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]. 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]. 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] 郏亚平, 曾书娥. 含鳞状细胞癌成分的乳腺化生性癌的超声与病理特征分析[J]. 中华医学超声杂志（电子版）, 2023, 20(08): 844-848.
[2] 唐玮, 何融泉, 黄素宁. 深度学习在乳腺癌影像诊疗和预后预测中的应用[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 323-328.
[3] 康夏, 田浩, 钱进, 高源, 缪洪明, 齐晓伟. 骨织素抑制破骨细胞分化改善肿瘤骨转移中骨溶解的机制研究[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 329-339.
[4] 衣晓丽, 胡沙沙, 张彦. HER-2低表达对乳腺癌新辅助治疗疗效及预后的影响[J]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 340-346.
[5] 崔占斌, 乔军利, 张丽丽, 韩明强. 尿碘水平与甲状腺乳头状癌患者术后复发危险度分层的相关性[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 615-618.
[6] 陈垚, 徐伯群, 高志慧. 改良式中间上入路根治术治疗甲状腺癌的有效性安全性研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 619-622.
[7] 晏晴艳, 雍晓梅, 罗洪, 杜敏. 成都地区老年转移性乳腺癌的预后及生存因素研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 636-638.
[8] 李智铭, 郭晨明, 庄晓晨, 候雪琴, 高军喜. 早期乳腺癌超声造影定性及定量指标的对比研究[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 639-643.
[9] 阿冲罗布, 陈颖, 谢德坤. 腹腔镜外囊完整剥离术治疗肝包虫病效果及对患者肝功能、预后的影响[J]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 666-669.
[10] 邢晓伟, 刘雨辰, 赵冰, 王明刚. 基于术前腹部CT的卷积神经网络对腹壁切口疝术后复发预测价值[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 677-681.
[11] 姜明, 罗锐, 龙成超. 闭孔疝的诊断与治疗：10年73例患者诊疗经验总结[J]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 706-710.
[12] 张文华, 陶焠, 胡添松. 不同部位外生型肝癌临床病理特点及其对术后肝内复发和预后影响[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 651-655.
[13] 叶文涛, 吴忠均, 廖锐. 癌旁组织ALOX15表达与肝癌根治性切除术后预后的关系[J]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2023, 12(06): 708-712.
[14] 张政赢, 鞠阳, 刘晓宁. 二甲双胍对2型糖尿病患者大肠腺瘤术后复发的影响[J]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2023, 13(06): 485-488.
[15] 符梅沙, 周玉华, 李慧, 薛春颜. 淋巴细胞免疫治疗对复发性流产患者外周血T淋巴细胞亚群分布与PD1/PD-L1表达的影响及意义[J]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2023, 17(06): 726-730.
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