乳腺癌内乳区淋巴结转移研究进展

 内乳区淋巴结的转移状况是乳腺癌的独立预后指标,也是乳腺癌分期的重要依据之一。内乳区淋巴结转移的患者预后较差。内乳区淋巴结的总体转移率为18 %～33 %,仅有内乳区淋巴结转移而无腋窝淋巴结转移的发生率为2 %～11 %,其转移受腋窝淋巴结状况、患者年龄、原发肿瘤的位置和特点等多因素影响。随着前哨淋巴结活检技术的不断发展,内乳区前哨淋巴结活检术可能以最小的风险评估内乳区淋巴结状况,并进一步完善乳腺癌的淋巴结分期,有助于为患者制定更为准确的个体化治疗方案。     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结的研究现状与评价

前哨淋巴结活检为乳腺癌患者提供了精确的分期,并且减少了手术并发症,因此日益为临床所接受。但是在临床研究中,前哨淋巴结活检的方法、适应证尚有一些争议。本文就前哨淋巴结活检技术、前哨淋巴结病理学评估、前哨淋巴结活检的适应证和前哨淋巴结活检取代腋淋巴结清扫等几方面进行讨论,明确了同位素和染料示踪剂可以互补,淋巴核素显像对于内乳前哨淋巴结活检的价值,内乳前哨淋巴结活检目前仍处于临床研究阶段;术中前哨淋巴结的病理学评估方法中,细胞学印片显示了快速、廉价、节省组织材料等优点,但对微转移灶的识别仍有不足;前哨淋巴结有微转移的患者目前仍应进行腋淋巴结清扫。导管内癌、预防性乳房切除、乳房缩小成型术及隆乳手术后患乳腺癌的患者,有必要进行前哨淋巴结活检;虽然NSABPB32、Z0010、Z0011等大样本前瞻性随机临床试验结果要等待许多时间,但是乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检已在临床上广泛开展,我们必须重视技术的规范和病例的选择。     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检假阴性原因研究新进展

乳腺癌根治术常规进行腋窝淋巴结清扫术,往往给患者造成疼痛、水肿、运动和感觉功能障碍。前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB)是一种微创的淋巴结活检方法,用前哨淋巴结评估整个腋窝淋巴结转移情况,有针对性的指导清扫腋窝淋巴结,减小清扫范围,减轻患者腋窝淋巴结清扫后遗症,但是前哨淋巴结活检存在一定比例的假阴性结果,影响其在临床的推广,主要原因有:适应证的选择不当、术前化疗影响、对内乳前哨淋巴结忽略、分子病理学方法利用不充分、单用示踪剂等。增强临床医生和病理医生对乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检的临床指导作用以及腋窝淋巴结和内乳淋巴结解剖变异的认识,加强SLNB规范操作,借助术中冰冻切片,联合免疫组化,RT-PCR等方法,可降低SLNB假阴性率。     

乳腺癌内乳区淋巴结照射研究进展

乳腺癌内乳区淋巴结照射能够降低局部和远处复发并改善患者的生存,NCCN指南也在内乳区淋巴结照射方面进行了相应的更新,但由于内乳区淋巴结照射造成的心肺损伤不容忽视,因此需要提供更为准确的个体化内乳区放疗指征。内乳区前哨淋巴结活检能够以微创的方法评估内乳区淋巴结的转移情况,为内乳区淋巴结照射提供准确的放疗指征,使乳腺癌患者获得更大的生存获益。本文主要从内乳区放疗获益、不良反应控制及内乳区前哨淋巴结活检指导放疗的探讨等方面进行了综述。     

超声造影引导下细针穿刺活检在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移中的诊断价值

目的 探讨超声造影引导下细针穿刺活检在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移中的诊断价值.方法 选取110例乳腺癌患者,均行超声造影引导下细针穿刺活检,以前哨淋巴结活检术结果为金标准,评估超声造影引导下细针穿刺活检对乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移的诊断价值.结果 前哨淋巴结活检结果显示,110例乳腺癌患者中,存在前哨淋巴结转移60例,无转移50例.超声造影引导下细针穿刺活检诊断乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移的曲线下面积(AUC)为0.876(95％CI:0.721～0.912),灵敏度为83.33％、特异度为60.00％、阳性预测值为71.43％、阴性预测值为75.00％、准确度为72.73％.结论 超声造影引导下细针穿刺活检在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移中有较高的诊断价值.     

乳腺癌淋巴引流途径的临床研究

目的探讨乳腺癌时乳腺淋巴引流的特点。方法以2004年11月至2006年5月期间住院的206例乳腺癌患者为研究对象，其中191例术前行淋巴闪烁显像。用前哨淋巴结活检和腋窝溶脂后腔镜观察联合验证淋巴闪烁显像所见的乳腺淋巴引流途径和前哨淋巴结。结果肿瘤周围腺体实质和肿瘤被覆皮下联合注射示踪剂内乳前哨淋巴结显示率为46．8％。淋巴显像、前哨淋巴结活检和腋窝溶脂后腔镜3种方法联合观察发现乳腺淋巴经不同输入淋巴管直接引流到腋窝或内乳区；腋窝前哨淋巴结位于第2肋骨与胸大肌外缘交界处周围，少数患者有浅、深两组腋窝前哨淋巴结。内乳淋巴结转移率为26．2％，腋窝淋巴结转移≥4枚时内乳转移率为50．7％。第2肋间隙是内乳淋巴结最常见的转移部位。内乳淋巴结转移与肿瘤部位或大小无显著相关性。结论乳腺实质及皮肤的淋巴沿各自的集合淋巴管不经乳晕淋巴丛而直接汇人腋窝或内乳淋巴结；多数患者不同的淋巴管在腋窝汇人同一前哨淋巴结，少数汇人深浅不同组前哨淋巴结。有选择地行内乳淋巴结活检有助于乳腺癌的精确分期、治疗和预后判断。     

前哨淋巴结活检术在早期乳腺癌保乳术中的应用

目的探讨前哨淋巴结活检术（sentinellymph node biopsy,SLNB）在早期乳腺癌保乳术中的应用效果。方法回顾性分析56例pT1.2N0M0期乳腺癌行保乳术＋前哨淋巴结活检术的临床资料。56例SLN阴性,未行腋窝淋巴结清扫术（axillary lymph node dissection,ALND）。术后辅以化疗、放疗,激素受体阳性患者行内分泌治疗。结果56例成功施行保乳手术,保乳术后双乳对称。SLNB替代ALND者各项术后并发症少。中位随访时间36个月（1～72个月）,1例发现局部复发,行乳腺癌改良根治术时发现腋窝淋巴结转移;1例发现腋窝淋巴结复发转移。结论SLNB可以缩小手术范围,减少术后并发症,保留腋窝形态,提高保乳质量。     

保乳治疗新进展

综述局部晚期乳腺癌的保乳治疗、放疗与保乳治疗的关系及前哨淋巴结活检术对保乳治疗术式的影响等.     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结定位活检的意义(附68例分析)

目的验证乳腺癌前哨淋巴结(SLN)定位和活检技术的可行性及前哨淋巴结的组织学状况是否能准确预告腋淋巴结转移特性.方法使用美蓝等对68例确认为乳腺癌患者进行术中前哨淋巴结定位活检术.结果 58例(85.3%)SLN,SLN预告腋淋巴结的准确率为91.4%(53/58),假阴性为8.6%(5/58).结论乳腺癌SLN定位活检是可行的,SLN可较为准确地反映腋淋巴结状况.     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结的研究热点与评价

前哨淋巴结活检已成为早期乳腺癌区域淋巴结评估的标准术式。随着乳腺癌精准诊疗和预后判断的需要,临床上仍有一些问题值得深入探讨,包括新型示踪剂的临床应用、内乳前哨淋巴结活检在乳腺癌预后判断中的价值、淋巴结阳性患者新辅助治疗后豁免腋窝淋巴结清扫的安全性等。从以上几方面的问题出发,引用近期国内外相关研究结果,就这些乳腺癌前哨淋巴结的研究热点进行分析并展开讨论,以推动早期乳腺癌外科诊疗的规范化。     

Report on a case of pure cribriform carcinoma of the breast with internal mammary node metastasis: description of the case and review of the literature

AIMS AND BACKGROUND: Pure ductal invasive carcinoma of the breast is more frequently associated with lymphatic invasion, lymph node involvement and high malignant histological grade than combined forms of breast carcinoma. Internal mammary node metastases are not frequently detected when the axillary nodes are negative. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We report our experience of a case of pure cribriform carcinoma, associated with an intraductal cribriform component, in which the sentinel axillary nodes were negative, while nodal and perinodal metastasis was detected in one internal mammary lymph node. CONCLUSIONS: Data from the literature show that positive internal mammary nodes are an unusual finding when the axillary sentinel node is negative, especially in cases of cancer with a relatively good prognosis, such as cribriform cases.     

临床腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者内乳区前哨淋巴结活检术研究*

目的:评估临床腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌患者行内乳区前哨淋巴结活检术（IM-SLNB）的临床意义。方法:2013年6 月至2014年10月对山东省肿瘤医院乳腺病中心就诊的64例临床腋窝淋巴结阳性的原发性乳腺癌患者行前瞻性单臂入组研究,采取腋窝淋巴结清扫术,同时均应用新的核素注射技术进行IM-SLNB。结果:64例患者中内乳区前哨淋巴结（IM-SLN）显像为38例,显像率为59.4%（38/ 64）。 38例IM-SLN 显像患者中IM-SLNB 成功率为100%（38/ 38）,并发症发生率为7.9%（3/ 38）,IM-SLN 转移率为21.1%（8/ 38）。 肿瘤位于内上象限和腋窝淋巴结转移数目较多的患者,其IM-SLN 转移率较高（P < 0.001 和P = 0.017）。 患者临床获益率为59.4%（38/ 64）,其中12.5%（8/ 64）另接受了内乳区放疗、46.9%（30/ 64）避免了不必要的内乳区放疗。结论:临床腋窝淋巴结阳性的乳腺癌应进行IM-SLNB,尤其对于肿瘤位于内上象限及怀疑存在较多腋窝淋巴结转移数目的患者,以获得内乳区淋巴结的转移状态,指导乳腺癌患者内乳区放疗。      

29例乳腺癌内乳前哨淋巴结的临床研究

目的探讨内乳前哨淋巴结的意义及其在临床上的应用价值。方法对我院29例符合内乳淋巴结转移高危因素的患者,经蓝染示踪后,行内乳淋巴结清除,在内乳区标本中确认蓝染的前哨淋巴结。结果 29例患者共检出内乳区蓝染前哨淋巴结22例。最终病理显示,内乳淋巴结有转移者12例,其中8例为蓝染的内乳区前哨淋巴结有转移且内乳淋巴结有转移;2例为仅蓝染的内乳区前哨淋巴结有转移。1例为蓝染前哨淋巴结无转移而内乳淋巴结有转移。另1例为未检出蓝染的内乳区淋巴结者,其内乳区淋巴结有转移。后2例判定为假阴性。检出率为75.9%,灵敏度为83.3%,特异度为100%,假阴性率为16.7%,准确率为93.1%,阳性预测值100%,阴性预测值89.5%。结论内乳前哨淋巴结可以反映内乳淋巴结的转移状况,内乳前哨淋巴结的检测可以为内乳淋巴结清除提供依据。     

乳腺癌内乳区淋巴结诊疗的研究进展

内乳区淋巴结（internal mammary lymph node,IMLN）引流整个乳腺约25%的淋巴液,其转移状况为乳腺癌预后指标之一,也是确定分期和制定治疗方案的重要依据。内乳区前哨淋巴结活检术（internal mammary-sentinel lymph node biopsy,IM-SLNB）作为微创诊断技术实现对IMLN的评估,有助于为患者制定更为准确的个体化治疗方案。在乳晕周围腺体内增加注射部位和注射剂量的新型注射技术显著提高内乳区前哨淋巴结（internal mammary sentinel lymph node,IMSLN）检出率,使得常规开展IM-SLNB成为可能。随着内乳区淋巴引流规律的深入研究,新型注射技术引导下的IM-SLNB的准确性目前已得到初步验证。本文将对乳腺癌内乳区淋巴结诊疗的研究进展进行综述。      

Non-axillary breast cancer recurrences after sentinel node biopsy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The primary lymphatic pathway of patients with breast cancer is toward the axilla, but lymph drainage is also possible towards the internal mammary chain and the supraclavicular fossa. In the current article, the development of breast cancer recurrences at these two sites after sentinel lymph node biopsy is reviewed. METHODS: Since 1997, 803 patients underwent sentinel lymph node biopsy with intratumoral injection of 99mTc-nanocolloid and patent blue dye in The Netherlands Cancer Institute. All sentinel nodes as visualized on the lymphoscintigraphy images were pursued. The patients were followed prospectively for a median period of 34 months. Patients with a lymph node recurrence outside the axilla were identified and their lymphatic mapping procedures were reviewed. RESULTS: Four of the 803 patients (0.5%) developed regional lymph node recurrences outside the axilla. One recurrence was located in the internal mammary chain, the other three in the supraclavicular bed. One or two of these patients also had an axillary recurrence. The sentinel node procedure had failed in two of the four patients. CONCLUSION: The incidence of nodal recurrences outside the axilla is low. Although all extra-axillary sentinel nodes were pursued, some of these recurrences concern missed sentinel nodes that harbor metastasis. Identification of all sentinel nodes and subsequent treatment of the involved basins may reduce the risk of breast cancer recurrences in these unusual locations.     

Impact of non-axillary sentinel node biopsy on staging and treatment of breast cancer patients

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the occurrence of lymphatic drainage to non-axillary sentinel nodes and to determine the implications of this phenomenon. A total of 549 breast cancer patients underwent lymphoscintigraphy after intratumoural injection of (99m)Tc-nanocolloid. The sentinel node was intraoperatively identified with the aid of intratumoural administered patent blue dye and a gamma-ray detection probe. Histopathological examination of sentinel nodes included step-sectioning at six levels and immunohistochemical staining. A sentinel node outside level I or II of the axilla was found in 149 patients (27%): internal mammary sentinel nodes in 86 patients, other non-axillary sentinel nodes in 44 and both internal mammary and other non-axillary sentinel nodes in nineteen patients. The intra-operative identification rate was 80%. Internal mammary metastases were found in seventeen patients and metastases in other non-axillary sentinel nodes in ten patients. Staging improved in 13% of patients with non-axillary sentinel lymph nodes and their treatment strategy was changed in 17%. A small proportion of clinically node negative breast cancer patients can be staged more precisely by biopsy of sentinel nodes outside level I and II of the axilla, resulting in additional decision criteria for postoperative regional or systemic therapy.     

The role of internal mammary lymph node metastases in the management of breast cancer

We reviewed the literature regarding internal mammary lymph node metastasis in the management of breast cancer. Internal mammary dissection or radiotherapy provides no survival advantage in breast cancer patients. However, internal mammary nodal metastasis is an important independent prognostic factor. Patients with such metastases are candidates for systemic adjuvant hormonal therapy and/or chemotherapy. Moreover, in patients with histologically confirmed internal mammary metastases, irradiation of the nodes is appropriate for local control. Noninvasive techniques, such as internal mammary lymphoscintigraphy, parasternal sonography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, are not satisfactory for the practical diagnosis of internal mammary metastasis. At present, biopsy of the internal mammary nodes in the first and second intercostal spaces is indicated for assessing nodal status and planning treatment.     

Key issues in sentinel node biopsy for breast cancer

Whereas the majority of surgeons in Western countries perform sentinel node biopsy (SNB) for early breast cancer, the majority of Japanese surgeons do not. Veronesi very recently reported the results of a clinical trial in which SNB without axillary lymph node dissection for small breast cancer did not increase axillary recurrence. Thus, sentinel node surgery has been accepted as a safe and accurate method of screening the axillary nodes for metastasis in women with small breast cancer. SNB should thus be recommended as standard care for early breast cancer in Japan. SNB for patients with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) may be performed according to the decision of doctors or patients in each case, because the indication of SNB for DCIS is controversial. Since preoperative chemotherapy could increase the rate of false-negative sentinel nodes because of the induced lymphatic changes, SNB is thought to be safer before than after preoperative chemotherapy. Current evidence does not allow internal mammary SNB to be recommended as a standard procedure, but as patients with internal mammary node involvement may benefit from adjuvant systemic treatment, internal mammary SNB should be further studied in this context. Preoperative diagnosis of an axillary metastasis using fine-needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) under ultrasonographical imaging or core needle biopsy under MR imaging can cost-effectively decrease the indications of SNB.     

乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移的相关因素分析及病理学研究

目的探究乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移的相关因素。方法回顾性分析162例前哨淋巴结活检技术的乳腺癌患者的临床资料,对乳腺癌临床病理指标与前哨淋巴结转移之间的关系进行因素分析。结果前哨淋巴结阳性共83例,前哨淋巴结阴性共79例。2组间的年龄、性别组成、体重指数、吸烟史和饮酒史等的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。原发肿瘤位置、活检方式与前哨淋巴结转移无关(P>0.05),但病理类型与前哨淋巴结转移有关。随着肿瘤的变大,灵敏度、特异性也随之升高。多元Logistic回归分析显示,肿瘤直径和病理类型是影响前哨淋巴结转移的独立危险因素(P<0.05)。结论乳腺癌前哨淋巴结转移考虑与肿瘤大小及病理类型相关,但具体病例需具体分析后考虑是否可行前哨淋巴结活检术。     

Internal mammary chain sentinel lymph node identification in breast cancer

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy is not usually performed with respect to the internal mammary lymph node chain. However, the SLN may be located in the internal mammary chain, particularly with medial lesions. We carried out this study to investigate whether lymphatic mapping and SLN biopsy can detect internal mammary involvement in patients with breast cancer. METHODS: A dye- and gamma probe-guided SLN biopsy was performed in a consecutive series of 41 patients with tumor in situ or clinical stage I or II breast cancer. After the biopsy, these patients underwent either a modified radical mastectomy or breast-conserving surgery including axillary lymph node dissection. Biopsy of internal mammary lymph nodes was performed in 19 of these patients. RESULTS: No involvement of internal mammary lymph nodes was found histologically in 5 patients in whom lymphatic flow or a "hot nodule" in the internal mammary chain was found using lymphoscintigraphy. Nodal involvement was demonstrated histologically in only 1 of 5 cases where lymphatic vessels showed dye staining or faintly stained nodes. Internal mammary lymph node biopsy also was performed in 14 of 36 patients with neither stained lymphatic vessels or nodes, nor with lymphatic flow or a hot nodule by lymphoscintigraphy. Nodal involvement was found histologically in 1 of these patients. CONCLUSION: SLN biopsy guided by lymphatic mapping is unreliable for identifying metastases to internal mammary lymph nodes.