分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
多模态MRI联合临床病理预测乳腺癌新辅助治疗后腋窝淋巴结病理完全缓解
彭雪华 王新正 黎瑞枫 陈翠美 吕蕙芯 易芹芹

Cite this article as PENG X H, WANG X Z, LI R F, et al. Multimodal MRI combined with clinicopathological indicators to predict pathological complete response of axillary lymph nodes after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2026, 17(8): 88-97.本文引用格式 彭雪华, 王新正, 黎瑞枫, 等. 多模态MRI联合临床病理预测乳腺癌新辅助治疗后腋窝淋巴结病理完全缓解[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(8): 88-97. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.08.009.


[摘要] 目的 结合治疗前后乳腺、腋窝淋巴结及瘤周区域的多模态MRI影像与临床病理指标,建立初始腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌新辅助治疗(neoadjuvant therapy, NAT)后腋窝病理完全缓解(pathological complete response, pCR)的预测模型,并评估其效能。材料与方法 回顾性分析2022年1月至2025年8月我院收治的乳腺癌伴腋窝淋巴结转移患者,收集NAT前后MRI及临床病理资料;按8∶2随机分为训练集与验证集。采用logistic回归筛选腋窝pCR独立预测因子并构建列线图,采用受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线、校准曲线及决策曲线分析(decision curve analysis, DCA)评估模型性能,并采用Bootstrap 重抽样(1000次)进行内部验证以评估模型稳定性。结果 共纳入197例患者,腋窝pCR率为58.38%。HER-2阳性、NAT后瘤周水肿消失、残余病灶无强化为独立预测因素(P<0.05)。模型在训练集与验证集曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)分别为0.895(95% CI:0.839~0.943)和0.895(95% CI:0.773~0.984),Bootstrap校正后的乐观校正AUC为0.893(95% CI:0.846~0.944),Hosmer-Lemeshow检验提示拟合良好,DCA显示在12%~90%的阈值概率区间内临床净获益显著。结论 本研究模型可有效预测初始腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌NAT后腋窝pCR,判别和校准能力良好,能为腋窝个体化手术决策提供依据,减少不必要的腋窝淋巴结清扫(axillary lymph node dissection, ALND),并改善患者预后。
[Abstract] Objective To establish a prediction model for axillary pathological complete response (pCR) after neoadjuvant therapy (NAT) in breast cancer patients with initially positive axillary lymph nodes, by integrating multimodal MRI features of the breast, axillary lymph nodes and peritumoral region before and after treatment, as well as clinicopathological indicators, and to evaluate its predictive performance.Materials and Methods A retrospective analysis was performed on patients with breast cancer and axillary lymph node metastasis admitted to our hospital from January 2022 to August 2025. MR imaging data and clinicopathological information before and after NAT were collected. Patients were randomly divided into a training set and a validation set at a ratio of 8:2. Logistic regression was used to screen independent predictors of axillary pCR and construct a nomogram. The model performance was assessed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, calibration curves and decision curve analysis (DCA), and bootstrap resampling (1000 times) was performed for internal validation to evaluate model stability.Results A total of 197 patients were included, with an axillary pCR rate of 58.38%. Positive HER-2 status, disappearance of peritumoral edema after NAT, and non-enhancement of residual lesions were identified as independent predictive factors (P < 0.05). The model achieved an area under the ROC curve (AUC) of 0.895 (95% CI: 0.839 to 0.943) in the training set and 0.895 (95% CI: 0.773 to 0.984) in the validation set. The bootstrap-corrected optimism-corrected AUC was 0.893 (95% CI: 0.846 to 0.944). The Hosmer-Lemeshow test indicated good model fitting, and DCA showed significant net clinical benefit within a threshold probability range of 12% to 90%.Conclusions The model established in this study can effectively predict axillary pCR after NAT in breast cancer patients with initially positive axillary lymph nodes, with favorable discrimination and calibration. It can provide evidence for individualized surgical decision-making for the axilla, reduce unnecessary axillary lymph node dissection (ALND), and improve patient prognosis.
[关键词] 乳腺癌;磁共振成像;新辅助治疗;腋窝淋巴结;病理完全缓解
[Keywords] breast cancer;magnetic resonance imaging;neoadjuvant therapy;axillary lymph nodes;pathological complete response

彭雪华 1   王新正 1   黎瑞枫 1   陈翠美 1   吕蕙芯 1   易芹芹 2*  

1 龙华区人民医院医学影像科,深圳 518109

2 深圳市人民医院放射科,深圳 518020

通信作者:易芹芹,E-mail: 359808772@qq.com

作者贡献声明::易芹芹设计了研究方案,修改稿件重要内容;彭雪华负责稿件起草、数据获取与分析;王新正、黎瑞枫、陈翠美、吕蕙芯参与了数据获取、分析或解释,并对稿件内容进行关键修改。全体作者均已审阅并同意最终稿件,共同对研究的准确性和诚信负责。


收稿日期:2026-03-27
接受日期:2026-07-12
中图分类号:R445.2  R737.9 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.08.009
本文引用格式 彭雪华, 王新正, 黎瑞枫, 等. 多模态MRI联合临床病理预测乳腺癌新辅助治疗后腋窝淋巴结病理完全缓解[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(8): 88-97. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.08.009.

0 引言

       乳腺癌是发病率最高的女性恶性肿瘤,也是导致女性癌症死亡的第二大原因[1]。准确判断腋窝淋巴结转移是预测复发风险、制订治疗方案及评估预后的关键[2]。新辅助治疗(neoadjuvant therapy, NAT)作为局部进展期乳腺癌综合治疗的重要环节,其目标是缩小肿瘤、降低临床分期,使部分患者获得保乳和避免大面积腋窝手术的机会[3]。在新辅助治疗后,相当一部分初始腋窝淋巴结阳性的患者可实现病理完全缓解(pathological complete response, pCR)[4]。若对此类患者实行常规腋窝淋巴结清扫术(axillary lymph node dissection, ALND),将导致大量已无肿瘤残留者承受不必要的组织创伤及相关并发症,包括上肢淋巴水肿、肩关节功能受限、神经损伤及慢性疼痛综合征等[5]。术前精准筛选腋窝pCR人群是临床亟待解决的问题。但现有评估手段均有局限:NAT可能诱发淋巴引流途径重塑、淋巴结纤维化及肿瘤细胞非均质性消退,致使前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy, SLNB)存在假阴性风险[6];正电子发射断层扫描有电离辐射[7];超声造影的诊断效能易受操作者经验水平影响,且在深部及大范围淋巴结评估中存在一定局限性[8]。MRI无电离辐射,更适用于年轻患者随访[9]。多模态影像特征与临床病理指标融合建模可提升对腋窝pCR术前判别能力[10]。但现有研究多聚焦乳腺原发灶,对腋窝淋巴结自身特征挖掘相对不足[11];NAT早期腋窝淋巴结影像学变化可能蕴含更丰富的疗效预测信息[12],但现有研究多采用单一时点静态影像,未充分利用 NAT 前后淋巴结动态影像学变化的预测信息;虽已证实 瘤周影像参数与乳腺癌预后相关[13],但极少将瘤周影像特征系统性纳入腋窝 pCR 预测模型。

       本研究旨在整合NAT前后乳腺、腋窝淋巴结及瘤周多模态MRI特征联合临床病理指标,构建术前精准预测乳腺癌患者NAT后腋窝pCR的融合模型,并系统评估该模型的判别效能,从而为腋窝手术的个体化决策提供量化依据,在保障肿瘤医疗质量与患者安全的同时,减少不必要的淋巴结清扫,改善患者术后生活质量。

1 材料与方法

1.1 一般材料

       本研究回顾性分析2022年1月至2025年8月于深圳市龙华区人民医院初次就诊、术前超声引导下穿刺活检确诊为乳腺癌且伴腋窝淋巴结转移的病例。患者NAT方案遵循《中国临床肿瘤学会(CSCO)乳腺癌诊疗指南2022版》[14]。纳入标准:(1)首次确诊且腋窝淋巴结阳性;(2)NAT后接受含腋窝处理手术;(3)完成≥4个周期NAT;(4)治疗前后均完成规范乳腺MRI平扫及增强检查。排除标准:(1)MRI图像出现重度运动伪影、金属伪影、抑脂失败或信号缺失,导致原发灶、腋窝淋巴结及瘤周区域无法清晰显示、无法准确测量与定性评估;(2)乳腺原发肿瘤最大径<5 mm;(3)术后病理未明确pCR情况;(4)术前MRI与手术间隔>30天;(5)MRI前接受过放化疗、手术。最终纳入197例患者,按8∶2随机分为训练集(157例)和验证集(40例)。本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,经深圳市龙华区人民医院医学伦理委员会批准,免除受试者知情同意,批准文号:龙华人医伦审(研)[2025]第(095)号。

1.2 扫描方法

       采用德国西门子MAGNETOM Vida 3.0 T MRI扫描仪,搭配18通道乳腺专用相控阵线圈进行检查,受检者取俯卧位、头先进,双乳自然下垂于线圈内以避免运动伪影。注射对比剂前先行乳腺平扫,扫描序列及关键参数如下:

       (1)轴位T1WI(不抑脂,TSE):TR 6.6 ms,TE 2.92 ms,层厚1.6 mm,层间距0 mm,FOV 34 cm×34 cm,矩阵448×448;(2)轴位T2WI(抑脂,TSE):TR 6000 ms,TE 82 ms,层厚4 mm,层间距1 mm,FOV 34 cm×34 cm,矩阵416×416;(3)轴位DWI(RESOLVE序列):TR 5000 ms,TE 58 ms,层厚4 mm、层间距1 mm,FOV 34 cm×20 cm,矩阵220×132。b值50、800 s/mm2。多时相DCE-MRI采用轴位三维容积内插快速扰相T1WI梯度回波序列,先预注射蒙片采集;以1.5 mL/s流率静脉团注钆喷酸葡胺(Gd-DTPA,北京北陆药业股份有限公司),剂量0.1 mmol/kg,随后注射等量生理盐水,打药30 s后行动态增强扫描(层厚1.4 mm,无间距)。采集7个连续时相(单时相60 s),参数:TR 4.3 ms,TE 1.60 ms,翻转角15°,层厚1.4 mm,矩阵384×357,FOV 36 cm×36 cm。全程辅以数字减影技术,延迟期加扫矢状位VIBRANT序列。

1.3 临床病理信息采集与MRI影像分析

       本研究采集的临床与病理学信息包括:(1)年龄、性别;(2)月经状态(绝经与否);(3)初次就诊临床cTN分期;(4)雌激素受体(estrogen receptor, ER)、孕激素受体(progesterone receptor, PR)、人表皮生长因子受体2(human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, HER-2)、细胞增殖核抗原(Ki-67 antigen, Ki-67)表达水平(Ki-67以25%为界,<25%为低表达,≥25%为高表达);(5)依据HR与HER-2状态分为4种分子分型,病理评估参照WHO第五版乳腺肿瘤分类标准;(6)NAT方案;(7)原发肿瘤及腋窝淋巴结手术方式;(8)NAT后原发肿瘤与腋窝淋巴结病理反应(pCR/non-pCR)。本研究中原发肿瘤pCR定义为乳腺癌NAT后,手术切除乳腺组织未见浸润性癌成分,腋窝pCR定义为术后病理所有送检腋窝淋巴结内未见任何残存肿瘤细胞;未达到该标准则判定为非病理完全缓解(non-pCR)。

       由两名≥5年乳腺影像诊断经验的放射科主治医师双盲独立测量MRI图像,分歧由具有≥10年乳腺影像诊断经验的副主任医师仲裁达成共识。多发病灶以最大者为准。连续定量参数采用组内相关系数(intra-class correlation coefficients, ICC)评价一致性,二分类及无序多分类定性参数采用卡帕系数(Cohen's Kappa coefficient, Kappa)评价一致性,有序多分类资料采用加权Kappa系数分析。一致性判定标准:ICC、Kappa系数<0.40为较差,0.40~<0.75为一般,0.75~0.85为良好,>0.85为优秀。

       MRI图像分析于科室PACS系统(LN-PACSV7)上完成,依次调阅轴位T1WI、抑脂T2WI、DWI、ADC图及DCE-MRI增强序列,具体评估内容如下:

       (1)乳腺原发灶:NAT前形态(肿块/非肿块强化)、大小(轴位最大径)、瘤周水肿(抑脂T2WI上肿瘤边缘2 cm内无强化高信号区)、瘤内及瘤周表观扩散系数(apparent diffusion coefficient, ADC)值(计算二者比值)、动态增强时间-信号强度曲线(time intensity curve, TIC)类型(分为Ⅰ流入型、Ⅱ平台型、Ⅲ流出型);NAT后瘤周水肿有无、残余异常强化有无及治疗前后肿块大小变化率[(治疗前-治疗后)/治疗前×100%]。

       (2)患侧腋窝淋巴结:NAT前最大淋巴结短径、ADC值、有无淋巴门及结外浸润;NAT后有无正常淋巴结及结外浸润。

       测量肿瘤及淋巴结ADC值时,于病变扩散受限最显著区域(即ADC最低处)勾画感兴趣区(region of interest, ROI),避开囊变坏死区域;瘤周ADC测量则选取距肿瘤边缘2 cm以内的乳腺实质中ADC信号最高区域勾画ROI[15];以上参数均重复测量三次后取平均值。

1.4 统计学分析

       本研究采用SPSS 27.0进行统计分析:正态分布计量资料以x¯±s表示,行两独立样本t检验;非正态分布以MP25,P75)表示,行Mann-Whitney U检验。计数资料以频率和百分比(%)描述,组间比较采用χ2检验。所有假设检验均为双侧检验,以P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。

       基于R软件(4.5.2版本)构建预测模型。按8∶2分层随机抽样分为训练集与验证集。在训练集中,先通过单因素logistic回归筛选P<0.05的变量,再做多因素logistic回归。借助rms程序包的lrm函数,基于多因素logistic回归分析得出的独立预测因子,构建用于评估腋窝淋巴结pCR概率的预测模型,模型表达式见式(1)

       其中P为患者NAT后腋窝淋巴结达到pCR的预测概率,取值范围0~1;β0为模型常量(截距);(β1、β2、β3.βn)为各独立预测因子对应的回归系数;(X1、X2、X3…Xn)为纳入模型的二分类独立预测变量(临床病理/多模态MRI影像指标)。

       通过该模型计算各因子OR值及95% CI、显著性水平(P值)以及回归系数。据此构建列线图,实现模型预测结果的可视化表达。在应用该预测模型时,将各独立预测因素不同状态所对应列线图上方评分轴的单项分值累加,获得总分值后,于总分轴向下绘制垂直线至概率轴,所对应的概率值即为该例乳腺癌患者NAT后获得腋窝pCR的个体化预测概率[16]

       模型性能从三方面评估:(1)区分能力。绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operating characteristic, ROC)曲线,计算曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)及其95%置信区间;为减少单次8∶2随机拆分导致验证集样本量较小的影响,进一步基于全数据进行1000次Bootstrap重抽样实施内部验证,采用标准乐观校正流程,每次有放回抽样生成Bootstrap样本,在样本内重新拟合模型,计算Bootstrap样本表观AUC与回代至原始数据的AUC,二者差值为单次乐观度(optimism);1000次重复后取平均乐观度,计算乐观校正 AUC(optimism-corrected AUC)及其95%置信区间,并记录Bootstrap重抽样分布中表观AUC的均值和标准差,以评估模型的稳定性和过拟合程度。(2)模型校准能力。采用Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验(H-L检验)及校准曲线评价;校准曲线按预测概率十分位分组绘制,因存在重复预测概率值,实际分组数可能少于10组。考虑到验证集样本量较小(n=40),H-L检验统计效能有限,校准判断以校准曲线为主、H-L检验结果为辅。(3)临床实用性。采用决策曲线分析(decision curve analysis, DCA)进行评价。DCA通过量化不同临界概率下的净获益评估模型临床应用价值。当DCA曲线位于None与All两条极端参考曲线之上时,提示模型临床获益理想[17]

2 结果

2.1 临床与病理信息

       本研究纳入197例临床确诊腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌病例并进行分析,年龄25~76(48.31±10.46)岁。入组患者的临床T分期以T1-2期为主,共计140例,占总体人群的71.07%;临床N分期则以N1期为主,共103例,占比52.28%。分子分型以Luminal B型最为常见,共99例,占比50.25%。治疗方案方面,所有患者均接受不少于4个周期的NAT,其中102例HER-2阳性患者(51.78%)联合使用了抗HER-2靶向药物。

       NAT结束后,161例患者接受了全乳切除术(81.73%),36例接受保乳手术(18.27%)。在腋窝处理策略上,20例(10.15%)接受SLNB,177例(89.85%)行ALND。疗效评估结果显示,乳腺原发灶pCR率为46.70%(92/197),腋窝淋巴结pCR率为58.38%(115/197)。

       本研究中训练集和验证集两组在人口统计学、临床病理特征及治疗策略等方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),提示分组均衡性良好,为后续模型构建及内部验证提供了可靠的数据基础。详见表1

表1  训练集与验证集基线资料比较
Tab. 1  Baseline characteristics comparison between training and validation sets

2.2 观察者间一致性分析

       本研究影像定量参数ICC值为0.82~0.94,定性参数Kappa值为0.78~0.90,提示所有影像指标观察者间一致性良好至优秀。详见表2

表2  观察者间影像指标一致性分析
Tab. 2  Inter-observer consistency analysis of imaging parameters

2.3 单因素logistic回归分析

       在训练集(n=157)中,腋窝淋巴结pCR率为58.6%(92例),non-pCR率为41.4%(65例)。以NAT后腋窝淋巴结是否达到pCR为因变量,其余临床病理及影像学指标为自变量,采用单因素logistic回归模型进行筛选,分析显示,共有9个变量与腋窝pCR显著相关(P<0.05),遂纳入后续多因素分析。这些潜在预测因素涵盖4个NAT前穿刺活检病理指标(ER、PR、HER-2及Ki-67)以及5个NAT前后的MRI影像学特征,包括治疗后肿瘤大小变化率、是否有瘤周水肿、是否有残余病灶强化、是否残余正常淋巴结以及有无结外浸润(表3)。

表3  训练集中腋窝淋巴结pCR相关因素的单因素logistic回归分析
Tab. 3  Univariate logistic regression analysis of factors associated with axillary lymph node pCR in the training set

2.4 多因素logistic回归分析

       将单因素logistic回归分析筛选出的9个候选变量纳入多因素logistic回归模型,最终确定腋窝淋巴结pCR的独立预测因素(P<0.05):HER-2、NAT后有无瘤周水肿、NAT后有无残余病灶强化(表4)。

表4  训练集中腋窝淋巴结pCR独立预测因子的多因素logistic回归分析
Tab. 4  Multivariate logistic regression analysis of independent predictors of axillary lymph node pCR in the training set

2.5 构建预测模型

       基于多因素logistic回归分析得出的3个独立预测因子,构建用于评估腋窝淋巴结pCR概率的预测模型,详细结果见表5

       其中变量赋值如下:HER-2(阴性=Reference,阳性=1);NAT后瘤周水肿(有=Reference,无=1);NAT后残余病灶强化(有=Reference,无=1)。模型结果显示,相较于HER-2阴性、NAT后存在残余病灶强化及瘤周水肿者,HER-2阳性(OR=2.943,95% CI:1.169~7.409,P=0.022)、NAT后无瘤周水肿(OR=11.192,95% CI:4.155~30.150,P<0.001)以及NAT后无残余病灶强化(OR=5.284,95% CI:1.651~16.911,P=0.005)的患者在NAT后更倾向于获得腋窝pCR。

表5  训练集中NAT后腋窝pCR预测模型的构建
Tab. 5  Construction of the prediction model for axillary pCR after NAT in the training set

2.6 预测模型的列线图构建与临床应用

       本研究采用列线图对构建的预测模型进行直观可视化呈现,将HER-2状态、NAT后瘤周水肿、NAT后残余病灶强化分别赋予对应分值,可通过累加总分直观量化个体患者NAT后腋窝pCR的发生概率,详见图1。该模型临床病例验证数据可分别参见图2图3图2为HER-2阳性、NAT后瘤周水肿消退且无残余病灶强化的患者,经列线图预测腋窝pCR概率高达95%,与术后病理pCR结果完全吻合;图3为HER-2阴性、NAT后仍存在瘤周水肿及残余病灶强化的患者,模型预测腋窝pCR概率仅12%,术后病理证实为non-pCR。上述病例验证表明,本模型所输出的预测概率与真实病理结果高度吻合,具有良好的个体化判别能力。

图1  预测模型的列线图。NAT:新辅助治疗;Points:各变量对应的预测分值;HER-2:人表皮生长因子受体2;Total Points:所有变量的预测总分;Risk:腋窝淋巴结pCR的发生风险。
Fig. 1  Nomogram of the prediction model. NAT: neoadjuvant therapy; Points: score assigned to each variable; HER-2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; Total Points: total score of all variables; Risk: probability of axillary lymph node pCR.
图2  女,63岁,乳腺浸润性导管癌,免疫组化:ER(-)、PR(-)、HER-2(3+),Ki-67 20%,临床分期cT2N1M0,分子分型为HER-2过表达型。2A:NAT前T2WI示左乳上象限圆形不均匀高信号肿块,瘤周见斑片状高信号;2B:NAT前增强示病灶呈肿块样强化,最大径约34 mm,瘤周抑脂T2WI高信号无异常强化,为瘤周水肿;2C:NAT前肿块DWI呈环形高信号;2D:NAT前肿块ADC值0.81×10-3 mm2/s,瘤周ADC值2.38×10-3 mm2/s;2E:NAT前肿瘤TIC曲线呈Ⅲ型“流出型”;2F:NAT后T2WI示原发肿瘤床周围无明显瘤周水肿;2G:NAT后增强示肿瘤床无残余病灶强化;2H:经本研究列线图模型计算,该患者NAT后腋窝pCR预测概率约95%,术后病理证实其乳腺病灶及腋窝均达到pCR。NAT:新辅助治疗;Points:各变量对应的预测分值;HER-2:人表皮生长因子受体2;Total Points:所有变量的预测总分;Risk:腋窝淋巴结pCR的发生风险。
Fig. 2  A 63-year-old female patient with invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast. Immunohistochemistry: ER (-), PR (-), HER-2 (3+), Ki-67 20%. Clinical stage: cT2N1M0. Molecular subtype: HER-2-enriched subtype. 2A: Pre-NAT T2WI shows a round, heterogeneous hyperintense mass in the upper left breast with patchy hyperintensity around the lesion; 2B: Pre-NAT contrast-enhanced image shows mass-like enhancement of the lesion with a maximum diameter of approximately 34 mm. The perilesional hyperintensity on fat-suppressed T2WI shows no definite abnormal enhancement, consistent with peritumoral edema; 2C: Pre-NAT DWI shows annular hyperintensity in the mass; 2D: Pre-NAT ADC value of the mass is 0.81 × 10-3 mm2/s, and the peritumoral ADC value is 2.38 × 10-3 mm2/s; 2E: Pre-NAT tumor TIC curve is type III (washout pattern); 2F: Post-NAT T2WI shows no obvious peritumoral edema around the primary tumor bed; 2G: Post-NAT contrast-enhanced image shows no residual enhancing lesion in the tumor bed; 2H: According to the nomogram model established in this study, the predicted probability of axillary pCR after NAT in this patient was approximately 95%. Postoperative pathology confirmed pCR in both the breast lesion and axilla.NAT: neoadjuvant therapy; Points: score assigned to each variable; HER-2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; Total Points: total score of all variables; Risk: probability of axillary lymph node pCR.
图3  女,48岁,乳腺浸润性腺癌,免疫组化:ER(90%)、PR(60%)、HER-2(1+),Ki-67 20%,临床分期cT2N1M0,分子分型为Luminal B型。3A:NAT前T2WI示左乳外上象限卵圆形稍高信号肿块,瘤周见条片状高信号;3B:NAT前增强示病灶呈肿块样强化,内强化不均匀,最大径约28mm,瘤周抑脂T2WI高信号无异常强化,提示瘤周水肿;3C:NAT前肿块DWI呈环形高信号;3D:NAT前肿块ADC值为0.65×10-3 mm2/s,瘤周ADC值为2.03×10-3 mm2/s;3E:NAT前肿瘤TIC曲线呈Ⅱ型“平台型”;3F:NAT后T2WI示原发肿瘤床周围瘤周水肿;3G:NAT后增强示肿瘤床残余病灶强化;3H:经本研究列线图模型计算,该患者NAT后腋窝pCR预测概率约12%,术后病理证实其乳腺病灶及腋窝均达到non-pCR。NAT:新辅助治疗;Points:各变量对应的预测分值;HER-2:人表皮生长因子受体2;Total Points:所有变量的预测总分;Risk:腋窝淋巴结pCR的发生风险。
Fig. 3  A 48-year-old female patient with invasive adenocarcinoma of the breast. Immunohistochemistry: ER (90%), PR (60%), HER-2 (1+), Ki-67 20%. Clinical stage: cT2N1M0. Molecular subtype: Luminal B subtype. 3A: Pre-NAT T2WI shows an oval slightly hyperintense mass in the upper outer quadrant of the left breast with strip-like hyperintensity around the lesion; 3B: Pre-NAT contrast-enhanced image shows heterogeneous mass-like enhancement of the lesion with a maximum diameter of approximately 28 mm. The perilesional hyperintensity on fat-suppressed T2WI shows no abnormal enhancement, indicating peritumoral edema; 3C: Pre-NAT DWI shows annular hyperintensity in the mass; 3D: Pre-NAT ADC value of the mass is 0.65 × 10-3 mm2/s, and the peritumoral ADC value is 2.03 × 10-3 mm2/s; 3E: Pre-NAT tumor TIC curve is type II (plateau pattern); 3F: Post-NAT T2WI shows persistent peritumoral edema around the primary tumor bed; 3G: Post-NAT contrast-enhanced image shows residual enhancing lesion in the tumor bed; 3H: According to the nomogram model established in this study, the predicted probability of axillary pCR after NAT in this patient was approximately 12%. Postoperative pathology confirmed non-pCR in both the breast lesion and axilla.NAT: neoadjuvant therapy; Points: score assigned to each variable; HER-2: human epidermal growth factor receptor 2; Total Points: total score of all variables; Risk: probability of axillary lymph node pCR.

2.7 预测模型的判别能力、拟合优度与临床获益分析

2.7.1 模型判别效能与内部验证

       本研究结果显示,训练集与验证集的AUC分别为0.895(95% CI:0.839~0.943)和 0.895(95% CI:0.773~0.984),提示该预测模型具备良好的判别性能,具体见图4。Bootstrap 1000次对整个数据集(n=197)进行内部验证。结果显示,全数据表观AUC为0.897,平均乐观度为0.004,乐观校正AUC为0.893(95% CI:0.846~0.944);Bootstrap重抽样分布中表观AUC均值为0.898,标准差为0.025,与原训练集/验证集AUC接近,提示模型未见明显过拟合,具有较好的内部稳定性。

图4  预测模型的 ROC曲线。4A:训练集 ROC曲线;4B:验证集 ROC曲线。AUC:曲线下面积;CI:置信区间。
Fig. 4  ROC curves of the prediction model. 4A: ROC curve in the training set; 4B: ROC curve in the validation set.AUC: area under the curve; CI: confidence interval.

2.7.2 模型校准度评估

       Hosmer-Lemeshow检验显示训练集λ2=3.263,df=4,P=0.515;验证集λ2=1.485,df=2,P=0.476,P均>0.05,H-L检验未见显著拟合偏离。结合校准曲线提示模型校准效果可接受。校准曲线见图5

图5  预测模型的校准曲线。5A:训练集校准曲线;5B:验证集校准曲线。其中Calibration curve 代表校准曲线,Ideal line 代表理想参考曲线。
Fig. 5  Calibration curves of the prediction model. 5A: Calibration curve of the training set; 5B: Calibration curve of the validation set. Among them, the Calibration curve represents the calibration curve, and the Ideal line represents the ideal reference line.

2.7.3 临床决策曲线分析

       本研究结果表明,DCA显示训练集中阈值概率约12%~90%时模型可带来临床净获益;验证集中主要净获益区间为12%~90%。提示运用该模型对腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者新辅助治疗后的腋窝pCR状态进行评估,能够实现较高的临床净获益,证实模型具有较好的临床应用前景,相应DCA曲线见图6

图6  预测模型的决策曲线分析(DCA)。6A:训练集决策曲线;6B:验证集决策曲线。横轴代表临界概率阈值,纵轴代表临床净获益;其中 Treat all曲线为全部患者均接受干预的净获益曲线,Treat none曲线为所有患者均不接受干预的净获益曲线,Model曲线为基于本预测模型实施分层干预所对应的净获益曲线。
Fig. 6  Decision curve analysis (DCA) of the prediction model. 6A: Decision curve of the training set; 6B: Decision curve of the validation set. The horizontal axis represents the threshold probability, and the vertical axis represents the clinical net benefit; among them, the Treat all curve indicates the net benefit of intervening all patients, the Treat none curve indicates the net benefit of no intervention, and the Model curve indicates the net benefit of stratified intervention guided by the present prediction model.

3 讨论

       本研究结合治疗前后乳腺、腋窝淋巴结及瘤周多模态MRI特征与临床病理指标,构建并验证了适用于初诊腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者的NAT后腋窝 pCR融合预测模型。通过多因素logistic回归分析,最终筛查出HER-2状态、NAT后瘤周水肿及NAT后残余病灶强化三个独立预测因子。模型在训练集与验证集中均表现出良好的判别效能(AUC均为0.895),1000次Bootstrap乐观校正验证亦证实模型无明显过拟合(乐观校正AUC=0.893),Hosmer-Lemeshow拟合优度检验未见显著拟合偏离。同时校准曲线提示模型拟合曲线与理想参考曲线高度贴近,提示针对腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者,经新辅助治疗后腋窝病理完全缓解的实际发生率与模型预测概率一致性良好;且在12%~90%阈值概率区间内可带来显著临床净获益。本研究创新将瘤周MRI特征系统纳入腋窝pCR预测体系,并结合NAT前后影像动态变化构建针对初诊腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者NAT后腋窝pCR的联合预测模型,为精准筛选可能实现腋窝pCR的人群提供了新工具,有助于减少不必要的ALND,改善患者生活质量。

3.1 预测模型与既往其他研究方法评估腋窝pCR的比较

       目前,乳腺影像诊断中X线摄影[包括数字化乳腺断层摄影(digital breast tomosynthesis, DBT)]、超声及PET-CT均被用于评估腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者NAT后疗效,各有优劣。X线摄影对钙化敏感,可通过钙化变化评估病灶退缩;PESAPANE等[18]证实深度学习工具可辅助其微钙化检测,但X线摄影对腋窝Ⅱ、Ⅲ组淋巴结显示有限,肿瘤大小估算不如MRI[19]。本研究依据多模态 MRI 对腋窝软组织与深部淋巴结的高分辨率优势,可全面评估淋巴结治疗反应,弥补 X 线摄影腋窝评估范围不足的缺陷。既往研究[20]构建的列线图(整合超声特征及临床病理指标)可预测淋巴结转移。但超声易遗漏形态异常的小淋巴结,假阴性率较高且受操作者主观影响大。荟萃分析[21]显示,彩色多普勒超声仅能显示直径大于1 mm的血管,难以评估化疗后残留肿块的微小血流。本研究采用MRI多序列联合评估,可客观提取瘤周水肿、残余病灶强化、淋巴结ADC值等稳定指标,所有影像指标观察者间一致性良好至优秀,显著降低主观偏差,在腋窝pCR判别稳定性与准确性上优于超声。有研究表明[22],基线18F-FDG PET/CT影像组学可预测NAC后pCR,但其实验参数受设备影响大、无通用临界值,且因成本高、核素使用限制,鲜用于NAT后疗效评估。本模型所用MRI无电离辐射,适合年轻患者随访;联合临床常规检测的HER-2指标,安全性与临床实用性优于PET/CT。

3.2 模型与基于 MR 影像特征的其他预测模型对比

       KIM等[23]认为MRI病灶大小与信号增强比SER对HR⁻乳腺癌新辅助化疗后残留病灶的识别具有较高的敏感性和阴性预测值,可为乳腺原发灶豁免手术提供参考。SHI等[24]结合治疗前MRI影像特征量化肿瘤内异质性指标、放射组学评分及临床病理特征构建模型,预测乳腺癌患者新辅助化疗后pCR的AUC为0.79~0.82。张晴等[25]采用DCE-MRI肿瘤异质性定量联合深度学习联合模型,预测pCR的AUC达0.90~0.98。上述研究仅聚焦乳腺原发病灶pCR,但乳腺原发灶与腋窝淋巴结存在空间异质性,原发灶缓解不等同于淋巴结缓解状态。已有综述表明[26],瘤周区域的影像组学特征对腋窝淋巴结转移诊断具有重要价值。本研究进一步提出,瘤周区域不仅可提示淋巴结转移风险,还能反映治疗后肿瘤微环境消退程度,因此可将瘤周MR特征从诊断转移至预测腋窝pCR。与既往仅纳入基线或NAT后MR特征的研究[27](RECIST1.1标准要求乳腺癌疗效状态维持至少4周)不同,本研究兼顾乳腺原发灶、腋窝淋巴结及其瘤周区域多模态MRI指标,弥补既往研究对瘤周微环境与淋巴结功能状态关注不足的局限;联合NAT前后影像变化与HER-2等关键病理指标构建动态综合预测模型,提升术前评估精准度,通过独立验证集及ROC、校准曲线、DCA多维度评估,并进一步采用Bootstrap重抽样验证模型的内部稳定性,增强了模型的可靠性。

3.3 HER-2状态是腋窝pCR的重要预测因子

       本研究发现,HER-2阳性是NAT后腋窝pCR的独立正向预测因子(OR=2.943),与既往研究结果一致[28, 29],即相对于Luminal A与Luminal B型,HER-2 阳性或三阴性乳腺癌患者在新辅助治疗后腋窝pCR率更高,此类患者更适合行SLNB。HER-2阳性乳腺癌通常对含抗HER-2靶向药物的新辅助治疗具有较高的敏感性,其病理完全缓解率显著高于HER-2阴性患者[30, 31]。该结果进一步支持了在临床实践中根据HER-2状态进行个体化治疗决策的合理性。此外,HER-2状态作为常规病理检测指标,具有获取便捷、标准化程度高的优势,适合作为预测模型的核心变量之一。

       已有研究表明,激素受体状态是乳腺癌患者生存与治疗敏感性的独立影响因素,ER或PR阴性患者从NAT中获益更显著[32]。但本研究单因素分析中ER、PR表达差异显著而多因素差异无统计学意义,分析原因为ER/PR表达与HER-2状态高度关联,HER-2作为更强效的预测变量校正后,ER、PR独立效应消失;其次,与样本量不足、激素受体亚组样本分布不均有关,未能准确体现其与腋窝pCR的关联。Ki-67、NAT前后肿瘤大小变化等变量,虽在其他研究中[33]被报道有预测价值,但未纳入本研究最终模型,可能与样本数据分布及样本量不足相关,其与腋窝 pCR 的相关性需扩大样本量进一步验证。

3.4 NAT后瘤周水肿与残余病灶强化的独立预测价值

       本研究将NAT后瘤周水肿与残余病灶强化作为影像学独立预测因子纳入腋窝pCR预测模型。结果显示,NAT后无瘤周水肿(OR=11.192)与无残余病灶强化(OR=5.284)的患者更易实现腋窝pCR。瘤周水肿反映了肿瘤周围微环境的炎症反应、淋巴回流障碍及血管通透性变化,与肿瘤侵袭性及治疗抵抗性密切相关[34]。NAT后瘤周水肿的消退可能预示着局部微环境的改善与肿瘤负荷的显著下降。残余病灶强化则直接反映了治疗后乳腺原发灶的残留活性肿瘤组织,其消失是影像学完全缓解的重要标志[35, 36]。二者作为MRI可定量或定性评估的指标,具备良好的可重复性与临床可操作性。

4 研究局限性

       尽管本研究在模型构建与验证方面取得了较为理想的结果,但仍存在以下局限性:首先,本模型仅基于单中心数据,验证集样本量较小(40例),虽经Bootstrap内部验证显示模型稳定性良好,但仍需多中心大样本外部验证进一步证实。部分MRI特征(如瘤周水肿、残余病灶强化)依赖于放射科医师的主观判断,存在一定的观察者间变异;未来可结合影像组学与深度学习技术,实现特征的自动化提取与标准化评估。本研究仅纳入NAT前后的影像与病理信息,未对治疗中期的影像变化进行动态监测,可能遗漏早期疗效信号。

5 结论

       本研究构建的融合多模态MRI影像特征与临床病理指标的预测模型,可有效评估初始腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者NAT后腋窝pCR的概率,具备良好的判别效能、总体可接受的校准度与临床实用价值,经1000次Bootstrap乐观校正内部验证证实模型无明显过拟合,为个体化腋窝手术策略的制定提供了科学依据,有助于在保障肿瘤学安全的前提下,减少不必要的ALND,改善患者生活质量。

[1]
ZHAO Y Q, XIE X L, XIE J L, et al. Evaluation of serum fructosamine as diagnostic marker of postoperative recurrence in the patients with breast cancer[J/OL]. Biomed Res Int, 2023, 2023: 6435776 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37475819/. DOI: 10.1155/2023/6435776.
[2]
SUN B Q, SHAO G D, SHI M M, et al. Preoperative comprehensive risk estimation for axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer: development and verification of a network-based prediction model[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2025, 15: 1524 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39789023/. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-84904-0.
[3]
邵志敏, 吴炅, 江泽飞, 等. 中国乳腺癌新辅助治疗专家共识(2022年版)[J]. 中国癌症杂志, 2022, 32(1): 80-88. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2022.01.011.
SHAO Z M, WU J, JIANG Z F, et al. Expert consensus on neoadjuvant treatment of breast cancer in China(2021 edition)[J]. China Oncol, 2022, 32(1): 80-88. DOI: 10.19401/j.cnki.1007-3639.2022.01.011.
[4]
VIALE G, FUSCO N. Pathology after neoadjuvant treatment–How to assess residual disease[J/OL]. Breast, 2022, 62: S25-S28 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34810049/. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.11.009.
[5]
NOGUCHI M, INOKUCHI M, YOKOI-NOGUCHI M, et al. Conservative axillary surgery may prevent arm lymphedema without increasing axillary recurrence in the surgical management of breast cancer[J/OL]. Cancers, 2023, 15(22): 5353 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38001613/. DOI: 10.3390/cancers15225353.
[6]
AL-HATTALI S, VINNICOMBE S J, GOWDH N M, et al. Breast MRI and tumour biology predict axillary lymph node response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer[J/OL]. Cancer Imaging, 2019, 19(1): 91 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31878958/. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-019-0279-4.
[7]
LOTHER D, ROBERT M, ELWOOD E, et al. Imaging in metastatic breast cancer, CT, PET/CT, MRI, WB-DWI, CCA: review and new perspectives[J/OL]. Cancer Imaging, 2023, 23(1): 53 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37254225/. DOI: 10.1186/s40644-023-00557-8.
[8]
LIU S S, CAI W J, LUO Y C, et al. CEUS versus MRI in evaluation of the effect of microwave ablation of breast cancer[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2022, 48(4): 617-625. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2021.11.012.
[9]
WASHINGTON I, PALM R F, WHITE J, et al. The role of MRI in breast cancer and breast conservation therapy[J]. Cancers, 2024, 16(11): 2122. DOI: 10.3390/cancers16112122.
[10]
LI Z Y, GAO J, ZHOU H, et al. Multiregional dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI-based integrated system for predicting pathological complete response of axillary lymph node to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer: multicentre study[J/OL]. eBioMedicine, 2024, 107: 105311 [2026-03-26]. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-3964(24)00347-5/fulltext. DOI: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2024.105311.
[11]
WANG W Y, WANG X, LIU J Q, et al. Nomogram for predicting axillary lymph node pathological response in node-positive breast cancer patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Chin Med J, 2021, 135(3): 333-340. DOI: 10.1097/CM9.0000000000001876.
[12]
CATTELL R F, KANG J J, REN T, et al. MRI volume changes of axillary lymph nodes as predictor of pathologic complete responses to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer[J/OL]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2020, 20(1): 68-79.e1 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31327729/. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.06.006.
[13]
ZHAO S Q, LI Y F, NING N, et al. Association of peritumoral region features assessed on breast MRI and prognosis of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Eur Radiol, 2024, 34(9): 6108-6120. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-024-10612-y.
[14]
中国临床肿瘤学会指南工作委员会. 中国临床肿瘤学会(CSCO)胰腺癌诊疗指南-2022[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2022: 210.
Guidelines Working Committee of Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology. Guidelines of Chinese society of clinical oncology (CSCO) pancreatic cancer[M]. Beijing: People's Medical Publishing House, 2022: 210.
[15]
KETTUNEN T, OKUMA H, AUVINEN P, et al. Peritumoral ADC values in breast cancer: region of interest selection, associations with hyaluronan intensity, and prognostic significance[J]. Eur Radiol, 2020, 30(1): 38-46. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06361-y.
[16]
CORSI F, ALBASINI S, SORRENTINO L, et al. Development of a novel nomogram-based online tool to predict axillary status after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in cN+ breast cancer: a multicentre study on 1, 950 patients[J/OL]. Breast, 2021, 60: 131-137 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34624755/. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.09.013.
[17]
VICKERS A J, ELKIN E B. Decision curve analysis: a novel method for evaluating prediction models[J]. Med Decis Making, 2006, 26(6): 565-574. DOI: 10.1177/0272989x06295361.
[18]
PESAPANE F, TRENTIN C, FERRARI F, et al. Deep learning performance for detection and classification of microcalcifications on mammography[J/OL]. Eur Radiol Exp, 2023, 7(1): 69 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37934382/. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-023-00384-3.
[19]
ZHANG C, KOSIOREK H E, PATEL B K, et al. Accuracy of posttreatment imaging for evaluation of residual in breast disease after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2022, 29(10): 6207-6212. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-022-12128-5.
[20]
YANG L, GU Y F, WANG B, et al. A multivariable model of ultrasound and clinicopathological features for predicting axillary nodal burden of breast cancer: potential to prevent unnecessary axillary lymph node dissection[J/OL]. BMC Cancer, 2023, 23(1): 1264 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38129804/. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-023-11751-z.
[21]
SHI Q F, HU P F, LIU Y H. Ultrasound for predicting pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis[J/OL]. BMC Cancer, 2026, 26(1): 219 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41526850/. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-026-15545-x.
[22]
URSO L, MANCO L, CITTANTI C, et al. 18F-FDG PET/CT radiomic analysis and artificial intelligence to predict pathological complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients[J]. La Radiol Med, 2025, 130(4): 543-554. DOI: 10.1007/s11547-025-01958-4.
[23]
KIM Y, SIM S H, PARK B, et al. Criteria for identifying residual tumours after neoadjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancers: a magnetic resonance imaging study[J/OL]. Sci Rep, 2021, 11(1): 634 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33436702/. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-79743-8.
[24]
SHI Z W, HUANG X M, CHENG Z L, et al. MRI-based quantification of intratumoral heterogeneity for predicting treatment response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer[J/OL]. Radiology, 2023, 308: e222830 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37432083/. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.222830.
[25]
张晴, 陈基明, 吴莉莉, 等. 基于DCE-MRI肿瘤异质性定量和深度学习预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗疗效的价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(1): 42-50. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.01.007.
ZHANG Q, CHEN J M, WU L L, et al. Value of DCE-MRI-based tumor heterogeneity quantification and deep learning in predicting neoadjuvant chemotherapy response in breast cancer[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2026, 17(1): 42-50. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.01.007.
[26]
王国宇, 张晖, 李一. 基于DCE-MRI的影像组学预测乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转移的研究进展[J]. 磁共振成像, 2026, 17(1): 188-192, 207. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.01.029.
WANG G Y, ZHANG H, LI Y. Research progress in predicting axillary lymph node metastasis in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging-based radiomics[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2026, 17(1): 188-192, 207. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2026.01.029.
[27]
郑锦龙, 翟梓涵, 陈盛, 等. MRI生境成像预测腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌新辅助治疗疗效的价值[J]. 国际医学放射学杂志, 2025, 48(6): 632-639, 645. DOI: 10.19300/j.2025.L22372.
ZHENG J L, ZHAI Z H, CHEN S, et al. MRI-based habitat imaging for predicting the efficacy of neoadjuvant therapy in axillary lymph node-positive breast cancer[J]. Int J Med Radiol, 2025, 48(6): 632-639, 645. DOI: 10.19300/j.2025.L22372.
[28]
GUO X H, ZHANG J, GONG X L, et al. Axillary lymph node dissection in triple-negative or HER2-positive breast cancer patients with clinical N2 achieving pathological complete response after neoadjuvant therapy: Is it necessary [J/OL]. Breast, 2024, 73: 103671 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38277714/. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2024.103671.
[29]
MYERS S P, AHRENDT G M, LEE J S, et al. Association of tumor molecular subtype and stage with breast and axillary pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2021, 28(13): 8636-8642. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10195-8.
[30]
VAN DER VOORT A, VAN RAMSHORST M S, VAN WERKHOVEN E D, et al. Three-year follow-up of neoadjuvant chemotherapy with or without anthracyclines in the presence of dual ERBB2 blockade in patients with ERBB2-positive breast cancer: a secondary analysis of the TRAIN-2 randomized, phase 3 trial[J]. JAMA Oncol, 2021, 7(7): 978-984. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.1371.
[31]
VAN MACKELENBERGH M T, LOIBL S, UNTCH M, et al. Pathologic complete response and individual patient prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy plus anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 therapy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive early breast cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2023, 41(16): 2998-3008. DOI: 10.1200/JCO.22.02241.
[32]
LI Y B, CHEN Y Z, ZHAO R, et al. Development and validation of a nomogram based on pretreatment dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI for the prediction of pathologic response after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer[J]. Eur Radiol, 2022, 32(3): 1676-1687. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-021-08291-0.
[33]
RAMTOHUL T, LOLLIVIER D, SPRIET J, et al. Posttreatment MRI to predict pathologic complete response of triple-negative breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemoimmunotherapy[J/OL]. Radiology, 2025, 316(1): e243824 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40590696/. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.243824.
[34]
JIRARAYAPONG J, PORTNOW L H, CHIKARMANE S A, et al. High peritumoral and intratumoral T2 signal intensity in HER2-positive breast cancers on preneoadjuvant breast MRI: assessment of associations with histopathologic characteristics[J/OL]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2024, 222(3): e2330280 [2026-03-26]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38117101/. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.23.30280.
[35]
SUDHIR R, KOPPULA V C, RAO T S, et al. Accuracy of digital mammography, ultrasound and MRI in predicting the pathological complete response and residual tumor size of breast cancer after completion of neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Indian J Cancer, 2022, 59(3): 345-353. DOI: 10.4103/ijc.ijc_795_19.
[36]
ZHU C, CHEN M L, LIU Y L, et al. Value of mammographic microcalcifications and MRI-enhanced lesions in the evaluation of residual disease after neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer[J]. Quant Imaging Med Surg, 2023, 13(9): 5593-5604. DOI: 10.21037/qims-22-1170.

上一篇 基于CMR分析标准化心外膜脂肪体积对扩张型心肌病左室逆向重构的预测价值
下一篇 酰胺质子转移加权成像在前列腺病变鉴别诊断中的价值
  
诚聘英才 | 广告合作 | 免责声明 | 版权声明
联系电话:010-67113815
京ICP备19028836号-2