分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
临床研究
3.0 T MRI在乳腺癌患者乳头乳晕复合体受侵评估中的应用价值
文洁 王猛 任雅 关剑 刘周 向露 罗德红

Cite this article as: WEN J, WANG M, REN Y, et al. Application of 3.0 T MRI in evaluation of nipple areola complex invasion in breast cancer patients[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2023, 14(2): 44-49.本文引用格式:文洁, 王猛, 任雅, 等. 3.0 T MRI在乳腺癌患者乳头乳晕复合体受侵评估中的应用价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2023, 14(2): 44-49. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.02.008.


[摘要] 目的 探讨术前3.0 T MRI检查评估乳腺癌患者中乳头乳晕复合体(nipple areola complex, NAC)受侵的应用价值。材料与方法 收集2019年11月至2022年1月期间术前进行乳腺MRI检查并接受手术治疗的原发性可手术乳腺癌患者179例。通过比较术前MRI和术后组织病理学检查结果,评估MRI征象判断NAC受侵的准确性。结果 179例乳腺癌患者中,NAC阳性组40例,NAC阴性139例。乳腺MRI上肿瘤距离乳头的距离≤0.75 cm、乳头回缩、存在连续强化征、乳头乳晕皮肤增厚、单侧乳头强化等征象对诊断NAC受侵有帮助(P<0.05)。通过绘制受试者工作特征曲线,肿瘤距离乳头的距离≤0.75 cm诊断NAC受侵的曲线下面积略高于后四个征象(0.862 vs. 0.739、0.800、0.696、0.711)。结论 乳腺MRI征象(肿瘤距离乳头的距离、乳头回缩、存在连续强化征、乳头乳晕皮肤增厚、单侧乳头强化)为术前无创性评估乳腺癌NAC受侵情况提供有效方法,可在乳腺癌术前提供更多具有价值的信息。
[Abstract] Objective Preoperative 3.0 T MRI was used to assess the value of nipple areola complex invasion in breast cancer patients.Materials and Methods Patients with primary operable breast cancer who underwent preoperative MRI examination and underwent surgical treatment from November 2019 to January 2022 were collected. The accuracy of MRI signs in judging the invasion of nipple areola complex (NAC) was evaluated by comparing the results of preoperative MRI and postoperative histopathology.Results There were 179 breast cancer patients, 40 were NAC positive groups, 139 were NAC negative groups. On the breast MRI the distance from tumor to nipple ≤0.75 cm, nipple retraction, tumor-to-NAC continuous enhancement sign, NAC skin thickening and unilateral nipple enhancement were helpful for the diagnosis of NAC invasion (P<0.05). By plotting receiver operator characteristic curve, the distance between the tumor and the nipple was ≤0.75 cm, and the area under the curve for the diagnosis of NAC invasion was higher than the last four signs (0.862 vs. 0.739, 0.800, 0.696, 0.711).Conclusions The MRI features of breast (the distance from tumor to nipple, nipple retraction, tumor-to-NAC continuous enhancement sign, NAC skin thickening and unilateral nipple enhancement) provide an effective method for non-invasive preoperative evaluation of the invasion of the nipple areola complex in breast cancer, which can provide more valuable information before breast cancer surgery.
[关键词] 乳腺癌;乳头乳晕复合体;肿瘤与乳头间的距离;连续强化征;磁共振成像
[Keywords] breast cancer;nipple areola complex;tumor nipple distance;continuous enhancement sign;magnetic resonance imaging

文洁 1   王猛 1   任雅 1   关剑 2   刘周 1   向露 1   罗德红 1, 3*  

1 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院深圳医院放射诊断科,深圳 518116

2 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院深圳医院病理科,深圳 518116

3 国家癌症中心/国家肿瘤临床医学研究中心/中国医学科学院北京协和医学院肿瘤医院影像诊断科,北京 100021

*通信作者:罗德红,E-mail:cjr.luodehong@vip.163.com

作者贡献声明::罗德红设计本研究的方案,对稿件重要内容进行了修改;文洁起草和撰写稿件,获取、分析或解释本研究的数据;王猛、任雅、关剑、刘周、向露获取、分析或解释本研究的数据,对稿件重要内容进行了修改。中国医学科学院肿瘤医院深圳医院放射诊断科获得深圳市高水平医院建设专项经费资助,文洁获得中国医学科学院肿瘤医院深圳医院院内科研课题资助。全体作者都同意发表最后的修改稿,同意对本研究的所有方面负责,确保本研究的准确性和诚信。


基金项目: 深圳市高水平医院建设专项经费 中国医学科学院肿瘤医院深圳医院院内科研课题 E010321005
收稿日期:2022-09-07
接受日期:2023-01-12
中图分类号:R445.2  R737.9 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.02.008
本文引用格式:文洁, 王猛, 任雅, 等. 3.0 T MRI在乳腺癌患者乳头乳晕复合体受侵评估中的应用价值[J]. 磁共振成像, 2023, 14(2): 44-49. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2023.02.008.

0 前言

       乳腺癌手术已经从破坏性转变为更加尊重腺体的解剖和生理完整性[1, 2, 3]。对于需要手术的乳腺癌患者来说,乳头乳晕复合体(nipple areola complex, NAC)是否保留在心理和美容方面是一个重要的问题[4, 5, 6]。保留乳头乳晕的乳房切除术(nipple-areola sparing mastectomy, NSM)因较高的肿瘤学安全性以及较好的美学效果,成为越来越多乳腺癌患者治疗或高患癌风险女性预防性切除的首选[7, 8, 9, 10]。NSM的绝对禁忌证是NAC浸润、佩吉特病、乳头血分泌物细胞学阳性、明显皮肤受累、炎性癌[11, 12, 13]。保存NAC有潜在的风险是癌灶残留、乳头隐匿性受累[11, 14]。术前准确评估乳腺癌NAC是否受侵是保证NSM手术肿瘤学安全的前提[15, 16]。乳腺MRI是评估NAC最敏感的成像方式,在癌症分期和高危筛查中都很重要[17]。部分研究[4, 15, 18]对MRI评估NAC侵犯的相关因素进行了分析报道,由于缺乏术前MRI判断NAC受侵的“金标准”,有研究[19]认为肿瘤到乳头距离(tumor nipple distance, TND)可以作为独立的预测指标,有研究[15]认为连续强化征在术前预测乳腺癌NAC隐匿性侵犯中具有较好的敏感度和特异度,但相关研究缺乏一致性和全面性,存在一定的争议。因此,本研究回顾性分析179例乳腺癌患者术前MRI资料,与手术切除后NAC病理结果对照,旨在更全面地综合评价多种不同的MRI征象(包括TND、乳头回缩、连续强化征、NAC皮肤增厚、单侧乳头强化)对评估NAC受侵的价值。为临床准确判断乳腺癌NAC受侵提供更好的依据,对于乳腺癌个体化手术方案的制订具有一定的指导意义。

1 材料与方法

1.1 研究对象

       本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,得到中国医学科学院肿瘤医院医学伦理委员会批准,免除受试者知情同意(批准文号:2020-116)。回顾性分析2019年11月至2022年1月中国医学科学院肿瘤医院深圳医院进行乳腺MRI检查的324例患者资料。纳入标准:(1)术前完成乳腺MRI检查(未经新辅助化疗、放疗或手术);(2)MRI检查后两周内进行乳腺单纯切除术或乳腺癌改良根治术;(3)术后病理证实为乳腺癌。排除标准:图像质量不佳,无法分析。经过筛选,共入组乳腺癌患者共179例,年龄30~75(53.89±8.76)岁,女177例,男2例。

1.2 MRI检查方法

       采用GE公司Discovery MR 750W 3.0 T超导MR扫描仪,8通道乳腺专用磁共振线圈,患者俯卧位扫描,双侧乳腺自然悬垂于乳腺专用线圈内。扫描序列及相关参数如下:轴位T1WI平扫不压脂序列(TR 537 ms,TE 6.3 ms,矩阵320×256,层厚5 mm,NEX 1)及T2WI压脂序列(TR 5230 ms,TE 85 ms,矩阵320×256,层厚 5 mm,NEX 1);矢状位T2压脂序列(TR 3259 ms,TE 102 ms,矩阵288×224,层厚4 mm,NEX 2)。动态增强扫描:注射对比剂Gd-DTPA(钆特酸葡胺注射液,江苏恒瑞医药公司),注射速率约2~3 mL/s,0.2 mL/kg计算剂量;采用3D横断位乳腺容积无间隔扫描技术进行扫描(TR/TE由机器自动设定,FOV 360 mm×360 mm,层厚=1.5 mm,每期扫描时间40~60 s,1期平扫,9期增强)。

1.3 图像分析

       影像学图像由两名分别具有5年及10年以上工作经验的乳腺放射学诊断医师在未知病理情况下进行分析,有争议共同协商解决。评估内容包括病变是否为多灶,TND即乳头底部中心点到肿瘤边缘的最短距离,乳头是否回缩,病变的强化方式(肿块样强化、非肿块样强化或两者皆有),连续强化征(MRI增强图像上指从乳腺内原发肿瘤至NAC之间有强化的区域将两者相连[15, 20])是否存在,乳头乳晕皮肤是否增厚(双侧对比),是否存在单侧乳头强化(双侧对比)。

1.4 病理指标

       所有患者术后病理获得NAC是否受累,受累者分为NAC阳性组,未受累者分为NAC阴性组。T分期、N分期通过查阅临床病历获取。患者术后均行病理学及免疫组化检查,查阅结果包括雌激素受体(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)、细胞增殖因子Ki-67表达情况。乳腺癌分子分型根据2017年St Gallen专家共识会议标准[21]进行判读,将乳腺癌分为Luminal A型、Luminal B型、HER-2过表达型及三阴性乳腺癌。

1.5 统计学处理

       使用SPSS 26.0软件包进行统计,计数资料间比较采用χ2检验,方差分析处理数据比较采用独立样本t检验,均以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。绘制受试者工作特征(receiver operator characteristic, ROC)曲线,通过计算曲线下面积(area under the curve, AUC)选出诊断效能最好的MRI诊断征象。

2 结果

2.1 一般资料

       179例患者中NAC阳性40例,NAC阴性139例。NAC阳性组乳腺癌患者的T分期较高,更易出现淋巴结转移,两组间T分期及N分期差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05)。而两组间病理类型、ER受体、PR受体、HER-2受体、Ki-67表达及不同的分子亚型间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)(表1)。

表1  NAC阳性组与NAC阴性组一般资料比较
Tab. 1  Comparison of general data between NAC positive group and NAC negative group

2.2 MRI表现

       NAC阳性组与NAC阴性组病变是否为多灶病变、强化方式(肿块样强化、非肿块样强化、两者均有)差异不具有统计学意义(P>0.05)。NAC阳性组肿瘤距离乳头的距离为(0.67±1.01)cm,NAC阴性组肿瘤距离乳头的距离为(2.39±1.41)cm,进行独立样本t检查,两者差异具有统计学意义(P<0.001),通过ROC分析,TND≤0.75 cm判断为NAC受累阈值,可以获得最佳敏感度75.00%及特异度89.93%。

       两组间TND、乳头是否回缩、连续强化征是否存在、乳头乳晕皮肤是否增厚、单侧乳头是否强化,差别具有统计学意义(P<0.05)(表2)。

表2  NAC阳性组与NAC阴性组MRI表现比较
Tab. 2  Comparison of MRI findings between NAC positive group and NAC negative group

2.3 不同MRI征象的诊断效能比较

       绘制ROC曲线,不同MRI征象诊断NAC受侵的AUC见图1。TND≤0.75 cm(图23)、乳头回缩、存在连续强化征(图4)、NAC皮肤增厚及单侧乳头强化(图2)判断为NAC受侵,其敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确度如表3

图1  MRI特征(TND、乳头回缩、连续强化征、NAC皮肤增厚、单侧乳头强化)的诊断效能对比,其曲线下面积分别为:0.862、0.739、0.800、0.696及0.711。ROC:受试者工作特征;TND:肿瘤距离乳头的距离;NAC:乳头乳晕复合体。
Fig. 1  The area under the curves (AUC) for various MRI features (tumor-nipple distance, nipple retraction, tumor-to-NAC continuous enhancement sign, nipple areola complex skin thickening, unilateral nipple enhancement) are 0.862, 0.739, 0.800, 0.696, and 0.711, respectively. ROC:receiver operator characteristic; TND: tumor nipple distance; NAC: nipple areola complex.
图2  女,51岁,术后病理:左侧乳腺浸润性癌,非特殊型,累及乳头。2A:MRI增强轴位图像显示右侧乳头未见明显强化;2B:MRI增强轴位图像显示左侧乳腺病变为形态不规则、边缘毛刺肿块,离乳头距离0 cm;2C:MRI增强后轴位图显示左侧乳头明显强化,左侧乳头乳晕区皮肤明显增厚,存在连续强化征;2D:H&E染色病理图(×10)。
Fig. 2  A 51 years old female with postoperative pathology confirmed invasive carcinoma of the left breast, non-specific type, involving the nipple. No obvious enhancement is shown on the axial enhanced MR images for the right nipple (2A). Axial enhanced MR images shows left breast lesion with irregular shape, spiculation, and zero distance from the nipple (2B). Posterior and axial enhanced MRI shows considerable enhancement in the left nipple, thickened skin in the area of the left nipple areola, and positive continuous enhancement sign (2C). H&E-stained pathology image (×10) (2D).
图3  女,50岁,假阳性病例,术后病理:右侧乳腺浸润性癌,非特殊型,伴高级别导管原位癌,未累及乳头。3A:MRI增强轴位图像显示右侧乳腺病变为叶段样分布非肿块样强化病变,离乳头距离0 cm,存在连续强化征;3B:H&E染色病理图(×10)示病变累及乳头下腺体组织,未累及乳头。
图4  女,65岁,术后病理:左侧乳腺浸润性癌,非特殊型,伴导管原位癌,累及乳头。4A为MRI增强轴位图像显示左侧乳腺病变呈肿块样强化,离乳头距离1.9 cm,病变与乳头间强化线状影,存在连续强化影;4B为H&E染色病理图(×10)。
Fig. 3  A 50-year-old female false positive case (postoperative pathology: invasive carcinoma of the right breast, non-special type, with high-grade ductal carcinoma in situ but no involvement of the nipple). Axial enhanced MR images shows non-mass-like enhanced lesion in the right breast with segmental distribution, zero distance from the nipple, and presence of tumor-to-NAC continuous enhancement sign (3A). H&E-stained pathology image (×10) shows the lesion involved the gland tissue under the nipple, but not the nipple (3B).
Fig. 4  A 65-year-old female case (postoperative pathology: invasive carcinoma of the left breast, non-specific, with ductal carcinoma in situ and involvement in the nipple). Axial enhanced MR images showed mass-like enhanced lesion in the left breast with distance of 1.9 cm away from the nipple, and presence of continuous enhancement between the lesion and the nipple (4A). H&E-stained pathology image (×10) (4B).
表3  NAC阳性MRI征象的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确度
Tab. 3  Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and accuracy of NAC positive MRI signs

3 讨论

       当乳腺癌NSM不可避免时,NSM被认为是一种提高女性整体生活质量的手术方式[22]。NSM的一个问题是侵袭性乳癌患者NAC受侵的肿瘤学安全性。在乳房切除手术中,大约10%~60%的乳腺癌妇女的乳头有意外恶性受侵[18]。因此术前评估NAC是否受侵具有重要的临床意义。由于乳房密度和操作者的依赖性,乳腺X线摄影和超声对NAC评估的敏感性有限[18],MRI有较高有软组织分辨率,因此术前MRI检查在评估符合NSM的乳腺癌患者中具有关键作用[23]。本研究通过回顾性分析179例乳癌癌术前MRI征象,判断不同征象NAC受侵的价值,结果显示MRI图像上TND≤0.75 cm、乳头回缩、存在连续强化征、乳头乳晕皮肤增厚及单侧乳头强化有助于判断乳腺癌的NAC受侵,对于乳腺癌手术方式的选择具有重要的临床意义。

3.1 TND对判断NAC受侵的价值

       杨后圃等[24]通过对1190例行乳腺癌标准NSM的病例进行研究,比较乳头异常组(54例)与无明显异常组(1136例)乳头浸润率差异,TND、T分期和N分期是乳头浸润的独立预测因子,结果表明肿瘤至乳头距离≤2 cm、T3~T4、N2~N3与隐匿性乳头浸润相关。与其结果相似,本研究中NAC阳性组与NAC阴性组两组间T分期及N分期差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05),NAC阳性组其T分期较高,N分期较高。TND是指乳头底部中心点到肿瘤边缘的最短距离[25],有研究[23]认为在MRI上,肿瘤与乳头间的距离是乳头受累、必要的计划性乳头保留NSM的最佳预测指标。研究[26]表明当肿瘤与乳头的距离大于或等于2 cm时,保留乳头NSM理所当然被认为是安全的,随着研究的深入,TND距离也有所缩减。赵坤等[19]研究107例乳腺癌患者,36例NAC阳性,71例NAC阴性,以TND=1.86 cm为判断NAC是否受侵的临界值,其敏感度75.0%,特异度88.7%。MARISCOTTI等[27]测试了TND阈值为5 mm、10 mm及15 mm,认为在10 mm时敏感度与特异度可达到最佳平衡,敏感度82%,特异度72%,准确度79%。在不同的研究中[19, 24, 26, 27]TND判断NAC受侵并没有绝对的标准阈值,随着研究的深入该标准不断发生变化,本研究中通过ROC分析,以TND=0.75 cm为判断为NAC受累的阈值,可以获得最佳敏感度(75.00%)及特异度(89.93%)。

3.2 乳头形态对判断NAC受侵的价值

       乳头的正常形态有外凸、扁平或内陷,乳头内陷不同于乳头回缩,前者更常见于对称性、生理性或先天性,而乳头回缩更常见于不对称性和后天性[18]。乳头回缩指的是部分乳头局部向内受牵拉,这可能涉及乳晕,也可能不涉及乳晕。乳腺癌浸润乳头时常造成乳头形态的改变,乳头回缩是NAC恶性侵犯的重要特征[28]。在赵坤等[19]研究中,乳头回缩对判断NAC是否受侵的敏感度和特异度分别为77.78%及67.61%,具有一定的提示意义。与研究[26, 28]结果大致一致,本研究中以乳头回缩判断NAC受侵敏感度较低(55.00%),特异度较好(92.81%)。

3.3 连续强化征对判断NAC受侵的价值

       连续强化征是指在增强MRI图像上评估,从乳腺内原发肿瘤至NAC之间有强化的区域将两者相连[15],其病理基础可能是肿瘤沿着导管或间质向NAC延伸所致[29]。刘壮盛等[15]对242例乳腺癌(47例NAC阳性,195例NAC阴性)的研究,利用MRI连续强化征诊断乳腺癌NAC隐匿性侵犯的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值及准确度分别为72.3%、94.4%、75.6%、93.4%及90.1%,该研究认为出现假阳性的病例的原因主要为NAC存在导管内增生性病变或导管内乳头状瘤。CHO等[20]研究403例患者中(43例为NAC受累),研究表明NAC的连续强化征、单侧NAC增强和NAC皮肤增厚是预测NAC受累的重要MRI发现,预测NAC受侵的敏感度、特异度、阳性预测值、阴性预测值和准确度分别为60.5%、87.5%、36.6%、94.9%和84.6%。与文献[15, 19]大致一致,本研究中连续强化征诊断NAC受侵的敏感度为65.00%,特异度为94.96%,本研究中出现连续强化征假阳性的部分患者是由于病变内有导管原位癌成份,病变向乳头方向延伸。

3.4 乳头乳晕皮肤增厚及单侧乳头强化对NAC受侵的价值

       单侧乳头异常强化伴乳头乳晕皮肤增厚是NAC受侵的重要因素。LIAO等[30]对714例乳腺癌(56例NAC阳性,648例NAC阴性)在多变量分析中发现,MRI上单侧乳头强化(优势比 = 4.86,95%可信区间1.76~13.80,P≤0.01)是NAC受累的最重要独立预测因子。有研究[15]通过对107例乳腺癌患者(36例NAC阳性,71例NAC阴性)的研究发现,以用NAC明显强化判断NAC受侵的敏感度和特异度分别为86.11%及83.10%。MOON等[31]在对NAC受侵的病理诊断进行多元逻辑回归分析时发现,NAC强化和NAC皮肤厚度是与NAC侵袭相关的两个最重要因素(P<0.001),研究表明NAC增厚的皮肤和NAC实质区域不均匀和弥漫性增强的MR图像表明NAC侵犯。本研究对于179例乳腺癌患者的MRI征象分析中,同样表明单侧NAC皮肤增厚及单侧乳头强化对于诊断NAC受侵具有较好的诊断效能。

3.5 本研究的局限性

       本研究的不足之处在于为单中心研究,由于乳腺癌NAC受侵发生率低,本组研究中NAC阳性组与阴性组病例数不均衡,待扩大样本量作进一步探讨。

4 结论

       总之,MRI是术前评估NAC是否受侵的一种有效方法,乳腺MRI上肿瘤距离乳头的距离≤0.75 cm、乳头回缩、存在连续强化征、乳头乳晕皮肤增厚、单侧乳头强化,对于诊断NAC受侵具有帮助,有助于乳腺癌手术方式的确定。

[1]
METERE A, FABIANI E, LONARDO M T, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy long-term outcomes: early and late complications[J/OL]. Medicina (Kaunas), 2020, 56(4): 166 [2022-09-06]. https://www.mdpi.com/1648-9144/56/4/166. DOI: 10.3390/medicina56040166.
[2]
FITZAL F, BOLLIGER M, DUNKLER D, et al. Retrospective, multicenter analysis comparing conventional with oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: oncological and surgical outcomes in women with high-risk breast cancer from the OPBC-01/iTOP2 study[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2022, 29(2): 1061-1070. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-10809-1.
[3]
ROCCO N, CATANUTO G, CINQUINI M, et al. Should oncoplastic breast conserving surgery be used for the treatment of early stage breast cancer? Using the GRADE approach for development of clinical recommendations[J]. Breast, 2021, 57: 25-35. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.013.
[4]
LIM S, PARK G, CHOI H J, et al. Use of preoperative mammography, ultrasonography, and MRI to predict nipple areolar complex involvement in breast cancer[J/OL]. Br J Radiol, 2019, 92(1102): 20190074 [2022-09-06]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6774590. DOI: 10.1259/bjr.20190074.
[5]
KAIDAR-PERSON O, OFFERSEN B V, BOERSMA L J, et al. A multidisciplinary view of mastectomy and breast reconstruction: understanding the challenges[J]. Breast, 2021, 56: 42-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2021.02.004.
[6]
LIU J, YU H, HE Y, et al. Feasibility of modified radical mastectomy with nipple-areola preservation combined with stage I prosthesis implantation using air cavity-free suspension hook in patients with breast cancer[J/OL]. World J Surg Oncol. 2021,19(1):108 [2022-09-06]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33838675. DOI: 10.1186/s12957-021-02220-7.
[7]
AGHA R A, OMRAN Y AL, WELLSTEAD G, et al. Systematic review of therapeutic nipple-sparing versus skin-sparing mastectomy[J]. BJS Open, 2019, 3(2): 135-145. DOI: 10.1002/bjs5.50119.
[8]
WEBER W P, SHAW J, PUSIC A, et al. Oncoplastic breast consortium recommendations for mastectomy and whole breast reconstruction in the setting of post-mastectomy radiation therapy[J]. Breast, 2022, 63: 123-139. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2022.03.008.
[9]
WEBER W P, HAUG M, KURZEDER C, et al. Oncoplastic Breast Consortium consensus conference on nipple-sparing mastectomy[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2018, 172(3): 523-537. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-018-4937-1.
[10]
FU M D, CHEN Q T, ZENG L Y, et al. Prognosis comparison between nipple-sparing mastectomy and total mastectomy in breast cancer: a case-control study after propensity score matching[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2022, 29(4): 2221-2230. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-11044-4.
[11]
MOTA B S, RIERA R, RICCI M D, et al. Nipple- and areola-sparing mastectomy for the treatment of breast cancer[J/OL]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2016, 11(11): CD008932 [2022-09-06]. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5868722. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008932.pub3.
[12]
VALERO M G, MOO T A, MUHSEN S, et al. Use of bilateral prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with high risk of breast cancer[J]. Br J Surg, 2020, 107(10): 1307-1312. DOI: 10.1002/bjs.11616.
[13]
CHUNG J H, HWANG Y J, JUNG S P, et al. Immediate reconstruction of large ptotic breasts following vertical reduction pattern nipple-sparing mastectomy[J]. J Breast Cancer, 2021, 24(3): 289-300. DOI: 10.4048/jbc.2021.24.e26.
[14]
ALTOMARE V, ORSARIA P, GRASSO A, et al. Preoperative ultrasound-guided sub-areolar biopsy in predicting occult nipple involvement in breast cancer patients: proposal for a methodological approach[J]. In Vivo, 2022, 36(2): 839-847. DOI: 10.21873/invivo.12771.
[15]
刘壮盛, 赖婵, 李青, 等. MRI连续强化征预测乳腺癌乳头乳晕复合体隐匿性侵犯的价值[J]. 影像诊断与介入放射学, 2019, 28(6): 422-426. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-8001.2019.06.004.
LIU Z S, LAI C, LI Q, et al. Continuous MRI enhancement for prediction of occult nipple-areola complex involvement in breast cancer[J]. Diagn Imaging Interv Radiol, 2019, 28(6): 422-426. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1005-8001.2019.06.004.
[16]
RIIS M. Modern surgical treatment of breast cancer[J]. Ann Med Surg, 2020, 56: 95-107. DOI: 10.1016/j.amsu.2020.06.016.
[17]
周艺默, 张立娜. 影像学判断乳头乳晕复合体受累的研究进展[J]. 磁共振成像, 2022, 13(2): 152-154, 166. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.02.038.
ZHOU Y M, ZHANG L N. Advances in imaging studies of nipple-areola complex involvement[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2022, 13(2): 152-154, 166. DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2022.02.038.
[18]
GAO Y M, BRACHTEL E F, HERNANDEZ O, et al. An analysis of nipple enhancement at breast MRI with radiologic-pathologic correlation[J]. RadioGraphics, 2019, 39(1): 10-27. DOI: 10.1148/rg.2019180039.
[19]
赵坤, 马春忠, 刘嘉, 等. MRI评估乳腺癌患者乳头-乳晕复合体受累情况的临床应用[J]. 临床放射学杂志, 2019, 38(10): 1829-1833. DOI: 10.13437/j.cnki.jcr.2019.10.007.
ZHAO K, MA C Z, LIU J, et al. Clinical application of MRI in evaluation of nipple areola complex involvement in breast cancer patients[J]. J Clin Radiol, 2019, 38(10): 1829-1833. DOI: 10.13437/j.cnki.jcr.2019.10.007.
[20]
CHO J, CHUNG J, CHA E S, et al. Can preoperative 3-T MRI predict nipple-areolar complex involvement in patients with breast cancer?[J]. Clin Imaging, 2016, 40(1): 119-124. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2015.08.002.
[21]
CURIGLIANO G, BURSTEIN H J, WINER E P, et al. De-escalating and escalating treatments for early-stage breast cancer: the St. Gallen International Expert Consensus Conference on the Primary Therapy of Early Breast Cancer 2017[J]. Ann Oncol, 2017, 28(8): 1700-1712. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx308.
[22]
ROSSI C, MINGOZZI M, CURCIO A, et al. Nipple areola complex sparing mastectomy[J]. Gland Surg, 2015, 4(6): 528-540. DOI: 10.3978/j.issn.2227-684X.2015.04.12.
[23]
D'ALONZO M, MARTINCICH L, FENOGLIO A, et al. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: external validation of a three-dimensional automated method to predict nipple occult tumour involvement on preoperative breast MRI[J]. Eur Radiol Exp, 2019, 3(1): 31 [2022-09-06]. https://eurradiolexp.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s41747-019-0108-3. DOI: 10.1186/s41747-019-0108-3.
[24]
杨后圃, 王伟琦, 王殊, 等. 1190例乳腺癌患者乳头浸润相关因素分析[J]. 中国肿瘤临床, 2016, 43(2): 67-71. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2016.02.263.
YANG H P, WANG W Q, WANG S, et al. Nipple involvement in early breast cancer: retrospective analysis of 1, 190 consecutive mastectomy specimens[J]. Chin J Clin Oncol, 2016, 43(2): 67-71. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-8179.2016.02.263.
[25]
黄伟玲, 李玺. 乳腺癌中乳头乳晕复合体受侵犯的相关预测因素[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2020, 14(6): 366-370 [2022-09-06]. https://zhrxbzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/CN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2020.06.008. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2020.06.008.
HUANG W L, LI X. Predictors of nipple-areola complex invasion in breast cancer[J/OL]. Chin J Breast Dis Electron Ed, 2020, 14(6): 366-370 [2022-09-06]. https://zhrxbzz.cma-cmc.com.cn/CN/10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2020.06.008. DOI: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2020.06.008.
[26]
JADEJA P, HA R, ROHDE C, et al. Expanding the criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with poor prognostic features[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2018, 18(3): 229-233. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2017.08.010.
[27]
MARISCOTTI G, DURANDO M, HOUSSAMI N, et al. Preoperative MRI evaluation of lesion-nipple distance in breast cancer patients: thresholds for predicting occult nipple-areola complex involvement[J]. Clin Radiol, 2018, 73(8): 735-743. DOI: 10.1016/j.crad.2018.03.008.
[28]
HERNANDEZ YENTY Q M, JURGENS W M, VAN ZUIJLEN P P M, et al. Treatment of the benign inverted nipple: a systematic review and recommendations for future therapy[J]. Breast, 2016, 29: 82-89. DOI: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.07.011.
[29]
SAKAMOTO N, TOZAKI M, HOSHI K, et al. Is MRI useful for the prediction of nipple involvement?[J]. Breast Cancer, 2013, 20(4): 316-322. DOI: 10.1007/s12282-012-0338-1.
[30]
LIAO C Y, WU Y T, WU W P, et al. Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in predicting malignant invasion of the nipple-areolar complex: potential predictors and reliability between inter-observers[J/OL]. Medicine (Baltimore), 2017, 96(28): e7170 [2022-09-06]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28700466. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000007170.
[31]
MOON J Y, CHANG Y W, LEE E H, et al. Malignant invasion of the nipple-areolar complex of the breast: usefulness of breast MRI[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2013, 201(2): 448-455. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9186.

上一篇 IVIM联合动态增强MRI在非肿块强化腺病与乳腺癌中的鉴别诊断价值
下一篇 T2 mapping影像组学特征鉴别乳腺病灶良恶性的临床应用初探
  
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