Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis of Invasive Micropapillary Carcinoma and Invasive Carcinoma of No Special Type: A Case-control Study
-
摘要:
目的 探讨乳腺浸润性微乳头状癌(invasive micropapillary carcinoma, IMPC)和浸润性癌(非特殊型)(invasive carcinoma of no special type, NST)的临床病理特征差异及其与腋窝淋巴结转移的相关性。 方法 回顾性分析2010年8月至2013年8月北京协和医院92例IMPC手术患者的临床病理资料, 随机选取368例同期手术的NST患者作为对照组。比较IMPC和NST的临床病理特征并分析其腋窝淋巴结转移的影响因素。 结果 IMPC与NST在肿瘤大小[(2.9±1.9)cm比(2.1±1.4)cm, P=0.001]、脉管浸润率(85.9%比6.0%, P < 0.001)、腋窝淋巴结转移率(71.7%比47.3%, P < 0.001)及转移个数(8.2±9.9比2.9±5.7, P < 0.001)、孕激素受体表达(P=0.047)、人类表皮生长因子受体2(human epidermal growth factor receptor-2, HER-2)表达(P=0.009)、Ki-67指数(P < 0.001)以及TNM分期(P < 0.001)、分子分型(P < 0.001)方面的差异均具有统计学意义。肿瘤组织中IMPC成分≤ 24%、25%~49%、50%~75%以及≥ 76%者淋巴结转移率分别为73.9%、56.3%、72.2%和77.1%, IMPC的腋窝淋巴结转移率与其在肿瘤中所占比例无关(P=0.347), 与肿瘤T分期(P=0.001)、HER-2表达(P=0.029)、分子分型(P=0.003)、P53表达(P=0.003)以及Ki-67指数(P=0.045)相关。NST的腋窝淋巴结转移与肿瘤T分期(P < 0.001)、组织学分级(P=0.001)、脉管浸润(P < 0.001)、雌激素受体α(P=0.007)、孕激素受体(P=0.031)、HER-2表达(P=0.008)及分子分型(P < 0.001)均相关。 结论 IMPC是一种具有高脉管侵袭性、高腋窝淋巴结转移率的浸润性乳腺癌, 具有与NST不同的病理特征。IMPC成分的多少并不影响腋窝淋巴结转移的程度, 其腋窝淋巴结转移的影响因素明显少于NST。 -
关键词:
- 乳腺癌 /
- 浸润性微乳头状癌 /
- 浸润性癌(非特殊型) /
- 淋巴结转移
Abstract:Objective To explore the difference in clinicopathological characteristics between invasive micropapillary carcinoma (IMPC) and invasive carcinoma of no special type (NST), and analyze its association with axillary lymph node metastasis. Methods The clinicopathological data of 92 IMPC cases treated within the period from August 2010 to August 2013 in Peking Union Medical College Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. From patients in the same period, 368 NST cases were randomly selected as control group. The difference in clinicopathological characteristics between IMPC and NST were compared, and the factors associated with axillary lymph node metastasis were analyzed. Results There were significant differences in tumor size[(2.9±1.9)cm vs. (2.1±1.4)cm, P=0.001], lymph-vascular invasion rate(85.9% vs. 6.0%, P < 0.001), axillary lymph node metastatic rate (71.7% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.001), number of involved lymph node(8.2±9.9 vs. 2.9±5.7, P < 0.001), progestogen receptor expression (P=0.047), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER-2) expression (P=0.009), Ki-67 index (P < 0.001), TNM staging (P < 0.001), and molecular subtype (P < 0.001) between IMPC and NST. The axillary lymph node metastatic rates of tumor containing ≤ 24%, 25%-49%, 50%-75% and ≥ 76% IMPC component were 73.9%, 56.3%, 72.2% and 77.1%, respectively. The axillary lymph node metastatic rate was not correlated with the percentage of IMPC component (P=0.347), but correlated with T-staging(P=0.001), HER-2 expression (P=0.029), molecular subtype (P=0.003), P53 expression(P=0.003), and Ki-67 index (P=0.045). The axillary lymph node metastasis of NST was found correlated with T-staging(P < 0.001), histological grade (P=0.001), lymph-vascular invasion (P < 0.001), estrogen receptor α expression (P=0.007), progestogen receptor expression (P=0.031), HER-2 expression (P=0.008), and molecular subtype (P < 0.001). Conclusions IMPC is a distinct variant of invasive breast carcinoma with a high propensity for lymph-vascular invasion and axillary lymph node involvement. IMPC and NST have different clinicopathological characteristics. The percentage of IMPC component does not correlate with axillary lymph node metastasis. Compared with NST, there are less clinicopathological determinants for axillary lymph node metastasis in IMPC. -
表 1 IMPC和NST的临床病理特征比较[($ \bar x $±s)/例(%)]
特征 IMPC
(n=92)NST
(n=368)χ2 P 年龄(岁) 47.7±13.0 50.4±10.4 0.064 瘤体最大径(cm) 2.9±1.9 2.1±1.4 0.001 淋巴结清扫数(个) 22.1±8.6 20.8±6.3 0.211 淋巴结转移数(个) 8.2±9.9 2.9±5.7 < 0.001 Ki-67指数(%) 24.2±16.5 31.8±23.2 < 0.001 瘤体最大径(cm) 17.898 < 0.001 ≤2 39(42.4) 235(63.9) >2且≤5 44(47.8) 122(33.2) >5 9(9.8) 11(3.0) 组织学分级 5.209 0.074 Ⅰ级 3(3.3) 40(10.9) Ⅱ级 54(58.7) 191(51.9) Ⅲ级 35(38.0) 137(37.2) 脉管浸润 79(85.9) 22(6.0) 274.143 < 0.001 淋巴结转移(个) 43.994 < 0.001 0 26(28.3) 194(52.7) 1~3 17(18.5) 92(25.0) 4~9 15(16.3) 43(11.7) ≥10 34(37.0) 39(10.6) 淋巴结转移例数 66(71.7) 174(47.3) < 0.001 各项受体表达 ERα(+) 70(76.1) 241(65.5) 3.775 0.052 PR(+) 62(67.4) 206(56.0) 3.942 0.047 HER-2(+) 41(44.5) 111(30.2) 6.900 0.009 分子分型 20.508 < 0.001 LA 13(14.1) 83(22.6) LB1 34(37.0) 112(30.4) LB2 27(29.3) 54(14.7) HER-2 14(15.2) 57(15.5) TN 4(4.3) 62(16.8) Ki-67指数 < 0.001 ≤14% 26(28.3) 96(26.1) 15%~49% 59(64.1) 175(47.6) ≥50% 7(7.6) 97(26.4) TNM分期 39.874 < 0.001 Ⅰ 18(19.6) 149(40.5) Ⅱ 22(23.9) 134(36.4) Ⅲ 52(56.5) 85(23.1) IMPC:浸润性微乳头状癌;NST:浸润性癌(非特殊型);ERα:雌激素受体α;PR:孕激素受体;HER-2:人表皮生长因子受体2;LA:Luminal A型;LB1:Luminal B1型;LB2:Luminal B2型;TN:三阴性乳腺癌 表 2 IMPC腋窝淋巴结转移的影响因素
因素 例数 淋巴结转移
例数淋巴结转
移率(%)χ2或F P T分期 22.571 0.001 T1a+T1b 8 3 37.5 T1c 31 18 58.1 T2 44 36 81.8 T3 9 9 100 IMPC成分 1.117 0.347 ≤24% 23 17 73.9 25%~49% 16 9 56.3 50%~75% 18 13 72.2 ≥76% 35 27 77.1 组织学分级 7.999 0.238 Ⅰ级 3 1 33.3 Ⅱ级 54 37 68.5 Ⅲ级 35 28 80.0 脉管浸润 1.528 0.676 LVI+ 79 58 73.4 LVI- 13 8 61.5 ERα表达 2.767 0.429 ERα(+) 70 53 75.7 ERα(-) 22 13 59.1 PR表达 4.062 0.255 PR(+) 62 44 71.0 PR(-) 30 22 73.3 HER-2表达 9.037 0.029 HER-2(+) 41 36 87.8 HER-2(-) 51 30 58.8 分子分型 29.462 0.003 LA 13 4 30.8 LB1 34 27 79.4 LB2 27 24 88.9 HER-2 14 11 78.6 TN 4 0 0 神经浸润 0.678 0.878 有 16 13 81.3 无 68 49 72.1 NA 8 4 50.0 间质淋巴细胞浸润 2.047 0.563 有 35 24 68.6 无 49 38 77.6 NA 8 4 50.0 周围淋巴细胞浸润 4.325 0.228 有 69 49 71.0 无 15 13 86.7 NA 8 4 50.0 P53表达 14.286 0.003 P53(+) 45 38 84.4% P53(-) 47 28 59.6% Ki-67指数 2.795 0.045 ≤14% 26 14 53.8% 15%~49% 59 45 76.3% ≥50% 7 7 100.0% IMPC、ERα、PR、HER-2、LA、LB1、LB2、TN:同表 1;LVI:脉管浸润;NA:未知 表 3 NST腋窝淋巴结转移的影响因素
因素 例数 淋巴结
转移例数淋巴结
转移率(%)χ2或F P T分期 48.438 < 0.001 T1a+T1b 54 12 22.2 T1c 181 74 40.9 T2 122 78 63.9 T3 11 10 90.9 组织学分级 21.547 0.001 Ⅰ级 40 13 32.5 Ⅱ级 191 93 48.7 Ⅲ级 137 68 49.6 脉管浸润 18.650 < 0.001 LVI+ 22 21 95.5 LVI- 346 153 44.2 ERα表达 12.112 0.007 ERα(+) 241 110 45.6 ERα(-) 127 64 50.4 PR表达 8.844 0.031 PR(+) 206 98 47.6 PR(-) 162 76 46.9 HER-2表达 11.881 0.008 HER-2(+) 111 62 55.9 HER-2(-) 257 112 43.6 分子分型 52.231 < 0.001 LA 83 29 34.9 LB1 112 57 50.9 LB2 54 29 53.7 HER-2 57 33 57.9 TN 62 26 41.9 Ki-67指数 0.567 0.631 ≤14% 26 14 53.8 15%~49% 59 45 76.3 ≥50% 7 7 100 NST、ERα、PR、HER-2、LA、LB1、LB2、TN:同表 1;LVI:同表 2 -
[1] Tavassoli FA, Devilee P. WHO classification of tumours. Pathology & genetics, tumours of the breast and female genital organs[M]. Lyon:LARC Press, 2003:35-36. [2] 付丽.重视乳腺浸润性微乳头状癌的诊断[J].中华病理学杂志, 2004, 33:305-307. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zhblx200404001 [3] 郭晓静, 陈凌, 郎荣刚, 等.乳腺浸润性微乳头状癌的病理学特征与淋巴结转移的关系[J].中华病理学杂志, 2006, 35:8-12. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=zhblx200601004 [4] Yu JI, Choi DH, Park W, et al. Differences in prognostic factors and patterns of failure between invasive micropapillary carcinoma and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast:matched case-control study[J]. Breast, 2010, 19:231-237. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.01.020 [5] 汪成, 季福, 徐明, 等.乳腺浸润性微乳头状癌的病理特征及其与转移的关系[J].上海交通大学学报:医学版, 2011, 31:72-75. http://d.wanfangdata.com.cn/Periodical/shdeykdxxb201101017 [6] 翟震, 郝晓甍, 田秀芳, 等.乳腺浸润性微乳头状癌与浸润性癌(非特殊型)的临床病理对照研究[J].中华普通外科杂志, 2011, 26:1012-1015. http://www.cqvip.com/QK/90800A/201112/40387875.html [7] Chen L, Fan Y, Lang RG, et al. Breast carcinoma with micropapillary features:clinicopathologic study and long-term follow-up of 100 cases[J]. Int J Surg Pathol, 2008, 16:155-163. doi: 10.1177/1066896907307047 [8] Chen AC, Paulino AC, Schwartz MR, et al. Prognostic markers for invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast:a population-based analysis[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2013, 13:133-139. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2012.10.001 [9] Vingiani A, Maisonneuve P, Dell'orto P, et al. The clinical relevance of micropapillary carcinoma of the breast:a case-control study[J]. Histopathology, 2013, 63:217-724. doi: 10.1111/his.12147 [10] Nassar H, Wallis T, Andea A, et al. Clinicopathologic analysis of invasive micropapillary differentiation in breast carcinoma[J]. Mod Pathol, 2001, 14:936-841. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=ac0915fbcf3324deb0ef34c55351a8dc [11] Grimes DA, Schulz KF. Compared to what? Finding controls for case-control studies[J]. Lancet, 2005, 365:1429-1433. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66379-9 [12] Goldhirsch A, Wood WC, Coates AS, 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[J]. Ann Oncol, 2011, 22:1736-1747. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdr304 [13] Fisher ER, Palekar AS, Redmond C, et al. Pathologic findings from the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast Project(protocol no.4).VI.Invasive papillary cancer[J]. Am J Clin Pathol, 1980, 73:313-322. doi: 10.1093/ajcp/73.3.313 [14] Siriaunkgul S, Tavassoli FA. Invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast[J]. Mod Pathol, 1993, 6:35-36. [15] Marchio C, Iravani M, Natrajan R, et al. Genomic and immunophenotypical characterization of pure micropapillary carcinomas of the breast[J]. J Pathol, 2008, 215:398-410. doi: 10.1002/path.2368 [16] Shi WB, Yang LJ, Hu X, et al. Clinico-pathological features and prognosis of invasive micropapillary carcinoma compared to invasive ductal carcinoma:a population-based study from china[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9:e101390. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0101390 [17] Chen AC, Paulino AC, Schwartz MR, et al. Population-based comparison of prognostic factors in invasive micropapillary and invasive ductal carcinoma of the breast[J]. Br J Cancer, 2014, 111:619-622. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.301
计量
- 文章访问数: 212
- HTML全文浏览量: 66
- PDF下载量: 2
- 被引次数: 0