切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华乳腺病杂志(电子版) ›› 2021, Vol. 15 ›› Issue (03) : 137 -142. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-0807.2021.03.002

论著

三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移模式和危险因素:一项单中心回顾性研究
黎立喜1, 马飞1,()   
  1. 1. 100021 北京,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肿瘤内科
  • 收稿日期:2020-01-17 出版日期:2021-07-01
  • 通信作者: 马飞
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金面上项目资助(81874122)

Pattern of recurrence and metastasis in triple negative breast cancer and risk factors: a single-center retrospective study

Lixi Li1, Fei Ma1,()   

  1. 1. National Cancer Center/National Clinical Research Center for Cancer/ Department of Medical Oncology, Cancer Hospital of Peking Union Medical College, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing 100021, China
  • Received:2020-01-17 Published:2021-07-01
  • Corresponding author: Fei Ma
引用本文:

黎立喜, 马飞. 三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移模式和危险因素:一项单中心回顾性研究[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2021, 15(03): 137-142.

Lixi Li, Fei Ma. Pattern of recurrence and metastasis in triple negative breast cancer and risk factors: a single-center retrospective study[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Breast Disease(Electronic Edition), 2021, 15(03): 137-142.

目的

探讨三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移的危险因素及时间分布规律。

方法

采用回顾性病例分析方法,收集1998年1月1日至2008年12月31日中国医学科学院肿瘤医院收治的307例三阴性乳腺癌患者的临床病理资料及随访数据。采用χ2检验比较不同年龄、月经状态、乳腺癌/卵巢癌家族史、病理类型、肿瘤大小、淋巴结状态、TNM分期、脉管癌栓、手术方式、淋巴结清扫方式以及是否接受放射治疗者间复发、转移率的差异。采用Kaplan-Meier法绘制无浸润性疾病生存曲线,并用Log-rank法进行组间比较。为了校正混杂因素,采用Cox比例风险回归模型进行多因素分析。用寿命表法描绘复发、转移高峰曲线,研究三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移的时间分布规律。

结果

中位随访137个月,共有103例(33.5%,103/307)出现复发、转移,其中首诊复发、转移部位以区域淋巴结转移(37.9%,39/103)、肺转移(32.0%,33/103)、骨转移(31.1%,32/103)和局部复发(26.2%,27/103)为主。单因素分析显示,TNM分期、肿瘤大小、淋巴结转移、脉管癌栓及手术方式是三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移的影响因素(χ2=27.977、16.466、33.993、7.408、7.616,P均<0.050)。多因素分析显示,淋巴结转移和改良根治术是三阴性乳腺癌无浸润性疾病生存时间的独立危险因素(N1期比N0期:HR=1.679, 95.0%CI: 1.049~2.687, P=0.031; N2期比N0期:HR=2.147, 95.0%CI: 1.205~3.826, P=0.010; N3期比N0期:HR=5.071, 95.0%CI: 2.988~8.604, P<0.001;保留乳房手术比改良根治术:HR=0.348, 95.0%CI: 0.128~0.949,P=0.039)。三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移风险的高峰曲线呈现四峰型,分别于术后第1、3、7、11年出现复发、转移高峰。第4个复发、转移高峰在淋巴结转移N3分期中比较明显。

结论

淋巴结转移和改良根治术是影响三阴性乳腺癌复发、转移的主要危险因素。不同于其他分子分型的乳腺癌复发、转移模式,三阴性乳腺癌的复发、转移风险曲线呈现四峰分布模式。淋巴结转移分期高的患者术后11年仍有较高的复发、转移风险。

Objective

To explore the risk factors and time distribution of recurrence and metastasis in triple negative breast cancer.

Methods

We retrospectively analyzed the clinicopathological data and follow-up data of 307 cases of triple negative breast cancer in Cancer Hospital of Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences from January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2008. The categorical variables including age grouping, menstrual status, family history of breast cancer or ovarian cancer, pathological type, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, TNM stage, vascular tumor thrombus, surgical method, lymph node dissection method and radiotherapy were compared between groups using χ2 test. Survival curves of invasive disease-free survival were drawn using the Kaplan-Meier method and comparison between groups was performed using log-rank test. In order to correct confounding factors, Cox proportional hazards model was used for multi-factor analysis. Life table method depicted the peak curve of recurrence and metastasis to study the time distribution of recurrence and metastasis in triple negative breast cancer.

Results

By the end of follow-up (median follow-up time of 137 months), a total of 103 cases (33.5%, 103/307) had recurrence and metastasis. The sites of recurrence and metastasis in the initial diagnosis included regional lymph node metastasis (37.9%, 39/103), lung metastasis (32.0%, 33/103), bone metastasis (31.1%, 32/103) and local recurrence (26.2%, 27/103). Univariate analysis showed that TNM stage, tumor size, lymph node metastasis, vascular tumor thrombus and surgical method were the factors affecting recurrence and metastasis of triple negative breast cancer (χ2=27.977, 16.466, 33.993, 7.408, 7.616, all P<0.050). Multivariate analysis showed that lymph node metastasis and modified radical mastectomy were independent risk factors for invasive disease-free survival of triple negative breast cancer (N1 vs N0: HR=1.679, 95.0%CI: 1.049-2.687, P=0.031; N2 vs N0: HR=2.147, 95.0%CI: 1.205-3.826, P=0.010; N3 vs N0: HR=5.071, 95.0%CI: 2.988-8.604, P<0.001; breast conserving surgery vs modified radical mastectomy: HR=0.348, 95.0%CI: 0.128-0.949, P=0.039). The peak curve of the recurrence and metastasis risk of triple negative breast cancer presented a four-peak pattern. Recurrence and metastasis peaks occurred at the 1st, 3rd, 7th and 11th year after surgery. The fourth peak of recurrence and metastasis was more significant in stage N3 of lymph node metastasis.

Conclusions

Lymph node metastasis and modified radical mastectomy are main risk factors affecting the recurrence and metastasis of triple negative breast cancer. Distinct from other molecular subtypes of breast cancer, triple negative breast cancer shows the four-peak pattern of recurrence and metastasis risk curve. The patients with higher stage of lymph node metastasis are still at high risk of recurrence and metastasis at the 11th year after surgery.

表1 三阴性乳腺癌患者术后无浸润性疾病生存时间的Cox比例风险回归模型变量赋值表
表2 307例三阴性乳腺癌患者复发、转移情况[例(%)]
表3 103例三阴性乳腺癌首发复发、转移部位
表4 307例三阴性乳腺癌患者术后无浸润性疾病生存时间的Cox比例风险回归模型分析
图1 三阴性乳腺癌患者不同淋巴结转移状态亚组间无浸润性疾病生存曲线比较
图2 307例三阴性乳腺癌患者复发、转移风险高峰曲线
图3 三阴性乳腺癌患者不同淋巴结分期亚组间复发、转移风险高峰曲线
[1]
Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, et al. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries[J]. CA Cancer J Clin, 2018, 68(6): 394-424.
[2]
肖梅仙,赵金波. 三阴性乳腺癌预后的临床相关因素[J]. 医学综述,2017, 23(2): 281-285.
[3]
张丽,赵晓辉,佟仲生,等. 356例三阴性乳腺癌的临床特征及预后多因素分析[J]. 中国肿瘤临床,2010, 37(18): 1045-1049.
[4]
刘玲玲,林芳,韩耀风,等. 不同分子分型乳腺癌术后复发转移风险及其时间分布规律[J]. 中国卫生统计,2017, 34(1): 7-10,14.
[5]
瑞雪,刘志. 不同分子分型乳腺癌术后复发转移风险研究[J]. 中国继续医学教育,2018, 10(14): 89-92.
[6]
Ribelles N, Perez-Villa L, Jerez JM, et al. Pattern of recurrence of early breast cancer is different according to intrinsic subtype and proliferation index[J]. Breast Cancer Res, 2013, 15(5): R98.
[7]
Giuliano AE, Edge SB, Hortobagyi GN. Eighth edition of the AJCC cancer staging manual: breast cancer[J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2018, 25(7): 1783-1785.
[8]
Geurts YM, Witteveen A, Bretveld R, et al. Patterns and predictors of first and subsequent recurrence in women with early breast cancer[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2017, 165(3): 709-720.
[9]
高娟,赵建国. 乳腺癌复发转移的相关因素分析[J]. 中华转移性肿瘤杂志,2019, 2(3): 60-61,64.
[10]
李嘉琪,栾瑾微,张玉,等. 763例三阴性乳腺癌临床病理特征及复发、转移影响因素分析[J]. 实用肿瘤学杂志,2019, 33(3): 244-249.
[11]
van Maaren MC, de Munck L, de Bock GH, et al. 10 year survival after breast-conserving surgery plus radiotherapy compared with mastectomy in early breast cancer in the Netherlands: a population-based study[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2016, 17(8): 1158-1170.
[12]
Veronesi U, Cascinelli N, Mariani L, et al. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized study comparing breast-conserving surgery with radical mastectomy for early breast cancer[J]. N Engl J Med, 2002, 347(16): 1227-1232.
[13]
朱玮,张宏伟,陈君雪,等. 早期乳腺癌患者行乳房保留手术的疗效分析[J]. 中国临床医学,2012, 19(4): 416-419.
[14]
Lagendijk M, van Maaren MC, Saadatmand S, et al. Breast conserving therapy and mastectomy revisited: Breast cancer-specific survival and the influence of prognostic factors in 129,692 patients[J]. Int J Cancer, 2018, 142(1): 165-175.
[15]
岳雁鸿,王瑶,曾燕. 保乳术、改良根治术和改良根治术联合放疗治疗三阴性乳腺癌术后局部复发情况比较[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2019, 13(2): 177-179.
[16]
Yin W, Di G, Zhou L, et al. Time-varying pattern of recurrence risk for Chinese breast cancer patients[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2009, 114(3): 527-535.
[17]
Manjili MH. Tumor dormancy and relapse: from a natural byproduct of evolution to a disease state[J]. Cancer Res, 2017, 77(10): 2564-2569.
[18]
Demicheli R, Abbattista A, Miceli R, et al. Time distribution of the recurrence risk for breast cancer patients undergoing mastectomy: further support about the concept of tumor dormancy[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 1996, 41(2): 177-185.
[19]
Masuda N, Lee SJ, Ohtani S, et al. Adjuvant capecitabine for breast cancer after preoperative chemotherapy[J]. N Engl J Med, 2017, 376(22): 2147-2159.
[20]
Schmid P, Cortés J, Dent R, et al. KEYNOTE-522: Phase Ⅲ study of pembrolizumab (pembro) + chemotherapy (chemo) vs placebo (pbo) + chemo as neoadjuvant treatment, followed by pembro vs pbo as adjuvant treatment for early triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC)[J]. Ann Oncol, 2019, 30(Suppl 5): 853-854.
[1] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[2] 周荷妹, 金杰, 叶建东, 夏之一, 王进进, 丁宁. 罕见成人肋骨郎格汉斯细胞组织细胞增生症被误诊为乳腺癌术后骨转移一例[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 380-383.
[3] 河北省抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会护理协作组. 乳腺癌中心静脉通路护理管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 321-329.
[4] 刘晨鹭, 刘洁, 张帆, 严彩英, 陈倩, 陈双庆. 增强MRI 影像组学特征生境分析在预测乳腺癌HER-2 表达状态中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 339-345.
[5] 张晓宇, 殷雨来, 张银旭. 阿帕替尼联合新辅助化疗对三阴性乳腺癌的疗效及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 346-352.
[6] 李刘庆, 陈小翔, 吕成余. 全腹腔镜与腹腔镜辅助远端胃癌根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访比较[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 23-26.
[7] 刘世君, 马杰, 师鲁静. 胃癌完整系膜切除术+标准D2根治术治疗进展期胃癌的近中期随访研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 27-30.
[8] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[9] 谢田伟, 庞于樊, 吴丽. 超声引导下不同消融术对甲状腺良性结节体积缩减率、复发率的影响[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 80-83.
[10] 韩萌萌, 冯雪园, 马宁. 乳腺癌改良根治术后桡神经损伤1例[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 117-118.
[11] 张志兆, 王睿, 郜苹苹, 王成方, 王成, 齐晓伟. DNMT3B与乳腺癌预后的关系及其生物学机制[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-629.
[12] 王玲艳, 高春晖, 冯雪园, 崔鑫淼, 刘欢, 赵文明, 张金库. 循环肿瘤细胞在乳腺癌新辅助及术后辅助治疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 630-633.
[13] 赵林娟, 吕婕, 王文胜, 马德茂, 侯涛. 超声引导下染色剂标记切缘的梭柱型和圆柱型保乳区段切除术的效果研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 634-637.
[14] 李伟, 宋子健, 赖衍成, 周睿, 吴涵, 邓龙昕, 陈锐. 人工智能应用于前列腺癌患者预后预测的研究现状及展望[J/OL]. 中华腔镜泌尿外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 541-546.
[15] 皮尔地瓦斯·麦麦提玉素甫, 李慧灵, 艾克拜尔·艾力, 李赞林, 王志, 克力木·阿不都热依木. 生物补片修补巨大复发性腹壁切口疝临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华疝和腹壁外科杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 624-628.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?