切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"
高级检索
中华普通外科学文献(电子版)

中华普通外科学文献(电子版) ›› 2016, Vol. 10 ›› Issue (06) : 435 -440. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0793.2016.06.013

所属专题： 文献；

论著

钙化对乳腺癌保乳术后预测价值的探讨
路忠志1,†(), 孙思敬1, 李敏1, 翟振1, 任小龙1, 马立群1, 祝清华1, 李东生1   
  1. 1. 255200　淄博市第一医院普外三科
  • 收稿日期:2016-03-30 出版日期:2016-12-01
  • 通信作者: 路忠志

Discussion on the predictive value of mammographic calcification for breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery

Zhongzhi Lu1,†(), Sijing Sun1, Min Li1, Zhen Zhai1, Xiaolong Ren1, Liqun Ma1, Qinghua Zhu1, Dongsheng Li1   

  1. 1. The 3rd Department of General Surgery, Zibo City First Hospital, Zibo 255200, China
  • Received:2016-03-30 Published:2016-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Zhongzhi Lu
  • About author:
    Corresponding author: Lu Zhongzhi, Email:
全文 ( ) 下载PDF ( ) 导出引用
引用本文：

路忠志, 孙思敬, 李敏, 翟振, 任小龙, 马立群, 祝清华, 李东生. 钙化对乳腺癌保乳术后预测价值的探讨[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2016, 10(06): 435-440.

Zhongzhi Lu, Sijing Sun, Min Li, Zhen Zhai, Xiaolong Ren, Liqun Ma, Qinghua Zhu, Dongsheng Li. Discussion on the predictive value of mammographic calcification for breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Archives of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2016, 10(06): 435-440.

目的

探讨钙化对乳腺癌保乳术后局部复发、远处转移和总生存率的意义。

方法

回顾性分析淄博市第一医院2004年1月至2014年5月204例接受保乳术乳腺癌患者临床资料及随访结果。依影像学钙化情况分为钙化组及无钙化组，依钙化形态及分布方式进行生存分析。

结果

钙化组与无钙化组患者在肿瘤大小、组织学分级、区域淋巴结状态、激素受体及Her-2受体表达上差异无统计学意义。钙化组较无钙化组在局部复发、远处转移及乳腺癌相关死亡率上更高（RR 2.46、2.24、2.50，95% CI：1.11~5.44、1.19~4.24、1.06~5.86）。钙化形态亚组分析发现：大/粗钙化、仅超声提示钙化及无钙化患者较微小及多形性钙化患者局部无复发生存率（LRFS）及无病生存率（DFS）更低。钙化分布类型分析发现：线性或区段分布钙化（沿导管分布钙化）患者的LRFS（RR 6.20，95% CI：2.26~16.98）、DFS（RR 6.81，95% CI：2.86-16.20）及总生存率（OS）（RR 9.14，95% CI：2.53~33.00）较无钙化患者显著降低。钼靶上聚集钙化患者的LRFS、DFS及OS也较差，但与无钙化患者相比差异无统计学意义。线样/区段分布钙化的患者与无钙化、超声显示钙化及钼靶示良性钙化类型的患者相比，常伴有广泛导管内癌成分（EIC）。有EIC较无EIC患者的局部复发率更高，但在乳腺癌相关死亡率及远处转移率上差异无统计学意义。

结论

乳腺癌伴钙化，尤其是沿导管分布钙化的患者接受保乳手术后局部复发率较高，并影响远期预后。仅超声提示钙化的患者保乳术后近期及远期预后不受影响。EIC是钙化患者保乳术后局部复发的预测指标之一。

关键词: 乳腺肿瘤, 复发, 肿瘤转移, 无病生存
Objective

To study the significance of mammographic calcification for local recurrence, metastasis and overall survival for breast cancer patients treated with breast conserving surgery (BCS).

Methods

The records of two hundred and four patients of breast carcinoma treated with BCS from January 2004 to May 2014 were reviewed. The results of mammograms and breast untrasound (BUS) tests were available for all those patients. The patients were classified as those without calcification on both mammograms and BUS, those with calcification on mammograms, and those with calcification on BUS but not mammograms; the latter two groups were collectively named patients with calcification. Survival rates were performed with respect to morphologic types and distribution patterns of calcification.

Results

Median follow-up was 85 months. Pathologic characteristics of patients with and without calcification were not statistically different with respect to tumor size, histologic grade, regional lymph node metastasis, hormonal receptor expression, and Her-2 status. Survival analysis found that patients with calcification had significantly higher risk of local recurrence, distant metastasis, and breast cancer-associated death after BCS [relative risk (RR) and 95% CI: 2.46, 1.11-5.44; 2.24, 1.19-4.24; 2.50, 1.06-5.86, respectively]. Subgroup analysis according to morphology of calcification revealed that local relapse free survival (LRFS), disease free survival (DFS), and overall survival (OS) were significantly lower in patients with large/coarse calcification, BUS calcification, and those without calcification, compared with those with microcalcification and pleomorphic calcification. Further survival analyses were performed by the distribution patterns of calcification and showed that patients with calcification of liner and segmental distribution, or calcification spreading along the ducts, had significantly lower LRFS (RR 6.20, 95% CI: 2.26-16.98), DFS (RR 6.81, 95% CI: 2.86-16.20), and OS (RR 9.14, 95% CI: 2.53-33.00), compared with those without calcification. Patients with mammographic calcification of clustered distribution also showed trends of lower LRFS, DFS, and OS, without significant difference. Patients with calcification of liner/segmental distribution were more often accompanied with extensive intraductal component (EIC), compared with those without calcification, with BUS calcification, and with calcification of clustered distribution (P<0.001). The rates of local recurrence were significantly higher in patients with EIC than in those without EIC. The rates of isolated distant metastasis and breast cancer-associated death in patients with calcification who had tumors with or without EIC were not statistically different.

Conclusions

Patients with calcification, especially spreading along the ducts, have higher risk of local failure after BCS, which has negative impacts on long-term survival. Calcification found in BUS tests does not influence the short-and long-term outcome of patients treated with BCS. Existence of EIC is a predictive factor of local failure in patients with calcification treated with BCS.

Key words: Breast neoplasms, Recurrence, Neoplasm metastasis, Disease-free survival
表1 钙化组与无钙化组患者一般资料的比较[例（%）]
项目 钙化组 无钙化组 统计值 P值
例数 85 119 ? ?
平均年龄（岁， ± s） 50±3.2 51±2.6 ? ?
是否绝经 ? ? 0.049 0.888
? 是 43(50.6) 62(52.1) ? ?
? 否 42(49.4) 57(47.9) ? ?
手术方式 ? ? 0.712 0.765
? 象限切除 81(95.3) 112(93.8) ? ?
? 肿块切除 4(4.7) 7(6.2) ? ?
新辅助化疗 ? ? 0.176 0.310
? 否 82(96.3) 118(99.2) ? ?
? 是 3(3.7) 1(0.8) ? ?
组织学类型 ? ? 2.033 0.782
? 浸润性导管癌 68(79.1) 96(80.7) ? ?
? 浸润性小叶癌 2(2.3) 4(3.4) ? ?
? 导管原位癌 2(2.3) 1(0.8) ? ?
? 其他 13(15.3) 18(15.1) ? ?
组织学分级 ? ? 1.965 0.524
? G1 16(18.8) 19(15.9) ? ?
? G2 54(64.5) 86(72.3) ? ?
? G3 15(17.6) 14(11.8) ? ?
肿瘤分期 ? ? 0.534 0.510
? T1 65(76.5) 98(82.4) ? ?
? T2 18(21.2) 20(16.8) ? ?
? T3 2(2.3) 1(0.8) ? ?
腋窝淋巴结状态 ? ? 0.281 0.298
? 阴性 65(76.5) 98(82.4) ? ?
? 阳性 20(23.5) 21(17.6) ? ?
ER/PR状态 ? ? 0.435 0.622
? 阳性 65(76.5) 87(73.1) ? ?
? 阴性 20(23.5) 32(26.9) ? ?
Her-2状态 ? ? 0.466 0.522
? 阳性 12(14.1) 13(10.9) ? ?
? 阴性 73(85.9) 106(89.1) ? ?
辅助化疗 ? ? 0.019 1.000
? 是 10(11.8) 14(11.8) ? ?
? 否 75(88.2) 105(88.2) ? ?
表2 有、无钙化组患者复发率、远处转移率及相关死亡率的比较[例（%）]
项目 钙化组(%) 无钙化组(%) RR(95%CI) P值
局部/区域复发 ? ? 5.488(1.195~25.204) 0.013
? 是 8(9.4) 2(1.7) ? ?
? 否 77(90.6) 117(98.3) ? ?
远处转移 ? ? 3.150(1.003~9.893) 0.037
? 是 9(10.6) 4(3.4) ? ?
? 否 76(89.4) 115(96.6) ? ?
相关死亡 ? ? 4.901(1.044~23.008) 0.036
? 是 7(8.2) 2(1.7) ? ?
? 否 78(91.8) 117(98.3) ? ?
图1 乳腺癌保乳术后患者LRFS、DFS、OS生存期比较
表3 不同钙化类型与分布方式患者的组织学分级（G1、2、3）[例（%）]
项目 G1 G2+3 OR(95%CI)a P值
形态 ? ? ? 0.321
? 无钙化 19(15.8) 101(84.2) 1.00 ?
? 超声钙化+良性钙化 5(16.1) 26(83.9) 1.306(0.41~4.15) ?
? 微/多形性钙化 11(20.8) 42(79.2) 0.724(0.31~1.68) ?
分布 ? ? ? 0.076
? 无钙化 19(15.8) 101(84.2) 1.00 ?
? 超声钙化+良性钙化 5(17.9) 23(82.1) 1.305(0.41~4.14) ?
? 聚集 10(25.6) 29(74.4) 0.573(0.23~1.39) ?
? 沿导管漫延 1(5.9) 16(94.1) 2.092(0.17~3.50) ?
表4 不同钙化类型与分布患者的区域淋巴结情况[例（%）]
项目 L(-) L(+) OR(95%CI)a P值
形态 ? ? ? 0.126
? 无钙化 96(82.1) 21(17.9) 1.000 ?
? 超声钙化+良性钙化 21(75.0) 7(25.0) 1.355(0.59~3.11) ?
? 微/多形性钙化 45(76.3) 14(23.7) 1.557(0.80~3.01) ?
分布 ? ? ? 0.711
? 无钙化 96(82.1) 21(17.9) 1.000 ?
? 超声钙化+良性钙化 21(77.8) 6(22.2) 1.356(0.59~3.11) ?
? 聚集 32(76.2) 10(23.8) 1.623(0.78~3.36) ?
? 沿导管漫延 13(72.2) 5(27.8) 1.361(0.43~4.31) ?
图2 乳腹癌保乳术后患者钙化类型及分布方式的LRFS，DFS，OS
表5 乳腺癌患者钙化分布方式与广泛导管内成分情况及预后[例（%）]
项目 无EIC 有EIC χ2值 P值
钙化分布方式 ? ? 8.961 <0.001
? 无钙化 118(99.2) 1(0.8) ? ?
? 超声钙化+良性钙化 24(96.0) 1(4.0) ? ?
? 聚集 38(88.4) 5(11.6) ? ?
? 沿导管漫延 13(76.5) 4(23.5) ? ?
预后 ? ? ? ?
? 局部/区域复发 ? ? 4.936 0.022
? 是 2(15.4) 3(75.0) ? ?
? 否 11(84.6) 1(25.0) ? ?
? 远处转移 ? ? 1.303 0.247
? 是 4(30.8) 2(66.7) ? ?
? 否 9(69.2) 1(33.3) ? ?
? 相关死亡 ? ? 0.461 0.473
? 是 2(15.4) 1(33.3) ? ?
? 否 11(84.6) 2(66.7) ? ?
1
Atkins J,Al Mushawah F,Appleton CM, et al. Positive margin rates following breast-conserving surgery for stage Ⅰ-Ⅲ breast cancer: palpable versus nonpalpable tumors[J]. J Surg Res, 2012, 177(1): 109-115.
2
Marmot MG,Altman DG,Cameron DA, et al. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review[J]. Br J Cancer, 2013, 108(11): 2205-2240.
3
Cao JQ,Olson RA,Tyldesley SK. Comparison of recurrence and survival rates after breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy in young women with breast cancer[J]. Curr Oncol, 2013, 20(6): e593-601.
4
Dessombz A,Bazin D,Dumas P, et al. Shedding light on the chem-ical diversity of ectopic calcifications in kidney tissues: diagnostic and research aspects[J]. PLoS One, 2011, 6(11): e28007.
5
Zhao H,Zou L,Geng X, et al. Limitations of mammography in the diagnosis of breast diseases compared with ultrasonography: a sin-gle-center retrospective analysis of 274 cases[J]. Eur J Med Res, 2015, 20(1): 49.
6
Povoski SP,Jimenez RE,Wang WP, et al. Standardized and repro-ducible methodology for the comprehensive and systematic assess-ment of surgical resection margins during breast-conserving sur-gery for invasive breast cancer [J]. BMC Cancer, 2009, 9(27): 254.
7
Shin HJ,Kim HH,Huh MO, et al. Correlation between mammo-graphic and sonographic findings and prognostic factors in pa-tients with node-negative invasive breast cancer[J]. Br J Radiol, 2011, 84(997): 19-30.
8
Espina V,Liotta LA. What is the malignant nature of human duc-tal carcinoma in situ?[J]. Nat Rev Cancer, 2011, 11(1): 68-75.
9
Holmberg L,Wong YN,Tabár L, et al. Mammography casting-type calcification and risk of local recurrence in DCIS: analyses from a randomised study[J]. Br J Cancer, 2013, 108(4): 812-819.
10
Zhang L,Liu YJ,Jiang SQ, et al. Ultrasound utility for predicting biological behavior of invasive ductal breast cancers[J]. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev, 2014, 15(19): 8057-8062.
11
Ling H,Liu ZB,Xu LH, et al. Malignant calcification is an impor-tant unfavorable prognostic factor in primary invasive breast can-cer[J]. Asia Pac J Clin Oncol, 2013, 9(2): 139-145.
12
Kim HR,Jung HK,Ko KH, et al.Mammography, US, and MRI for preoperative prediction of extensive intraductal component of inva-sive breast cancer: interobserver variability and performances[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2016, 16(4): 305-311.
13
Tuli R,Christodouleas J,Roberts L, et al. Prognostic indicators following ipsilateral tumor recurrence in patients treated with breast conserving therapy[J]. Am J Surg, 2009, 198(4): 557-561.
14
Tabár L,Chen HH,Duffy SW, et al. A novel method for prediction of long-term outcome of women with T1a, T1b, and 10-14 mm in-vasive breast cancers: a prospective study[J]. Lancet, 2000, 355(9202): 429-433.
15
邵超,张晶晶,凌飞海.三阴性乳腺癌中核因子κB的表达与临床病理及预后的相关性分析[J/CD].中华普通外科学文献:电子版, 2015, 9(1): 29-33.
[1] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[2] 河北省抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会护理协作组. 乳腺癌中心静脉通路护理管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 321-329.
[3] 刘晨鹭, 刘洁, 张帆, 严彩英, 陈倩, 陈双庆. 增强MRI 影像组学特征生境分析在预测乳腺癌HER-2 表达状态中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 339-345.
[4] 张晓宇, 殷雨来, 张银旭. 阿帕替尼联合新辅助化疗对三阴性乳腺癌的疗效及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 346-352.
[5] 邱琳, 刘锦辉, 组木热提·吐尔洪, 马悦心, 冷晓玲. 超声影像组学对致密型乳腺背景中非肿块型乳腺癌的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 353-360.
[6] 程燕妮, 樊菁, 肖瑶, 舒瑞, 明昊, 党晓智, 宋宏萍. 乳腺组织定位标记夹的应用与进展[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 361-365.
[7] 涂盛楠, 胡芬, 张娟, 蔡海峰, 杨俊泉. 天然植物提取物在乳腺癌治疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 366-370.
[8] 朱文婷, 顾鹏, 孙星. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病对乳腺癌发生发展及治疗的影响[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 371-375.
[9] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[10] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[11] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[12] 谢田伟, 庞于樊, 吴丽. 超声引导下不同消融术对甲状腺良性结节体积缩减率、复发率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 80-83.
[13] 韩萌萌, 冯雪园, 马宁. 乳腺癌改良根治术后桡神经损伤1例[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 117-118.
[14] 公宇, 廖媛, 尚梅. 肝细胞癌TACE术后复发影响因素及预测模型建立[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2024, 13(06): 818-824.
[15] 郭曌蓉, 王歆光, 刘毅强, 何英剑, 王立泽, 杨飏, 汪星, 曹威, 谷重山, 范铁, 李金锋, 范照青. 不同亚型乳腺叶状肿瘤的临床病理特征及预后危险因素分析[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 524-532.
阅读次数
全文


摘要

版权所有 中华医学会 中华医学电子音像出版社有限责任公司  京ICP备14006079号-1  网络出版服务许可证：(署)网出证(京)字第075号