分享:
分享到微信朋友圈
X
特别关注
乳腺MRI图像特征与保乳手术可行性的相关性分析
刘梁生 刘佩芳 马文娟 张宇 李艳博 王嘉慧 路红

Cite this article as: LIU L S, LIU P F, MA W J, et al. Correlation analysis of MRI features of breast and feasibility of breast conserving surgery[J]. Chin J Magn Reson Imaging, 2024, 15(1): 43-47, 60.本文引用格式:刘梁生, 刘佩芳, 马文娟, 等. 乳腺MRI图像特征与保乳手术可行性的相关性分析[J]. 磁共振成像, 2024, 15(1): 43-47, 60. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.007.


[摘要] 目的 探讨乳腺癌保乳手术(breast conserving surgery, BCS)成功及失败相关的术前MRI影像特征和临床病理特征,为BCS可行性分析提供影像学依据。材料与方法 回顾性分析2018年3月至2021年5月行BCS且术前行MRI检查的患者资料,并根据是否最终改行全乳切除术的手术结果分为失败组和成功组。收集的影像特征包括:病灶大小、左右侧、是否肿块、深度、纤维腺体组织量、是否对称、相关征象、背景实质强化(background parenchymal enhancement, BPE)、时间强度曲线、T1信号以及T2信号。临床病理特征包括:患者年龄、人表皮生长因子受体2(human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, HER-2)、雌激素受体(estrogen receptor, ER)、孕激素受体(progesterone receptor, PR)状态及增殖指数Ki-67水平、分子分型以及是否导管内癌。采用单因素及多因素logistic回归对两组间的影像特征及临床病理特征进行分析,以P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。结果 BCS失败和成功组的样本量分别为47例和91例。单因素及多因素logistic回归分析显示BPE在两组间差异有统计学意义。使用BPE极少强化作为参考,它与BPE轻度强化之间差异没有统计学意义[优势比(odds ratio, OR)=0.317,95%置信区间(confidence interval, CI):0.374~6.552,P=0.654]。它与中度强化之间差异具有统计学意义(OR=1.674,95% CI:1.392~26.420,P=0.022)和BPE重度增强(OR=1.569,95% CI:1.128~25.809,P=0.044)。然而,其他临床病理和影像学特征在BCS成功组与失败组间差异无统计学意义。结论 BPE与BCS成功与否具有一定相关性,更高的BPE程度提示更大的BCS失败可能性,BPE可能作为术前MRI评估乳腺癌BCS可行性分析的有效指标,有助于医生制订准确的手术策略。
[Abstract] Objective To investigate the preoperative MRI features and clinicopathological features associated with breast conserving surgery (BCS) failure and success.Materials and Methods The data of patients who planned to undergo BCS and underwent preoperative MRI examination from March 2018 to May 2021 were retrospectively analyzed, and divided into failure group and success group according to whether convert to mastectomy. Image features collected included: size, right and left side, whether the mass was a mass, depth, amount of fibroglandular tissue, whether it was symmetrical, associated signs, background parenchymal enhancement (BPE), temporal intensity profile, T1 signal, and T2 signal. Clinicopathological features included patient age, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2), estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), proliferation-marker Ki-67, molecular subtype, and intraductal carcinoma or not. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression were used to analyze the imaging features and clinicopathological features between the two groups, and differences were considered statistically significant at P<0.05.Results The sample sizes of the BCS failure and success groups were 47 and 91 respectively. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BPE was significantly different between the two groups. Using BPE minimal reinforcement as a reference, there was no statistical difference between it and BPE mild reinforcement [dominance ratio (OR)=0.317, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.374-6.552, P=0.654] There was a statistical difference between it and moderate enhancement (OR=1.674, 95% CI: 1.392-26.420, P=0.022) and heavy enhancement of BPE (OR=1.569, 95% CI: 1.128-25.809, P=0.044). However, there was no significant difference in other clinicopathological and imaging features between failure group and success group.Conclusions BPE has a certain correlation with the success of BCS, higher BPE levels suggest a greater likelihood of BCS failure, which may be used as an effective indicator for the feasibility analysis of preoperative MRI evaluation of BCS and the formulation of accurate surgical strategies.
[关键词] 癌症;乳腺癌;保乳手术;影像特征;磁共振成像
[Keywords] cancer;breast cancer;breast conserving surgery;image features;magnetic resonance imaging

刘梁生    刘佩芳    马文娟    张宇    李艳博    王嘉慧    路红 *  

天津医科大学肿瘤医院乳腺影像诊断科,国家恶性肿瘤临床医学研究中心,天津市肿瘤防治重点实验室,天津市恶性肿瘤临床医学研究中心,乳腺癌防治教育部重点实验室,天津 300060

通信作者:路红,E-mail:luhong_tianjin@163.com

作者贡献声明::路红设计本研究的方案,对稿件重要内容进行了修改;刘梁生起草和撰写稿件,获取、分析并解释本研究的数据;刘佩芳、马文娟、张宇、李艳博、王嘉慧获取及分析本研究的数据,对稿件内容进行了修改;路红获得国家自然科学基金项目(编号:82172025)资金资助,马文娟获得国家自然科学基金项目(编号:81801781、82072004)资金资助,刘梁生获得天津医科大学肿瘤医院院级课题资金资助。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: 国家自然科学基金项目 82172025,81801781,82072004 天津医科大学肿瘤医院院级课题 Y1802 天津市医学重点学科(专科)建设项目 TJYXZDXK-009A
收稿日期:2023-07-13
接受日期:2023-12-29
中图分类号:R445.2  R737.9 
文献标识码:A
DOI: 10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.007
本文引用格式:刘梁生, 刘佩芳, 马文娟, 等. 乳腺MRI图像特征与保乳手术可行性的相关性分析[J]. 磁共振成像, 2024, 15(1): 43-47, 60. DOI:10.12015/issn.1674-8034.2024.01.007.

0 引言

       乳腺癌是我国女性发病率最高的恶性肿瘤,且发病率每年呈上升趋势[1, 2],严重威胁女性健康。保乳手术(breast conserving surgery, BCS)在完整切除肿瘤的同时保持满意的乳房形态,是早期乳腺癌的首选治疗方法。研究表明,接受保乳手术治疗(联合辅助放疗)的乳腺癌女性患者的生存率与全乳切除术相似[3, 4, 5, 6]。随着我国早期乳腺癌诊断率的不断提高和健康意识的改变,BCS的需求日益增加,但并非所有的行BCS的患者都可以成功地保留患侧乳房,有15%~30%的BCS患者手术切缘为阳性[7, 8, 9],其中有一部分患者很可能由于二次手术切缘阳性而改行全乳全切术,这不仅增加了医疗成本和增加患者手术次数,保留乳房失败也给患者带来巨大的心理负担。因此,术前准确预测BCS的可行性对患者治疗至关重要,也是急需解决的问题。

       目前,外科医生主要根据超声、乳腺X线及MRI等影像学检查结果来判断BCS是否可行[10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15],相比乳腺X线及超声等其他检查方式,MRI具有高敏感性、软组织成像及多参数成像等优势,也使其成为与BCS相关研究最多的成像技术,目前已有多项研究结果显示非肿块性病变、病灶大小、多灶性病变以及背景实质强化(background parenchymal enhancement, BPE)等MRI影像特征与BCS切缘阳性相关[16, 17, 18, 19, 20],但现有的研究都是局限于BCS切缘阳性或阴性,而BCS最终的手术结果,即BCS成功或失败与MRI影像特征的相关研究未见报道。因此,本研究提出探索与BCS成功及失败相关的术前MRI影像特征,为术前准确分析BCS可行性提供影像学依据。

1 材料与方法

1.1 研究对象

       本研究遵守《赫尔辛基宣言》,经天津医科大学肿瘤医院伦理委员会批准,免除受试者知情同意,批准文号:Ek2018125。回顾性分析天津医科大学肿瘤医院2018年3月至2021年5月期间的保乳手术患者,纳入标准:(1)有组织病理学证实的乳腺癌;(2)所有患者均符合中国抗癌协会乳腺癌诊治指南与规范行保乳手术的条件,并接受保乳手术;(3)有术前MRI检查;(4)能获得患者的临床信息。排除标准:(1)缺乏完整治疗方案信息、病理结果或影像资料的患者;(2)无术前1个月内MRI检查或术前接受新辅助治疗的患者;(3)图像中病变无法准确分割的患者;(4)发生远处转移。保乳手术失败的定义为由于术中冷冻切片病理学确定的最终切缘阳性,从开始的保乳术改行全乳切除术。

       对术中切缘和冰冻切片进行分析以评估所有患者的术中切缘,由病理学家在显微镜下评估肿瘤边缘,阳性切缘定义为在手术边缘或外周边缘1 mm处存在癌细胞。第一次BCS的术中冰冻病理显示切缘如为阳性,则需进行二次扩切手术;如二次扩切的最终切缘仍为阳性,则需改行全乳切除术,即BCS失败;如第一次BCS或二次扩切手术切缘为阴性,则无需改行全乳切除术,即BCS成功。

1.2 研究方法

1.2.1 检查仪器

       所有图像均使用美国GE Hdxt Echo 1.5 T MR扫描仪或GE Discovery 750 3.0 T MR扫描仪取得。采用乳腺专用8通道相控表面线圈。患者取俯卧位,双乳自然下垂于线圈中。平扫采用横轴位快速自旋回波(fast spin echo, FSE)T1WI序列(TR 622 ms, TE 10 ms)及横轴位压脂T2WI序列(TR 6 330 ms, TE 68 ms),FOV 38.8 cm×31 cm,层厚4.5 mm,层间距0.5 mm,矩阵384×224,激励次数2。动态增强检查采用乳腺优化的并行采集三维快速梯度回波序列双侧乳腺矢状面容积成像技术(volume imaging for breast assessment, VIBRANT),TR 4.1 ms,TE 2.7 ms,翻转角15°,矩阵256×128,FOV 26 cm×26 cm,层厚1.8 mm,激励次数1。在注射对比剂前先扫蒙片,然后经肘静脉用高压注射器(SinoPower-D,深圳圣诺医疗设备股份有限公司)注射对比剂Gd-DTPA(Magnevist,德国拜耳先灵制药),剂量0.2 mL/kg,速率为2.0 mL/s,之后立即以相同速率注射等量生理盐水,即刻连续扫描5期,单期扫描时间60~100 s。

1.2.2 影像特征提取

       从FSE T1WI、压脂T2WI序列及VIBRANT序列动态增强前及增强后第一期序列中提取语义特征,包括病灶大小、左右侧、是否肿块、深度、纤维腺体组织量、是否对称、相关征象、BPE、时间强度曲线、T1信号以及T2信号。所有图像由一名具有20余年乳腺MRI诊断经验的放射科主任医师进行分析描述。

1.2.3 临床病理特征

       通过回顾患者病理报告,获得人表皮生长因子受体2(human epidermal growth factor receptor 2, HER-2)、雌激素受体(estrogen receptor, ER)、孕激素受体(progesterone receptor, PR)状态及Ki-67水平。如果免疫染色细胞数高于10%,则认为肿瘤ER或PR阳性。通过苏木精-伊红(hematoxylin-eosin, HE)染色(至少3+染色)证实HER-2阳性。Ki-67阳性定义为免疫染色细胞至少14%。年龄、分子分型和是否导管内癌的信息是从患者的医疗记录中获得的。

1.3 统计学方法

       应用R软件(version 3.0.1,http://www.Rproject.org)进行统计学分析。计量资料首先使用K-S正态性检验。正态分布数据以均数±标准差表示,两组间差异比较采用独立样本t检验。非正态分布数据以中位数与四分位数MP25,P75)表示,两组间差异比较采用独立样本秩和检验,以P<0.05为差异具有统计学意义。

2 结果

2.1 临床病理特征及MRI影像特征

       共有138名患者符合纳入标准,并纳入本研究。BCS失败组和成功组的样本量分别为47例(年龄27~64岁)和91例(年龄27~69岁)手术标本的最终组织病理学结果显示浸润性导管癌133例,导管内癌5例。两组的临床病理及影像特征分布如表1所示,保乳成功与失败的MRI 图像见图1

图1  保乳成功与失败患者的MRI图像。1A:女,52岁,病理为左乳浸润性导管癌,最终保乳成功,背景实质极少强化的肿块型乳腺癌的MRI强化图像;1B:女,41岁,病理为左乳浸润性导管癌,最终保乳失败,背景实质重度强化的非肿块型乳腺癌的MRI强化图像。
Fig. 1  MRI images of successful and failed breast conserving surgery (BCS). 1A: A 52-year-old woman with invasive ductal carcinoma of the left breast and successful BCS. MRI images of a mass breast cancer with minimal background parenchymal enhancement. 1B: A 41-year-old woman with invasive ductal carcinoma of the left breast and failed BCS. MRI images of a non-mass breast cancer with marked background parenchymal enhancement.
表1  BCS成功与失败组临床病理特征和MRI影像学特征
Tab. 1  Clinicopathological and MRI imaging characteristics of successful and failed BCS groups

2.2 BCS成功组及失败组的临床病理和MRI影像学特征统计学分析

       表2显示了相关的临床病理和影像学特征的单因素及多因素logistic回归分析结果。单因素及多因素logistic回归分析显示BPE在两组间的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。使用BPE极少强化作为参考,它与BPE轻度强化之间差异无统计学意义[优势比(odds ratio, OR)=0.317,95%置信区间(confidence interval, CI):0.374~6.552,P=0.654]。它与中度强化之间差异具有统计学意义(OR=1.674,95% CI:1.392~26.420,P=0.022)和BPE重度增强(OR=1.569,95% CI:1.128~25.809,P=0.044)。然而,其他临床病理和影像学特征在BCS成功与失败两组间差异无统计学意义。

表2  BCS成功组和失败组临床病理和MRI影像学特征单因素及多因素logistic回归分析
Tab. 2  Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis of clinicopathological and MRI imaging features of successful and failed BCS groups

3 讨论

       本研究回顾性分析了BCS最终保乳成功及失败患者的术前MRI图像特征及病理学特征,结果显示MRI图像特征中极少BPE与中度及重度BPE之间差异有统计学意义,表明术前MRI可以为乳腺癌BCS术前可行性分析提供影像学指标,为医生为患者制订更合适的手术方案提供依据。

3.1 MRI对BCS的作用及研究现状

       由于MRI的高敏感性及软组织成像方面的优势,MRI现已逐渐成为乳腺肿瘤尤其是乳腺癌术前检查的必不可少的一环,与未进行MRI检查的患者相比,MRI表现正常或活检为良性的患者实际上选择乳房肿瘤切除术概率更高(66%和62%),一些考虑行乳房全切术的患者可能根据MRI结果而选择了乳房肿瘤切除术[21, 22, 23]。MRI在乳腺癌BCS方面的作用,目前也是该领域的研究热点[24, 25, 26],但现有的研究报道都是基于BCS切缘阳性或阴性与MRI特征或临床特征的相关性研究[27, 28, 29, 30],并且多个结果显示术前MRI在降低BCS乳腺癌患者切缘阳性率方面的作用仍存在争议[31, 32, 33]。本研究属首次提出基于BCS最终手术结果分析术前MRI的影像特征及病理学特征的研究,探索术前信息与手术结果的关联性,此前并无相关研究报道。

       YOON等[34]的研究显示非肿块病变、多灶性病变、腋下淋巴结转移及肿瘤大小与乳腺癌BCS切缘阳性具有相关性。KANG等[35]的研究结果也得到类似的结论,表明非肿块性病变与切缘阳性正相关,其中呈段性分布的非肿块性病变与切缘阳性具有强相关性,同时该研究亦表明乳腺癌组织病理学特征与切缘阳性并无相关性。而本研究结果显示,除BPE外,其他MRI影像特征和组织病理学特征与BCS保乳结果之间并无相关性,其可能是分组标准的差异导致的,因此,本研究采用最后术式的二次手术切缘阳性及阴性作为分组标准,而其他相关研究都是以第一次BCS切缘阳性或阴性作为标准。

3.2 BPE和BCS切缘相关性

       BPE是指MRI增强扫描时正常的纤维腺乳腺组织出现的不同程度的增强,其增强程度个体化差异较大,最初被认为可能会降低乳房MRI的敏感性,但最近的研究表明,BPE水平与乳腺癌的风险和治疗结果等具有很强的关联性,其作为一个乳腺癌的诊断、评估和治疗反应预测的可靠影像学特征也是越来越被认可[36]。NGUYEN等[37]的研究显示,从MRI图像计算的定量BPE是一种新兴的成像生物标志物,可作为新辅助治疗早期反应的指标。RELLA等[38]研究表明,BPE的降低可能是新辅助化疗期间肿瘤反应丧失的早期预测指标,可能为新辅助化疗提供有用的临床信息。GRIMM等[39]的研究显示,BPE的升高与女性未来患乳腺癌的风险增加有关,轻度、中度或重度BPE的女性患乳腺癌的可能性是极少BPE女性的2.5倍。BAE等[26]在一项与浸润性导管癌患者的BCS阳性切缘相关的术前乳腺MRI影像特征研究中显示,非肿块性强化病变中更强的BPE是BCS阳性切缘的独立预测因子,KANG等[35]的研究显示,较强BPE与BCS阳性切缘相关。以上研究均表明BPE的升高与降低,与肿瘤的生成、消退以及肿瘤周围组织受侵程度可能存在一定关联,可作为一种新的潜在生物标志物,为乳腺癌治疗方案的制订提供信息。本研究结果表明,BPE的升高是BCS切缘阳性从而导致保乳失败的危险因素,与BAE等[26]及KANG等[35]的研究结果相对一致。虽然有一项研究显示BPE升高对浸润性小叶癌再手术率并无影响[40],但这些结果的差异可能是由于不同数据集差异造成的。

3.3 本研究的局限性

       本研究存在一定的局限性:首先,本研究是一项在限定时间内进行的单机构回顾性研究,我们无法控制接受术前MRI的女性与未接受BCS的女性之间潜在的选择偏倚;其次,本研究使用来自不同场强(1.5 T和3.0 T)的MRI扫描数据,这可能会使结果产生一定程度的偏倚;第三,并非每位乳腺癌患者在手术前都进行了活检,因此术前活检的病理结果未包括在本研究中。

4 结论

       综上所述,乳腺癌术前MRI图像中BPE程度与BCS成功与否具有一定相关性,更高的BPE程度提示更大的BCS失败可能性,BPE可能作为术前MRI评估乳腺癌BCS可行性分析的有效指标,帮助医生制订准确的手术策略。在未来的研究中,我们计划与其他医疗机构和影像中心合作以获取更大的样本量和数据量,并采用影像组学方法对图像进行定量分析,建立一个基于术前MRI评估乳腺癌BCS可行性的有效预测模型。

[1]
VERONESI U, BOYLE P, GOLDHIRSCH A, et al. Breast cancer[J]. Lancet, 2005, 365(9472): 1727-1741. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66546-4.
[2]
CHODOSH L A. Breast cancer: current state and future promise[J/OL]. Breast Cancer Res, 2011, 13(6): 113 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22071145/. DOI: 10.1186/bcr3045.
[3]
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.
[4]
ROSSI L, MAZZARA C, PAGANI O. Diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer in young women[J/OL]. Curr Treat Options Oncol, 2019, 20(12): 86 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31776799/. DOI: 10.1007/s11864-019-0685-7.
[5]
KRISHNA K L, SRINATH B S, SANTOSH D, et al. A comparative study of perioperative techniques to attain negative margins and spare healthy breast tissue in breast conserving surgery[J]. Breast Dis, 2020, 39(3/4): 127-135. DOI: 10.3233/BD-200443.
[6]
MARTINEZ C, METERISSIAN S, SAIDI A, et al. Targeted intraoperative radiation therapy during breast-conserving surgery for patients with early stage breast cancer: a phase II single center prospective trial[J/OL]. Adv Radiat Oncol, 2023, 8(5): 101236 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37408681/. DOI: 10.1016/j.adro.2023.101236.
[7]
KACZMARSKI K, WANG P Q, GILMORE R, et al. Surgeon re-excision rates after breast-conserving surgery: a measure of low-value care[J/OL]. J Am Coll Surg, 2019, 228(4): 504-512.e2 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30703538/. DOI: 10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2018.12.043.
[8]
CHAGPAR A B, KILLELEA B K, TSANGARIS T N, et al. A randomized, controlled trial of cavity shave margins in breast cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2015, 373(6): 503-510. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504473.
[9]
CORSI F, SORRENTINO L, BOSSI D, et al. Preoperative localization and surgical margins in conservative breast surgery[J/OL]. Int J Surg Oncol, 2013, 2013: 793819 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23986868/. DOI: 10.1155/2013/793819.
[10]
MOON W K, NOH D Y, IM J G. Multifocal, multicentric, and contralateral breast cancers: bilateral whole-breast US in the preoperative evaluation of patients[J]. Radiology, 2002, 224(2): 569-576. DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2242011215.
[11]
ANDO T, ITO Y, IDO M, et al. Pre-operative planning using real-time virtual sonography, an MRI/ultrasound image fusion technique, for breast-conserving surgery in patients with non-mass enhancement on breast MRI: a preliminary study[J]. Ultrasound Med Biol, 2018, 44(7): 1364-1370. DOI: 10.1016/j.ultrasmedbio.2018.03.001.
[12]
GOMMERS J J J, DUIJM L E M, BULT P, et al. The impact of preoperative breast MRI on surgical margin status in breast cancer patients recalled at biennial screening mammography: an observational cohort study[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2021, 28(11): 5929-5938. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-021-09868-1.
[13]
GOH Y, CHOU C P, CHAN C W, et al. Impact of contrast-enhanced mammography in surgical management of breast cancers for women with dense breasts: a dual-center, multi-disciplinary study in Asia[J]. Eur Radiol, 2022, 32(12): 8226-8237. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-022-08906-0.
[14]
ÅHSBERG K, GARDFJELL A, NIMEUS E, et al. The PROCEM study protocol: added value of preoperative contrast-enhanced mammography in staging of malignant breast lesions-a prospective randomized multicenter study[J/OL]. BMC Cancer, 2021, 21(1): 1115 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34663236/. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08832-2.
[15]
LOBBES M B I, HEUTS E M, MOOSSDORFF M, et al. Contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) versus magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for staging of breast cancer: the pro CEM perspective[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2021, 142: 109883 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34358810/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2021.109883.
[16]
FAERMANN R, SPERBER F, SCHNEEBAUM S, et al. Tumor-to-breast volume ratio as measured on MRI: a possible predictor of breast-conserving surgery versus mastectomy[J]. Isr Med Assoc J, 2014, 16(2): 101-105.
[17]
STREETER S S, ZUURBIER R A, DIFLORIO-ALEXANDER R M, et al. Breast-conserving surgery margin guidance using micro-computed tomography: challenges when imaging radiodense resection specimens[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2023, 30(7): 4097-4108. DOI: 10.1245/s10434-023-13364-z.
[18]
WEAVER O, YANG W. Imaging of breast cancers with predilection for nonmass pattern of growth: invasive lobular carcinoma and DCIS-does imaging capture it all?[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2020, 215(6): 1504-1511. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.19.22027.
[19]
COZZI A, DI LEO G, HOUSSAMI N, et al. Screening and diagnostic breast MRI: how do they impact surgical treatment? Insights from the MIPA study[J]. Eur Radiol, 2023, 33(9): 6213-6225. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-09600-5.
[20]
GOTO M, NAKANO S, SAITO M, et al. Evaluation of an MRI/US fusion technique for the detection of non-mass enhancement of breast lesions detected by MRI yet occult on conventional B-mode second-look US[J]. J Med Ultrason, 2022, 49(2): 269-278. DOI: 10.1007/s10396-021-01175-2.
[21]
JAFFERBHOY S F, GOUSSOUS G, CHANDARANA M, et al. Impact of preoperative MRI in invasive ductal carcinoma with lobular features on core biopsy[J/OL]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2021, 21(3): e194-e198 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33279405/. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2020.08.007.
[22]
SELVI V, NORI J, MEATTINI I, et al. Role of magnetic resonance imaging in the preoperative staging and work-up of patients affected by invasive lobular carcinoma or invasive ductolobular carcinoma[J/OL]. Biomed Res Int, 2018, 2018: 1569060 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30046588/. DOI: 10.1155/2018/1569060.
[23]
MANN R M. The effectiveness of MR imaging in the assessment of invasive lobular carcinoma of the breast[J]. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am, 2010, 18(2): 259-276. DOI: 10.1016/j.mric.2010.02.005.
[24]
KUTOMI G, SHIMA H, KYUNO D, et al. Positional advantages of supine MRI for diagnosis prior to breast-conserving surgery[J/OL]. Mol Clin Oncol, 2023, 18(5): 44 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37090744/. DOI: 10.3892/mco.2023.2640.
[25]
LIU J J, ZHOU D D, PAN T, et al. Socioeconomic and clinical factors affecting the proportion of breast conserving surgery in Chinese women with breast cancer[J]. Gland Surg, 2022, 11(2): 341-351. DOI: 10.21037/gs-22-25.
[26]
BAE M S, BERNARD-DAVILA B, SUNG J S, et al. Preoperative breast MRI features associated with positive or close margins in breast-conserving surgery[J/OL]. Eur J Radiol, 2019, 117: 171-177 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31307644/. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2019.06.011.
[27]
BAHL M, BAKER J A, KINSEY E N, et al. MRI predictors of tumor-positive margins after breast-conserving surgery[J/OL]. Clin Imaging, 2019, 57: 45-49 [2023-07-12]. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31128385/. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinimag.2019.05.006.
[28]
KIM O H, KIM S J, LEE J S. Enhancing patterns of breast cancer on preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging and resection margin in breast conserving therapy[J]. Breast Dis, 2016, 36(1): 27-35. DOI: 10.3233/BD-150195.
[29]
KOH J, PARK A Y, KO K H, et al. Can enhancement types on preoperative MRI reflect prognostic factors and surgical outcomes in invasive breast cancer?[J]. Eur Radiol, 2019, 29(12): 7000-7008. DOI: 10.1007/s00330-019-06236-2.
[30]
LI X S, SONG Y L, LI D C, et al. Preoperative dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins after breast conserving surgery in patients with early non-mass breast carcinoma[J]. Chin J Oncol, 2017, 39(10): 768-774. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0253-3766.2017.10.010.
[31]
OBDEIJN I M, TILANUS-LINTHORST M M, SPRONK S, et al. Preoperative breast MRI can reduce the rate of tumor-positive resection margins and reoperations in patients undergoing breast-conserving surgery[J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2013, 200(2): 304-310. DOI: 10.2214/AJR.12.9185.
[32]
FANCELLU A, SORO D, CASTIGLIA P, et al. Usefulness of magnetic resonance in patients with invasive cancer eligible for breast conservation: a comparative study[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2014, 14(2): 114-121. DOI: 10.1016/j.clbc.2013.10.002.
[33]
JUNG J J, KANG E, KIM E K, et al. External validation and modification of nomogram for predicting positive resection margins before breast conserving surgery[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2020, 183(2): 373-380. DOI: 10.1007/s10549-020-05779-z.
[34]
YOON J, KIM E K, KIM M J, et al. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging features associated with positive resection margins in patients with invasive lobular carcinoma[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2020, 21(8): 946-954. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2019.0674.
[35]
KANG J H, YOUK J H, KIM J A, et al. Identification of preoperative magnetic resonance imaging features associated with positive resection margins in breast cancer: a retrospective study[J]. Korean J Radiol, 2018, 19(5): 897-904. DOI: 10.3348/kjr.2018.19.5.897.
[36]
LIAO G J, HENZE BANCROFT L C, STRIGEL R M, et al. Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: a comprehensive review[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2020, 51(1): 43-61. DOI: 10.1002/jmri.26762.
[37]
NGUYEN A A, ARASU V A, STRAND F, et al. Comparison of segmentation methods in assessing background parenchymal enhancement as a biomarker for response to neoadjuvant therapy[J]. Tomography, 2020, 6(2): 101-110. DOI: 10.18383/j.tom.2020.00009.
[38]
RELLA R, BUFI E, BELLI P, et al. Association between background parenchymal enhancement and tumor response in patients with breast cancer receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy[J]. Diagn Interv Imaging, 2020, 101(10): 649-655. DOI: 10.1016/j.diii.2020.05.010.
[39]
GRIMM L J, SAHA A, GHATE S V, et al. Relationship between background parenchymal enhancement on high-risk screening MRI and future breast cancer risk[J]. Acad Radiol, 2019, 26(1): 69-75. DOI: 10.1016/j.acra.2018.03.013.
[40]
HOUSSAMI N, TURNER R, MORROW M. Preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in breast cancer: meta-analysis of surgical outcomes[J]. Ann Surg, 2013, 257(2): 249-255. DOI: 10.1097/SLA.0b013e31827a8d17.

上一篇 基于MRI与临床病理特征构建诺莫图预测乳腺癌新辅助治疗收缩模式
下一篇 分数阶微积分模型DWI结合SMS技术在乳腺良恶性病变中的应用价值
  
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