新辅助化疗治疗局部进展期乳腺癌的临床观察

目的 探讨新辅助化疗用于局部进展期乳腺癌的临床价值.方法 选取1996年1月至2006年12月经病理确诊的局部进展期乳腺癌522例,随机分为新辅助化疗组264例和对照组258例.新辅助化疗组给予FEC或TEC方案化疗4～6周期后进行手术,符合保乳条件者实施保乳手术;对照组实施全乳房切除术.分析新辅助化疗对局部进展期乳腺癌保乳率以及预后的影响.结果 新辅助化疗组总有效率为89.19%(231/259),82.20%(217/264)的患者达到保乳条件,其中实际实施保乳手术85例.经67.4(36～166)个月随访,新辅助化疗组的复发率、转移率、总生存率及无病生存率与对照组相比,差异均无统计学意义(P＞0.05);临床完全缓解者的总生存率和无病生存率分别为92.64%(63/68)、88.23%(60/68),高于未达到临床完全缓解者的81.15%(155/191)、73.82%(141/191),差异有统计学意义(P=0.026;P=0.017);病理完全缓解的35例患者OS、DFS分别为97.14%(34/35)、94.19%(33/35),未达到病理完全缓解的224例患者OS、DFS分别为81.25%(182/224)、75%(168/224),差异均有统计学意义(P=0.019;P=0.015).结论 新辅助化疗可以使局部进展期乳腺癌的原发肿瘤缩小,提高保乳率,准确地进行治疗前分期将是判断新辅助化疗对该癌预后影响的关键.     

新辅助化疗后保留乳房手术治疗进展期乳腺癌可行性分析

目的 对新辅助化疗后保留乳房手术治疗进展期乳腺癌行可行性分析。方法 收集2010年6月—2011年6月间进展期乳腺癌患者60例,根据患者意愿分为新辅助化疗后保乳手术组和改良根治术组,每组30例,分别给予新辅助化疗后保乳手术及改良根治手术,随访3年。比较两组的治疗效果,并分析两组乳腺癌循环肿瘤细胞(CTCs)阳性情况,记录两组患者随访后期局部复发率、远处转移率、总生存率和无瘤生存率。结果 新辅助化疗后保乳手术组与改良根治术组相比,两组CTCs检出率没有统计学差异(P＞0.05),两组患者在临床完全缓解率、部分缓解率、疾病稳定率以及局部复发率、远处转移率、总生存率和无瘤生存率方面均无统计学差异(P＞0.05)。结论 对进展期乳腺癌患者应用新辅助化疗合并保乳手术治疗,能达到与改良根治术类似的治疗效果,可作为治疗进展期乳腺癌的一种选择。     

保乳手术治疗乳腺癌

目的　探讨保乳手术治疗临床Ⅰ、Ⅱ期乳腺癌的效果。方法　 1989年 7月至 2 0 0 3年 2月采用象限切除治疗临床单发的、肿瘤直径为 0～ 5 .0cm、无区域淋巴结转移的女性乳腺癌患者 185例 ,手术切缘距瘤缘 2 .0～ 3 .0cm ,同时行腋窝淋巴结清除术 ,术后对腋窝淋巴结阳性者 3 8例行辅助放疗、化疗 ,对 14 7例患者行全乳放疗。结果　全组随访 4～ 168个月 ,随访满 5年组总生存率 98.8% (79/80 )、无瘤生存率 96.3 % (77/80 )、局部复发率 1.3 % (1/80 )、远处转移率 3 .8% (3 /80 ) ;随访满 10年组总生存率 86.4% (19/2 2 )、无瘤生存率 81.8% (18/2 2 )、局部复发率 13 .6% (3 /2 2 )、远处转移率 18.2 % (4 /2 2 )。肿瘤直径 >2 .0cm组 ,10年局部复发率和远处转移率高于肿瘤直径≤ 2 .0cm组 (5 0 .0 %∶5 .6% ,5 0 .0 %∶11.1% ) ,但显著性差异。结论　对临床Ⅰ、Ⅱ期乳腺癌行保乳手术与改良根治术的 5年和 10年疗效相近     

保乳手术治疗乳腺癌37例分析

目的探讨保乳手术治疗乳腺癌方法的选择.方法回顾性分析2001年1月～2005年1月我院接受保乳治疗的37例乳腺癌临床资料.0期3例,Ⅰ期20例, Ⅱ期14例.手术方式为象限切除或肿瘤局部广泛切除联合腋窝淋巴结清扫.术后常规行辅助化疗,放疗和内分泌治疗. 结果手术标本石蜡病理检查各切缘均无癌侵润.经过36个月中位随访期（范围2～36月）,局部复发为5.4%（2/37）,其中腋窝1例,远处转移1例,转移部位为肺转移.对保乳综合治疗满1年的20例患者进行乳房外型的评估,优15%（3/20）,良45%（9/20）,差 40%（8/20）.结论对早期乳腺癌及部分经过新辅助化疗降期后的局部进展期乳腺癌可进行保乳手术治疗.规范化的切除和术后放疗,全身综合治疗是保乳治疗成功的关键 .     

保乳整形术治疗较大肿瘤乳腺癌患者的临床研究

目的探讨乳房整形术在乳腺癌较大肿瘤手术的可行性及其美容效果。方法收集2012年8月至2016年8月,在天津医科大学肿瘤医院接受乳腺癌手术,肿瘤直径3.0~5.5 cm的198例患者资料,按照不同的手术方式分为:未行新辅助化疗降期,直接行保乳整形术的患者94例(整形组);先行新辅助化疗降期,再行传统保乳术的患者104例(传统组)。比较两组术后并发症、复发转移率、生存率及术后乳房美容效果。结果整形组术中出血量较传统组多,而术后感染发生率较低,差异有统计学意义(P0.05);术后并发症、局部复发率、远处转移率、总生存率、无病生存率及美容效果在两组间比较,差异均无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论采取组织替代技术修复乳腺癌保乳手术中局部较大的缺损具有安全、有效、术后美容效果好等优点。     

新辅助化疗对ⅡB骨肉瘤预后影响的初步报告

目的评价新辅助化疗对骨肉瘤患者预后的影响.方法回顾性分析1994年1月～2004年1月所治疗48例骨肉瘤患者,其中新辅助化疗组18例,辅助化疗组30例.分别计算各组的术后复发率、手术并发症发生率、保肢手术成功率、远处转移率、1年生存率和3年生存率.结果在新辅助化疗组,术后复发率、手术并发症发生率、保肢手术成功率、远处转移率、1年生存率和3年生存率分别为5.9%、11.8%、94.1%、33.3%、82.9%、62.2%.而在辅助化疗组分别为30.0%、51.8%、37.0%、50.0%、69.5%、57.8%.经统计学处理发现新辅助化疗组的术后复发率、手术并发症发生率明显低于辅助化疗组(P＜0.05),保肢手术成功率明显高于辅助化疗组(P＜0.05),而远处转移率、1年生存率及3年生存率两组间并无显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论新辅助化疗可以在降低术后复发率和术后并发症的前提下,明显提高保肢手术的成功率,但对于提高患者的生存率尚无证据证明其价值.     

早期乳腺癌改良根治术与保乳手术的疗效比较

目的比较改良根治术与保乳手术治疗对早期乳腺癌的临床疗效。方法按照手术方式将155例乳腺癌患者分为保乳组(40例)和改良组(115例),保乳组行保乳手术+术后放、化疗,改良组行改良根治术+术后化疗,比较两组患者1、3、5年生存率、局部复发率以及远处转移率。结果保乳组死亡1例,改良组死亡4例,死亡原因均为非乳腺癌原因;保乳组2例发生远处转移,其中1例为肺转移,1例为骨(脊柱)转移,术后生活质量未受明显影响;改良组6例发生远处转移,其中4例为肺转移,2例为骨转移,术后生活质量未受明显影响;两组患者1、3、5年生存率、局部复发率、远处转移率比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论保乳手术+术后放、化疗对早期乳腺癌的远期疗效与改良根治术+术后化疗相近,但保乳手术创伤小、术后恢复时间短、能够保留乳房的美观外形,临床应用价值更高。     

61例早期乳腺癌保留乳房手术疗效分析

[目的]探讨早期乳腺癌保乳手术的疗效及整形效果。[方法]自1993年4月-1998年7月共61例早期乳腺癌接受1/4乳房切除或肿瘤广泛切除加全腋淋巴结清扫术,其中56例行围手术期化疗（CMF）4-7周,48例术后全乳放疗,7例腋淋巴结阳性者接受区域放疗。[结果]1例失访,余患者随访2-7年,乳房保留率56/61,局部复发率3/61,远处转移率1/61,乳房整形满意率70%,[结论]早期乳腺保乳手术与根治术近期疗效相似。值得推广。     

保乳手术治疗早期乳腺癌96例

目的 探讨保乳手术治疗早期乳腺癌的疗效.方法 选取96例行保乳手术的早期乳腺癌患者,与同期行乳腺癌改良根治术的患者进行对比分析,比较两组的复发率、转移率和生存率.结果 保乳手术组和改良根治术组的1、3、5年局部复发率、生存率及远处转移方面差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05).结论 保乳手术+放疗可获得与改良根治术相同的疗效,且术后采用常规温和化疗与内分泌治疗等综合治疗方案,能够进一步保证治疗效果.     

新辅助化疗后乳腺癌保乳手术的安全性研究

[目的]探讨可手术乳腺癌新辅助化疗后保乳手术的安全性。[方法]107例乳腺癌患者使用4个周期新辅助化疗后确定保乳手术的可行性及安全性。[结果]41例患者影像学检查符合保乳治疗适应证,病理检验34例可以实施保乳手术。21例接受保乳手术治疗结束后乳房的美观程度优秀3例,好12例,一般5例,差1例。随访期间均未出现局部复发,3例患者出现远处转移。[结论]新辅助化疗后可以扩大保乳手术的适应证,使相当部分病人获得保乳的机会。新辅助化疗后行保乳手术是可行的。     

The role of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for breast cancer treatment

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy is being used increasingly in the management of patients with breast cancer, especially locally advanced cases. Such treatment is administered with the aim of of reducing the size of the primary tumor to increase the possibility of breast-conserving treatment (BCT). In our series, during the period from May 1995 to December 2000, 86 patients with tumors between 3.1 and 6.0 cm in diameter received epirubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There were 55 (64.0%) responders and ultimately 64 patients (74.4%) were treated with BCT. With a median follow-up time of 39 months, 9 patients in the BCT group had developed local recurrence. Long-term follow-up is required to establish whether this procedure is a safe alternative to mastectomy for patients with large breast cancers.     

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy for operable breast carcinoma larger than 3 cm: A unicentre randomized trial with a 124-month median follow-up

Background: Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves overall survival and renders possible breast-conserving treatment in locally advanced breast cancer. It was necessary for this method to be evaluated in operable breast tumors too large to be treated immediately by conserving surgery. Initial results of this randomized trial were published in Annals of Oncology (1991).Patients and methods: Women with T2 > 3 cm or T3 N0–1 M0 breast tumors were treated by either initial mastectomy followed by adjuvant chemotherapy, or neoadjuvant chemotherapy followed by adjusted locoregional treatment. Chemotherapy was the same in the two arms. The prognostic and predictive factors of response to chemotherapy were analyzed.Results: Conserving treatments were performed in 63% at the end of neoadjuvant chemotherapy and this rate had decreased to 45% at the median follow-up of 124 months. Survivals are identical in the two treatment groups. Initial clinical tumor size <40 mm, IHC-ER <10% and Mib1 >40% are predictive of tumor response to chemotherapy by uni- and multivariate analyses. For outcome prediction, c-erb-B2 >0% is the independent prognostic factor for overall and metastasis-free survivals.Conclusion: Breast-conserving therapy can be performed in more than half of all cases without alteration of survival, despite a non-negligible rate of local recurrences.     

Breast-conserving treatment after neoadjuvant chemotherapy in large breast cancer

Several recent trials have demonstrated that neoadjuvant chemotherapy can allow more patients to successfully undergo breast-conserving treatment (BCT), and does not confer a survival disadvantage compared with standard adjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, the pathological response of primary breast tumors to neoadjuvant chemotherapy appears to be a surrogate marker for patient outcome. In our series, during the period from May 1995 to December 2000, 86 patients with tumors between 3.1 and 6.0 cm in diameter received epirubicin-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy. There were 55 (64.0%) responders and ultimately 64 patients (74.4%) were treated with BCT. The margin positive rate was 14.1%(9/64), similar to the rate after BCT for early-stage breast cancers, the largest diameter of which was smaller than 3 cm. At a median follow-up of 30 months, only 3 patients in the BCT group have developed local recurrence; the local recurrence rate appears to be comparable to that after BCT for early stage breast cancers. Long term follow-up is required, however, to establish whether this procedure is a safe alternative to mastectomy for patients with large breast cancers.     

Radiotherapy for breast cancer: today and tomorrow

Breast conservation therapy (BCT) with lumpectomy and radiation has allowed many women to preserve their breasts and avoid disfiguring surgery. Lumpectomy and breast irradiation is a standard therapy for early breast cancer patients who desire breast conservation. However, the overall rate of mastectomy exceeds that of BCT in the United States. There have been significant advances in patient awareness of the options available for local management of early breast cancer and changes in the attitudes of physicians, including surgeons, allowing a gradual rise in the rate of BCT in the last two decades. Now, investigations are designed to define subgroups of patients with early breast cancer in whom radiation can be safely omitted. In locally advanced breast cancer, neoadjuvant chemotherapy has allowed some women to have BCT after initial cytoreduction. This approach results in excellent local control when patients are carefully selected for BCT. There is renewed interest in postmastectomy radiation for early breast cancer patients with 1 to 3 positive lymph nodes. In this intermediate risk group for locoregional recurrence, the addition of chest wall and regional lymphatic irradiation to adjuvant systemic therapy has potential for significant improvement in ultimate survival. This concept is novel in breast cancer, a disease that was believed to be systemic at inception and in which only systemic control was thought to impact survival. In this era of effective adjuvant systemic therapy for breast cancer, local control measures have become more important as local control has real potential for impacting survival.     

Breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy in early-stage breast cancer: the importance of local control

Breast-conserving therapy is a successful, well-studied, and scientifically validated treatment of early-stage breast carcinoma. This approach has enormously improved the quality of life and cosmetic outcome for appropriately selected and treated patients while achieving the same long-term survival rates as mastectomy. This article reviews the evidence showing the importance of achieving initial local control to maximize breast cancer-specific survival rates, the impact of systemic therapy on the local control rates achieved with breast-conserving therapy, the integration of chemotherapy with radiation therapy, and the role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in breast-conserving therapy.     

Neoadjuvant endocrine therapy of breast cancer: a surgical perspective

Neoadjuvant treatment with chemotherapy or endocrine agents is being used increasingly to downstage locally advanced and large operable breast cancers. Following these treatments, inoperable breast cancer often becomes fully resectable, and initially operable tumours requiring mastectomy may be successfully removed by breast-conserving surgery. Patient selection is important to optimise neoadjuvant endocrine therapy: only patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-rich breast cancer are candidates, and postmenopausal women are likely to benefit the most. Such patients can expect a high probability of responses over a 3-month treatment period. Response to therapy should be monitored by clinical examination as well as by ultrasound, mammography, or other imaging procedures. Third-generation aromatase inhibitors (letrozole, anastrozole and exemestane) are more effective than tamoxifen in this treatment setting. In a large randomised trial of neoadjuvant endocrine therapy in postmenopausal women, letrozole achieved significantly higher response rates than tamoxifen, and a correspondingly higher rate of breast-conserving surgery was possible in the letrozole-treated patients. There is some evidence to suggest that the nature of the tumour response is different for preoperative endocrine therapy compared with chemotherapy. This difference may result in a higher rate of complete tumour excisions following breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant endocrine treatment. There appears to be a low rate of subsequent local recurrence in patients having breast-conserving therapy after neoadjuvant endocrine therapy.     

Breast-conserving therapy versus modified radical mastectomy in the treatment of early breast cancer in Japan

BACKGROUND: Breast-conserving therapy has been widely utilized as a treatment option for women with early breast cancer. However, no randomized study comparing modified radical mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy has been conducted in Japan. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-eight Japanese women with early breast cancer enrolled in the Gunma Breast Conserving Therapy Study between 1991 and 1994 were examined to determine whether there is any difference in disease-free survival or overall survival between radical mastectomy and breast-conserving therapy. After informed consent was obtained, a total of 119 patients underwent breast-conserving therapy and 109 underwent mastectomy. RESULTS: Mastectomy was a more frequently utilized treatment than breast-conserving therapy in patients with clinical stage II lesions, older age, larger tumor size or shorter distance between tumor and nipple. The mean follow-up period for all patients was 81 months (median 86 months). There was no significant difference in overall survival or disease-free survival between breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy even after adjusting for the clinical stage of the disease. A multivariate analysis of tumor size, lymph node status, estrogen receptor status and operation method using the Cox proportion hazard model confirmed that only lymph node status was an independent prognostic factor. CONCLUSION: Breast-conserving therapy is comparable to modified radical mastectomy in overall survival and disease-free survival.     

乳腺癌新辅助化疗后改良根治术后放疗开始时间对预后的影响

目的 本研究旨在分析接受新辅助化疗的局部晚期乳腺癌患者改良根治手术时间到放疗开始时间(SRI)对患者预后的影响。方法 回顾性分析全国11家肿瘤中心的1087例接受新辅助化疗和改良根治术后放疗的乳腺癌患者。用Maxstat方法寻找手术到放疗间隔时间对预后影响的最佳界值。采用Cox多因素回归和倾向配比评分(PSM)分析手术距放疗间隔时间对预后的影响。结果 全组中位随访72.9个月,5年无瘤生存(DFS)率和总生存(OS)率分别为68.1%和81.8%。全组患者分为SRI≤18周(917例)和 SRI>18周(170例)两组。多因素分析显示激素受体状态、病理T分期、病理N分期和SRI是DFS影响因素(P<0.001、<0.001、<0.001、0.023)。激素受体状态、病理T分期、病理N分期、内分泌治疗和SRI是OS影响因素(P=0.013、0.006、<0.001、0.013、0.001)。采用PSM均衡两组患者临床病理因素后SRI≤18周患者DFS和OS仍然优于SRI>18周者。结论 新辅助化疗后乳腺癌患者改良根治手术到放疗间隔时间影响预后,患者应尽量在手术后18周内开始放疗。     

Breast-conserving surgery after neoadjuvant anthracycline-based chemotherapy for large breast tumors

BACKGROUND: Randomized trials comparing neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy show that primary chemotherapy allows more frequent breast-preserving surgery even though no survival advantage has been demonstrated. The aim of the current study was to determine the predicting factors and the survival impact of breast conservation in patients with large breast tumors treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: Between January 1987 and December 2001, 594 patients with invasive T2-3 breast carcinoma who were ineligible for breast-conserving surgery (the mean initial tumor diameter was 49 mm) were treated with 3 or 4 courses of an anthracycline-based primary chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy. Various clinicopathologic factors were tested as possible predicting factors of breast-preserving surgery. Survival analyses were performed to determine the implications of breast-conserving surgery on outcome. RESULTS: After primary chemotherapy, 287 (48%) patients were eligible for breast-conserving surgery and 307 patients underwent a mastectomy. Initial tumor diameter > 5 cm, low histologic grade, lobular histology, and multicentricity were independent predicting factors of breast conservation ineligibility in the multivariate analysis (logistic regression). In the univariate survival analysis, a failure of breast-preserving surgery was associated with a poor outcome. Local disease recurrence-free survival rates were similar in patients treated with lumpectomy and mastectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The results reported in the current study suggested that initial diameter, histologic type and grade, and multicentricity are potential prechemotherapy predicting factors of breast conservation. When carefully selected, patients treated with breast conservation had a risk of local disease recurrence similar to the risk of chest wall disease recurrence after mastectomy.     

Comparison of risk of local-regional recurrence after mastectomy or breast conservation therapy for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy and radiation stratified according to a prognostic index score

PURPOSE: We previously developed a prognostic index that stratified patients treated with breast conservation therapy (BCT) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy into groups with different risks for local-regional recurrence (LRR). The purpose of this study was to compare the rates of LRR as a function of prognostic index score for patients treated with BCT or mastectomy plus radiation after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 815 patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation. Patients were assigned an index score from 0 to 4 and given 1 point for the presence of each factor: clinical N2 to N3 disease, lymphovascular invasion, pathologic size>2 cm, and multifocal residual disease. RESULTS: The 10-year LRR rates were very low and similar between the mastectomy and BCT groups for patients with an index score of 0 or 1. For patients with a score of 2, LRR trended lower for those treated with mastectomy vs. BCT (12% vs. 28%, p=0.28). For patients with a score of 3 to 4, LRR was significantly lower for those treated with mastectomy vs. BCT (19% vs. 61%, p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis suggests that BCT can provide excellent local-regional treatment for the vast majority of patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy. For the few patients with a score of 3 to 4, LRR was >60% after BCT and was <20% with mastectomy. If these findings are confirmed in larger randomized studies, the prognostic index may be useful in helping to select the type of surgical treatment for patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, and radiation.