Π²ΠΎΠ·ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎ, ΠΈ рСкомСндуСтся Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ Π² Π°Π»Π³ΠΎΡ€ΠΈΡ‚ΠΌ обслСдования ΠΏΠ°Ρ†ΠΈΠ΅Π½Ρ‚ΠΎΠ² с кистозными опухолями ΠΏΠΎΡ‡Π΅ΠΊ

    Π’ΠžΠ—ΠœΠžΠ–ΠΠžΠ‘Π’Π˜ Π£Π›Π¬Π’Π ΠΠ—Π’Π£ΠšΠžΠ’ΠžΠ“Πž Π¦Π’Π•Π’ΠžΠ’ΠžΠ“Πž Π”ΠžΠŸΠŸΠ›Π•Π ΠžΠ’Π‘ΠšΠžΠ“Πž ΠšΠΠ Π’Π˜Π ΠžΠ’ΠΠΠ˜Π― Π’ РАННЕЙ Π”Π˜ΠΠ“ΠΠžΠ‘Π’Π˜ΠšΠ• РАКА ΠœΠžΠ›ΠžΠ§ΠΠžΠ™ Π–Π•Π›Π•Π—Π«

    Get PDF
    Background. Experimental data suggest that tumor growth depends on angiogenesis. Once the tumorΒ reaches a size of up to a 1 mΠΌ in diameter, a further increase in the population of tumor cells requires theΒ growth of new blood vessels. In contrast to benign lesions, a rapid growth of cancer cells results in the formation of pathological vessels of different diameter and chaotic distribution. therefore, determination of the typeΒ of vascularization of lesions is an important criterion in the diagnosis of breast cancer (Bc). color DopplerΒ mapping (cDM) is an ultrasound technology that evaluates blood floor through a blood vessel; however, according to data from a variety of literature sources, cDM is not sensitive to slow (week) blood flow as it allowsΒ the visualization of only large vessels with a diameter of at least 100 Β΅m. The purpose of the study wasΒ to evaluate the diagnostic value of cDM in determining the type of vascularization of malignant and benignΒ breast tumors, as well as to detect their statistically significant Doppler characteristics by comparing withΒ histological findings. material and methods. From 2017 to 2019, a total of 277 women with complaints ofΒ breast lump or pain underwent ultrasound examination using cDM. Results. statistically and diagnosticallyΒ significant us characteristics of benign lesions included the presence of avascular or hypovascular types ofΒ blood flow. the most significant characteristic of malignant lesions was the presence of hypervascular mixedΒ blood flow. the diagnostic value of ultrasound B-mode in combination with cDM in differential diagnosis ofΒ breast tumors was as follows: 77.6 % sensitivity, 51.7 % specificity and 58.8 %. accuracy. Conclusion. statistically and diagnostically significant signs observed by cDM allow one to use this ultrasound technology inΒ the early diagnosis of breast cancer. However, low diagnostic efficiency of cDM dictate the need to searchΒ for new ultrasonic signs.Π’Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. Π­ΠΊΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Ρ‚Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½Ρ‹Π΅ Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ΡΠ²ΠΈΠ΄Π΅Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΡΡ‚Π²ΡƒΡŽΡ‚ ΠΎ Ρ‚ΠΎΠΌ, Ρ‡Ρ‚ΠΎ рост ΠΎΠΏΡƒΡ…ΠΎΠ»ΠΈ Π½Π°ΠΏΡ€ΡΠΌΡƒΡŽ зависит ΠΎΡ‚Β Π°Π½Π³ΠΈΠΎΠ³Π΅Π½Π΅Π·Π°. ПослС Ρ‚ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ, ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ ΠΎΠΏΡƒΡ…ΠΎΠ»ΡŒ достигаСт Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΌΠ΅Ρ€Π° Π΄ΠΎ 1 ΠΌΠΌ Π² Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅, дальнСйшСС увСличСниС популяции ΠΎΠΏΡƒΡ…ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΊΠ»Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠΊ Ρ‚Ρ€Π΅Π±ΡƒΠ΅Ρ‚ роста Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ‹Ρ… кровСносных сосудов. ВслСдствиС быстрого роста в злокачСствСнных образованиях, Π² ΠΎΡ‚Π»ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡ‚ доброкачСствСнных, ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»ΡΡŽΡ‚ΡΡ патологичСскиС сосуды, ΠΈΠΌΠ΅ΡŽΡ‰ΠΈΠ΅ Ρ€Π°Π·Π½Ρ‹ΠΉ Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ ΠΈ Ρ…Π°ΠΎΡ‚ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠ΅ распрСдСлСниС. Π‘Π»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎ, ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ типа васкуляризации образования являСтся Π²Π°ΠΆΠ½Ρ‹ΠΌ ΠΊΡ€ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π² диагностикС Ρ€Π°ΠΊΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹Β (Π ΠœΠ–). Π¦Π²Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ допплСровскоС ΠΊΠ°Ρ€Ρ‚ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ (Π¦Π”Πš) – ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ тСхнология, ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡŽΡ‰Π°ΡΒ Π²ΠΈΠ·ΡƒΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ сосуды, ΠΎΠ΄Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎ, ΠΏΠΎ Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹ΠΌ Π»ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Ρ€Π°Ρ‚ΡƒΡ€Ρ‹, Π¦Π”Πš Π½Π΅ Ρ‡ΡƒΠ²ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎ ΠΊ низкоскоростному кровотоку, Ρ‚Π°ΠΊ ΠΊΠ°ΠΊ позволяСт Π²ΠΈΠ·ΡƒΠ°Π»ΠΈΠ·ΠΈΡ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ Ρ‚ΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠΊΠΎ ΠΊΡ€ΡƒΠΏΠ½Ρ‹Π΅ сосуды Π΄ΠΈΠ°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠΌ Π½Π΅ ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π΅ 100 ΞΌm.ЦСль исслСдования – ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ возмоТности Π¦Π”Πš Π² ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Ρ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ° васкуляризации злокачСствСнных и доброкачСствСнных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹, Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ Π²Ρ‹ΡΠ²ΠΈΡ‚ΡŒ статистичСски ΠΈ диагностичСски  Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΡ‹Π΅ допплСровскиС характСристики ΠΏΡƒΡ‚Π΅ΠΌ сопоставлСния с гистологичСским Π·Π°ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ.ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π» ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹. ИсслСдованиС ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΡŒ Π½Π° Π±Π°Π·Π΅ Π€Π“Π‘Π£ «НМИЦ ΠΎΠ½ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠΌ. Н.Н. ΠŸΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Β»Β ΠœΠΈΠ½Π·Π΄Ρ€Π°Π²Π° России с 2017 ΠΏΠΎ 2019 Π³. Π’ исслСдованиС Π±Ρ‹Π»ΠΈ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½Ρ‹ 277 ΠΆΠ΅Π½Ρ‰ΠΈΠ½ с ΠΆΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½Π΅Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ощущСния Π² ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Π°Ρ…, ΠΊΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΡ€Ρ‹ΠΌ Π²Ρ‹ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠ»ΠΎΡΡŒ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅Β ΠΈΡΡΠ»Π΅Π΄ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ с ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π¦Π”Πš. Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Ρ‹. К статистичСски ΠΈ диагностичСски Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΡ‹ΠΌ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²Ρ‹ΠΌ характСристикам доброкачСствСнных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠΆΠ½ΠΎ отнСсти Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠ΅ аваскулярного или гиповаскулярного Ρ‚ΠΈΠΏΠΎΠ² ΠΊΡ€ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΠΊΠ°. НаиболСС Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΠΎΠΉ характСристикой злокачСствСнных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ являСтся Π½Π°Π»ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠ΅ гипСрваскулярного смСшанного ΠΊΡ€ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΡ‚ΠΎΠΊΠ°. ДиагностичСская ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒΒ  ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ Π’-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΠ° Π² сочСтании с Π¦Π”Πš Π² Π΄ΠΈΡ„Ρ„Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ диагностикС ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉΒ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹: Ρ‡ΡƒΠ²ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ – 77,6 %; ΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ†ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ – 51,7 %; Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ – 58,8 %. Π’Ρ‹Π²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹. ВыявлСнныС статистичСски ΠΈ диагностичСски Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΡ‹Π΅ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΠΊΠΈ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ Π¦Π”Πš ΠΏΠΎΠ·Π²ΠΎΠ»ΡΡŽΡ‚ ΠΈΡΠΏΠΎΠ»ΡŒΠ·ΠΎΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒΒ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΡƒΡŽ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΡƒΡŽ Ρ‚Π΅Ρ…Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΡŽ Π² Ρ€Π°Π½Π½Π΅ΠΉ диагностикС Ρ€Π°ΠΊΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹. Однако нСвысокиС показатСли диагностичСской эффСктивности Π¦Π”Πš Π΄ΠΈΠΊΡ‚ΡƒΡŽΡ‚ Π½Π΅ΠΎΠ±Ρ…ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠΌΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ поиска Π½ΠΎΠ²Ρ‹Ρ… ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ².

    Π­Ρ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ ΠΌΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ³ΠΎ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ исслСдования с ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ компрСссионной эласто-Π³Ρ€Π°Ρ„ΠΈΠΈ Π² Ρ€Π°Π½Π½Π΅ΠΉ диагностикС ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹

    Get PDF
    Modern ultrasound examination (US), unlike other modalities, allows to assess the stiffness of the lesions, with the help of a new technology named sonoelastography (SEG). According to many scientific studies, with the addition of SEG to the B-mode, the diagnostic efficiency of ultrasound of breast lesions significantly increases. According to Thomas et al. B-mode has a sensitivity of 91,8% and a specificity of 78%. When a compression SEG is added to a diagnostic study, the specificity increases to 91,5%.The purpose of this study was to determine the diagnostic effectiveness of SEG and compare it with the effectiveness of B-mode and color Doppler mapping (CDC) in the primary diagnosis of breast tumors, as well as to identify diagnostically and statistically significant SEG signs of breast cancer (Π’Π‘).Materials and methods. The study was performed from 2017 to 2019 on the basis of the Β«NMRC Oncology. named after N. N. PetrovΒ» Ministry of Health of Russia. 277 women with complaints of lump or pain in the breast were included in the study, for all of them there was performed the multiparametric ultrasound examination with application of CDM and SEG. According to our own results, SEG is more effective at detection of malignant and benign lesions, than ultrasoumd examination in B and CDM modes.Results: 0, 1, 2, 3 elastotypes are the highly significant diagnostic signs of benign process, and the elastotype 5 is a reliable diagnostic marker of malignant process. The effectiveness of CDM and SEG in the differential diagnosis of breast lesions showed: sensitivity β€” 77,6% vs. 85,5%; specificity β€” 51,7% vs. 84,6%; accuracy β€” 58,8% vs. 84,8%.Conclusions: according to our own research results, SEG is more effective in detecting malignant and benign tumors than ultrasound in B and CDM modes.Π’Π²Π΅Π΄Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅. Π‘ΠΎΠ²Ρ€Π΅ΠΌΠ΅Π½Π½ΠΎΠ΅ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΅ исслСдованиС (Π£Π—Π˜) Π² ΠΎΡ‚Π»ΠΈΡ‡ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΎΡ‚ Π΄Ρ€ΡƒΠ³ΠΈΡ… ΠΌΠΎΠ΄Π°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚Π΅ΠΉ позволяСт ΠΎΡ†Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ²Π°Ρ‚ΡŒ ΠΆΠ΅ΡΡ‚ΠΊΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ патологичСского ΠΎΡ‡Π°Π³Π° с ΠΏΠΎΠΌΠΎΡ‰ΡŒΡŽ Π½ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠΉ Ρ‚Π΅Ρ…Π½ΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ β€” соноэластографии (Π‘Π­Π“). Богласно ΠΌΠ½ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΌ Π½Π°ΡƒΡ‡Π½Ρ‹ΠΌ исслСдованиям ΠΏΡ€ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ±Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ Π‘Π­Π“ ΠΊ ΡΠ΅Ρ€ΠΎΡˆΠΊΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΌΡƒ Π’-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΡƒ Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΠΎ ΠΏΠΎΠ²Ρ‹ΡˆΠ°Π΅Ρ‚ΡΡ диагностичСская ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ Π£Π—Π˜ ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹. По Π΄Π°Π½Π½Ρ‹ΠΌ А. Thomas ΠΈ соавт. Π’-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌ ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π΅Ρ‚ Ρ‡ΡƒΠ²ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ 91,8% ΠΈ ΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ†ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ 78%. ΠŸΡ€ΠΈ Π΄ΠΎΠ±Π°Π²Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠΈ ΠΊ диагностичСскому исслСдованию компрСссионной Π‘Π­Π“ ΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ†ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ увСличиваСтся Π΄ΠΎ 91,5%.ЦСлью ΠΈ Π·Π°Π΄Π°Ρ‡Π΅ΠΉ Π΄Π°Π½Π½ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ исслСдования явилось ΠΎΠΏΡ€Π΅Π΄Π΅Π»Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ диагностичСской эффСктивности Π‘Π­Π“ ΠΈ сравнСниС с ΡΡ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒΡŽ Π’-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΠ° ΠΈ Ρ†Π²Π΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ³ΠΎ допплСровского картирования (Π¦Π”Πš) Π² ΠΏΠ΅Ρ€Π²ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ диагностикС ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹, Π° Ρ‚Π°ΠΊΠΆΠ΅ выявлСниС диагностичСски ΠΈ статистичСски Π·Π½Π°Ρ‡ΠΈΠΌΡ‹Ρ… Π‘Π­Π“ ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΠΊΠΎΠ² Ρ€Π°ΠΊΠ° ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹ (Π ΠœΠ–).ΠœΠ°Ρ‚Π΅Ρ€ΠΈΠ°Π»Ρ‹ ΠΈ ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹. ИсслСдованиС ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΠ²ΠΎΠ΄ΠΈΠ»ΠΎΡΡŒ с 2017 ΠΏΠΎ 2019 Π³. Π½Π° Π±Π°Π·Π΅ Π€Π“Π‘Π£ «НМИЦ ΠΎΠ½ΠΊΠΎΠ»ΠΎΠ³ΠΈΠΈ ΠΈΠΌ. Н. Н. ΠŸΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΎΠ²Π°Β» ΠœΠ— Π Π€. Π’ исслСдованиС Π±Ρ‹Π»ΠΈ Π²ΠΊΠ»ΡŽΡ‡Π΅Π½Ρ‹ 277 ΠΆΠ΅Π½Ρ‰ΠΈΠ½ с ΠΆΠ°Π»ΠΎΠ±Π°ΠΌΠΈ Π½Π° ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠ΅ ΠΈΠ»ΠΈ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π·Π½Π΅Π½Π½Ρ‹Π΅ ощущСния Π² ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½Ρ‹Ρ… ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Π°Ρ…, всСм ΠΈΠΌ Π²Ρ‹ΠΏΠΎΠ»Π½ΡΠ»ΠΎΡΡŒ ΠΌΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚ΠΈΠΏΠ°Ρ€Π°ΠΌΠ΅Ρ‚Ρ€ΠΈΡ‡Π΅ΡΠΊΠΎΠ΅ Π£Π—Π˜ с ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠΌΠ΅Π½Π΅Π½ΠΈΠ΅ΠΌ Π¦Π”Πš ΠΈ Π‘Π­Π“.Π Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Ρ‹ исслСдования: ΠΊ высокозначимым диагностичСским ΠΏΡ€ΠΈΠ·Π½Π°ΠΊΠ°ΠΌ доброкачСствСнного процСсса относятся 0, 1, 2, 3 эластотипы, Π° 5 эластотип являСтся достовСрным диагностичСским ΠΌΠ°Ρ€ΠΊΠ΅Ρ€ΠΎΠΌ злокачСствСнного. Π­Ρ„Ρ„Π΅ΠΊΡ‚ΠΈΠ²Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ Π¦Π”Πš ΠΈ Π‘Π­Π“ Π² Π΄ΠΈΡ„Ρ„Π΅Ρ€Π΅Π½Ρ†ΠΈΠ°Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΠΉ диагностикС ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ ΠΌΠΎΠ»ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΠΉ ΠΆΠ΅Π»Π΅Π·Ρ‹ ΠΏΠΎΠΊΠ°Π·Π°Π»Π°: Ρ‡ΡƒΠ²ΡΡ‚Π²ΠΈΡ‚Π΅Π»ΡŒΠ½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ β€” 77,6% ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΡ‚ΠΈΠ² 85,5%; ΡΠΏΠ΅Ρ†ΠΈΡ„ΠΈΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ β€” 51,7% ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΡ‚ΠΈΠ² 84,6%; Ρ‚ΠΎΡ‡Π½ΠΎΡΡ‚ΡŒ β€” 58,8% ΠΏΡ€ΠΎΡ‚ΠΈΠ² 84,8%.Π’Ρ‹Π²ΠΎΠ΄Ρ‹: согласно собствСнным Ρ€Π΅Π·ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Π°Ρ‚Π°ΠΌ исслСдования, Π‘Π­Π“ Π±ΠΎΠ»Π΅Π΅ эффСктивна Π² диагностикС злокачСствСнных ΠΈ доброкачСствСнных ΠΎΠ±Ρ€Π°Π·ΠΎΠ²Π°Π½ΠΈΠΉ, Ρ‡Π΅ΠΌ ΡƒΠ»ΡŒΡ‚Ρ€Π°Π·Π²ΡƒΠΊΠΎΠ²Ρ‹Π΅ Π’- ΠΈ Π¦Π”Πš-Ρ€Π΅ΠΆΠΈΠΌΡ‹
    corecore