乳腺导管原位癌和导管原位癌伴微浸润患者的临床病理特征及预后差异分析

刘静; 张晔; 阎文婷; 钟玲; 谭璇妮; 张婷; 张孔涌; 陈庆秋; 张毅; 姜军; 齐晓伟

doi:10.16016/j.1000-5404.202002067

您当前的位置：

首页 >

文章列表页 >

乳腺导管原位癌和导管原位癌伴微浸润患者的临床病理特征及预后差异分析

临床医学 | 更新时间：2026-01-09

- 乳腺导管原位癌和导管原位癌伴微浸润患者的临床病理特征及预后差异分析
- Clinicopathological features and prognostic differences of ductal carcinoma in situ with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion
- 第三军医大学学报 2020年42卷第13期页码：1355-1359
- 作者机构：
  
  400038 重庆, 陆军军医大学(第三军医大学)第一附属医院乳腺甲状腺外科
- 作者简介：
  
  [ 齐晓伟, E-mail：qxw9908@foxmail.com QI Xiaowei, E-mail:qxw9908@foxmail.com
- 基金信息：
  
  陆军军医大学第一附属医院医务人员军事医学创新能力提升计划(SWH2018BJLC-04);陆军军医大学医疗人才培养项目(XZ-2019-505-042)
- DOI：10.16016/j.1000-5404.202002067
  中图分类号： R181.32;R730.43;R737.9
- 收稿：2020-02-12，
  
  修回：2020-04-27，
  
  纸质出版：2020-07-15
- 稿件说明：
移动端阅览
刘静, 张晔, 阎文婷, 等. 乳腺导管原位癌和导管原位癌伴微浸润患者的临床病理特征及预后差异分析[J]. 第三军医大学学报, 2020,42(13):1355-1359.

Jing LIU, Ye ZHANG, Wenting YAN, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognostic differences of ductal carcinoma in situ with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion[J]. Journal of Third Military Medical University, 2020, 42(13): 1355-1359.
刘静, 张晔, 阎文婷, 等. 乳腺导管原位癌和导管原位癌伴微浸润患者的临床病理特征及预后差异分析[J]. 第三军医大学学报, 2020,42(13):1355-1359. DOI： 10.16016/j.1000-5404.202002067.

Jing LIU, Ye ZHANG, Wenting YAN, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognostic differences of ductal carcinoma in situ with ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion[J]. Journal of Third Military Medical University, 2020, 42(13): 1355-1359. DOI： 10.16016/j.1000-5404.202002067.

摘要

目的

探讨乳腺导管原位癌(ductal carcinoma in situ

DCIS)和导管原位癌伴微浸润(ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion

DCIS-MI)的临床病理特征及预后差异。

方法

收集2004年1月至2014年12月本院乳腺甲状腺外科489例手术确诊为DCIS或DCIS-MI女性患者

其中DCIS患者240例(49.1%)

DCIS-MI患者249例(50.9%)。通过分析患者临床病理数据和随访信息

比较DCIS和DCIS-MI患者在临床病理特征、分子分型及预后等方面的差异。

结果

295例(60.3%)患者初次确诊年龄＜55岁。与DCIS组比较

DCIS-MI组患者具有肿瘤体积偏大(

=0.034)

癌细胞组织学分级高(

0.05)

ER阳性率低(

0.05)等特征; 且DCIS-MI组患者腔面A型比例低(54.6%

63.8%

=0.040)

而HER-2过表达型比例高(18.1%

9.2%

=0.004);两组患者的分子分型分布具有显著性差异(

=0.030)。DCIS组和DCIS-MI组5年无病生存率分别为93.75%和93.17%

差异无统计学意义(Log-rank

=0.074

=0.785)。

结论

DCIS与DCIS-MI具有不同的临床病理特征

分子分型分布迥异

预后差异不明显

提示两者处于乳腺癌进展的不同阶段。

Abstract

Objective

To determine the clinicopathological features and prognostic differences between ductal carcinoma

in situ

(DCIS) and ductal carcinoma

in situ

with microinvasion (DCIS-MI) of breast cancer.

Methods

A cohort of 489 female patients with surgically diagnosed DCIS (

=240

49.1%) and DCIS-MI (

=249

50.9%) in our hospital from January 2004 to December 2014 were recruited in this study. Their clinicopathological data and follow-up data were collected and analyzed for the differences in clinicopathological data

molecular subtypes and prognosis between DCIS and DCIS-MI patients.

Results

The age of initial diagnosis was usually younger than 55 years old (60.3%) in the 2 groups. Compared with DCIS patients

DCIS-MI patients had larger tumor size (

=0.034)

higher histological grade (

0.05)

and lower ER positive rate (

0.05); DCIS-MI patients had lower proportion of luminal-A type (54.6%

63.8%

=0.040)

while higher HER-2 over-expressed type (18.1%

9.2%

=0.004). Statistical differences were seen in the distribution of molecular subtypes between the groups (

Chi

-square=8.921

=0.030). The 5-year disease-free survival rate was 93.75% and 93.17% respectively in the DCIS and DCIS-MI patients

with no significant difference (Log-rank

Chi

-square =0.074

=0.785).

Conclusion

DCIS and DCIS-MI have different clinicopathological features and molecular subtype distribution

but no significant difference in prognosis

which indicates that they may be in different stages of breast cancer progression.

关键词

Keywords

references

SI W, LI Y, HAN Y J, et al . Epidemiological and clinicopathological trends of breast cancer in Chinese patients during 1993 to 2013: a retrospective study[J ] . Medicine (Baltimore), 2015, 94(26): e820. DOI:10.1097/MD.0000000000000820.

VAN SEIJEN M, LIPS E H, THOMPSON A M, et al .Ductal carcinoma in situ: to treat or not to treat, that is the question[J ] .Br J Cancer, 2019, 121(4):285-292. DOI:10.1038/s41416-019-0478-6.

KOH V C Y, LIM J C T, THIKE A A, et al . Behaviour and characteristics of low-grade ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: literature review and single-centre retrospective series[J ] . Histopathology, 2019, 74(7): 970-987. DOI:10.1111/his.13837.

RAKOVITCH E, SUTRADHAR R, LALANI N, et al . Multiple foci of microinvasion is associated with an increased risk of invasive local recurrence in women with ductal carcinoma in situ treated with breast-conserving surgery[J ] . Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2019, 178(1): 169-176. DOI:10.1007/s10549-019-05364-z.

PU T J, ZHONG X R, DENG L, et al . Long term prognosis of ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion: a retrospective cohort study[J ] . Int J Clin Exp Pathol, 2018, 11(5): 2665- 2674.

ZHENG J, ZHOU T, LI F, et al . Clinic-pathological features of breast ductal carcinoma in situ with micro-invasion[J ] . Cancer Invest, 2020, 38(2): 113-121. DOI:10.1080/07357907.2020.1715422.

ROSSI L, VERRICO M, TOMAO S, et al . Expression of ER, PgR, HER-2, and Ki-67 in core biopsies and in definitive histological specimens in patients with locally advanced breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J ] . Cancer Chemother Pharmacol, 2020, 85(1): 105-111. DOI:10.1007/s00280-019-03981-5.

GOLDHIRSCH A, WOOD W C, COATES A S, et al . Strategies for subtypes: dealing with the diversity of breast cancer: highlights of the st. Gallen international expert consensus on the primary therapy of early breast cancer 2011[J ] . Ann Oncol, 2011, 22(8): 1736-1747. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdr304.

MURTHY V, CHAMBERLAIN R S. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in modern breast practice[J]. Clin Anat, 2013, 26(1): 56-65. DOI:10.1002/ca.22185.

LONG L. The use of nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with breast cancer[J]. Clin J Oncol Nurs, 2013, 17(1): 68-72. DOI:10.1188/13.CJON.68-72.

MUNHOZ A M, GEMPERLI R. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with a history of reduction mammaplasty or mastopexy: how safe is it?[J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2014, 133(5): 714e-716e. DOI:10.1097/PRS.0000000000000142.

LI W D, WANG S L, GUO X J, et al . Nipple involvement in breast cancer: retrospective analysis of 2323 consecutive mastectomy specimens[J ] . Int J Surg Pathol, 2011, 19(3): 328-334. DOI:10.1177/1066896911399279.

GULBEN K, YILDIRIM E, BERBEROGLU U. Prediction of occult nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients[J]. Neoplasma, 2009, 56(1): 72-75. DOI:10.4149/neo_2009_01_72.

PIROZZI P R, ROSSETTI C, CARELLI I, et al . C linical and morphological factors predictive of occult involvement of the nipple-areola complex in mastectomy specimens[J ] . Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol, 2010, 148(2): 177-181. DOI:10.1016/j.ejogrb.2009.10.021.

LARI S A, KUERER H M. Biological markers in DCIS and risk of breast recurrence: a systematic review[J]. J Cancer, 2011, 2: 232-261. DOI:10.7150/jca.2.232.

MEIJNEN P, PETERSE J L, ANTONINI N, et al . Immunohistochemical categorisation of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast[J ] . Br J Cancer, 2008, 98(1): 137-142. DOI:10.1038/sj.bjc.6604112.

SALEH T, SOUDI T, SHOJAOSADATI S A. Aptamer functionalized curcumin-loaded human serum albumin (HSA) nanoparticles for targeted delivery to HER-2 positive breast cancer cells[J]. Int J Biol Macromol, 2019, 130: 109-116. DOI:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2019.02.129.

ZHENG H, ZHONG A L, XIE S H, et al . Elevated serum HER-2 predicts poor prognosis in breast cancer and is correlated to ADAM10 expression[J ] . Cancer Med, 2019, 8(2): 679-685. DOI:10.1002/cam4.1859.

WILLIAMS K E, BARNES NL, CRAMER A, et al . Molecular phenotypes of DCIS predict overall and invasive recurrence[J ] . Ann Oncol, 2015, 26(5): 1019-1025. DOI:10.1093/annonc/mdv062.

YU K D, WU L M, LIU G Y, et al . Different distribution of breast cancer subtypes in breast ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), DCIS with microinvasion, and DCIS with invasion component[J ] . Ann Surg Oncol, 2011, 18(5): 1342-1348. DOI:10.1245/s10434-010-1407-3.

SOPIK V, SUN P, NAROD S A. Impact of microinvasion on breast cancer mortality in women with ductal carcinoma in situ[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2018, 167(3): 787-795. DOI:10.1007/s10549-017-4572-2.

JOO S K, KIM J W, LEE K L, et al . The incidence and clinical characteristics of proximal colonic polyps when the polyps are noted on rectosigmoid colon by colonoscopy[J ] . Taehan Sohwagi Hakhoe Chi, 2013, 62(1): 42-48. DOI:10.4166/kjg.2013.62.1.42.

WANG L, ZHANG W, LYU S H, et al . Clinicopathologic characteristics and molecular subtypes of microinvasive carcinoma of the breast[J ] . Tumour Biol, 2015, 36(4): 2241-2248. DOI:10.1007/s13277-014-2652-z.

KIM M, KIM H J, CHUNG Y R, et al . Microinvasive c arcinoma versus ductal carcinoma In situ: a comparison of clinicopathological features and clinical outcomes[J ] . J Breast Cancer, 2018, 21(2): 197-205. DOI:10.4048/jbc.2018.21.2.197.

浏览量

下载量

CSCD

文章被引用时，请邮件提醒。

提交

工具集

关联资源

不同分子分型乳腺癌的临床特征及预后分析

乳腺癌外周血循环肿瘤细胞变化与新辅助化疗效果的关系

Sphk1基因对人乳腺癌MCF-7细胞增殖、凋亡和迁移能力的影响

经动脉灌注新辅助化疗对局部进展期乳腺癌激素受体表达水平的上调作用

不同方案新辅助化疗对乳腺癌激素受体表达的影响