Clinicopathological Characteristics and Outcomes of Male Patients with Resected Distant Metastasis-Free Breast Cancer in A Single Center
-
摘要:目的
探讨非转移性男性乳腺癌手术患者的临床病理特征、治疗策略及生存情况。
方法回顾性分析152例非转移性成年男性乳腺癌患者的人口学特征、临床诊治和生存情况。
结果所有病例中位发病年龄为58岁。93.4%的患者以乳房肿块为首发症状,4例为原位癌,148例浸润性癌中浸润性导管癌占86.8%,雌激素受体阳性率为93.9%(139例),人表皮生长因子阳性率仅为7.4%(11例)。手术以全乳切除为主(n=149, 98.0%),保乳少见(n=3, 2.0%),19例前哨淋巴结(SLN)活检中,4例提示转移,行腋窝淋巴结清扫(ALND),15例SLN阴性中8例行常规ALND,7例免除ALND。中位随访时间42.7(2~179.5)月。5年OS和DFS分别为82.4%和69.9%。
结论淋巴结状态(N)与非转移性男性乳腺癌的无病生存时间和总生存时间明显相关,是男性乳腺癌患者预后的重要影响因素。
Abstract:ObjectiveTo investigate the clinicopathological features, treatment strategies and outcomes of male patients with resected distant metastasis-free breast cancer.
MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed clinicopathological characteristics, clinical diagnosis, treatments and outcomes of 152 adult male patients with resected distant metastasis-free breast cancer.
ResultsThe median age was 58 years. Among 152 patients, the initial symptom of 142 cases was palpable lump and 4 cases were ductal carcinoma in situ. Among 148 cases of invasive carcinoma, 128 cases were invasive ductal carcinoma, 139 cases were estrogen receptor-positive and 11 cases were human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive. A total of 149 cases received mastectomy and 3 cases received breast conservation. Sentinel lymph node biopsy was performed on 19 patients, 4 cases were positive and 15 cases were negative, while 8 patients underwent axillary lymph node dissection. The median follow-up time was 42.7 (2-179.5) months. The 5-year overall survival rate and disease-free survival rate were 82.4% and 69.9%, respectively.
ConclusionLymph node status (N) is significantly associated with the disease-free survival and overall survival of male patients with resected distant metastasis-free breast cancer and it's an important prognostic factor.
-
Key words:
- Breast cancer /
- Therapy /
- Prognosis
-
0 引言
宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌(small cell neuroendocrine carcinoma, SCNEC)是一种较为罕见的原发于宫颈的神经内分泌性肿瘤,约占宫颈恶性肿瘤的1%~2%[1-2]。在各种类型的宫颈癌中,SCNEC是一种侵袭性强的病理类型[3-8]。但因为该类病例较少,目前尚无规范化的治疗。本研究对101例宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌患者的临床病理资料及生存状况进行分析,旨在探讨SCNEC合理的治疗方案及预后相关因素,为此类患者治疗及预后判断提供临床依据。
1 资料与方法
1.1 临床资料
收集2007年1月—2018年6月在江西省妇幼保健院确诊并完成治疗的101例宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌患者作为研究对象。患者确诊年龄25~73岁,中位年龄44岁,其中41~50岁者有40例。宫颈局部肿瘤直径 > 4 cm患者34例,≤4 cm患者67例。患者临床资料及年龄分布见表 1。所有患者均知情同意。
表 1 101例SCNEC患者临床病理特征Table 1 Clinical and pathological features of 101 SCNEC patients1.2 方法
1.2.1 研究对象纳入标准
(1)所有患者接受治疗前均经江西省妇幼保健院病理确诊为宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌;(2)临床分期盆腔检查均经三位以上有经验的妇科肿瘤专业医师检查确定;(3)治疗前均未接受任何干预性治疗,且初始治疗及后续治疗均在同一机构完成;(4)纳入研究的患者治疗模式均为手术+术后补充放化疗(下文简称手术治疗组)或根治性放化疗,且按计划完成全部治疗;(5)全部患者术后病理检查均在同一医院完成;(6)建立了完整的病历档案,并持续随访,具备完整的住院及门诊复查病历资料。
1.2.2 手术方式
72例手术治疗患者手术方式为广泛子宫切除+盆腔淋巴结切除术±腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术,其中47例行腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术。69例行双附件切除,其余3例保留一侧卵巢且进行了保留卵巢的组织活检。
1.2.3 放疗
放疗包括体外照射+腔内后装治疗,体外照射采用全盆腔体外照射+中央遮盖体外照射。体外照射剂量:全盆照射肿瘤剂量30~40 Gy,中央遮盖照射剂量15~25 Gy,放疗频率及强度:每周5次,每次分割剂量2 Gy。腔内后装采用高剂量率后装治疗设备,放射源为铱192。放疗剂量参照点A点累积剂量要求60~70 Gy;B点累积剂量要求54~56 Gy。放疗期间均给予铂类为基础的同步化疗。
1.2.4 随访
通过电话或门诊复查方式进行随访,截止时间为2018年9月。
1.3 统计学方法
采用GraphPad7.0统计软件对不同组间患者生存率进行显著性比较。生存分析采用Kaplan-Meier法,生存率的比较采用Log rank检验。P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2 结果
72例手术组患者中,2例失访,19例死亡,51例生存。19例死亡患者生存时间1~63月,中位生存时间19月,平均生存时间18.5月。51例生存的患者中,生存时间1~139月,中位生存时间39月,平均生存时间47.3月。随访5年以上共33例,生存20例,五年生存率60.6%。
29例根治性放化疗患者中,随访5年以上20例,其中2例失访,死亡15例,生存3例,五年生存率15%。生存时间1~75月,中位生存时间21月。3例生存患者年龄分别为40岁、41岁、46岁,临床分期均为ⅡB期,病理均为单纯的宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌,化疗方案均为多西他赛+卡铂,放疗给予根治性同步放化疗。ⅠB1期~ⅡA期手术治疗组患者生存率优于ⅡB期~Ⅳ期期根治性放化疗组患者(P=0.0025),见图 1。
72例接受手术治疗的患者均行宫颈癌根治术+盆腔淋巴结切除术,47例行腹主动脉旁淋巴结切除术,其中1例(1/47, 2.12%)腹主动脉旁淋巴结阳性。27例(27/72, 37.5%)盆腔淋巴结阳性。淋巴结阳性与阴性患者生存曲线比较差异有统计学意义,淋巴结阴性患者生存优于淋巴结阳性患者(P=0.0004),见图 2。
72例手术治疗的患者中,按病理类型分,单纯SCNEC例41例,混合其他病理类型者31例,其中混合有腺癌19例,鳞癌9例,腺鳞癌3例。混合型与单纯型SCNEC生存曲线比较差异无统计学意义(P=0.0546),见图 3。
3 讨论
WHO分类将宫颈神经内分泌肿瘤分为低级别神经内分泌肿瘤(包括类癌及非典型类癌)和高级别神经内分泌肿瘤(包括小细胞神经内分泌癌和大细胞神经内分泌癌)。目前无公认的、规范有效的治疗方案,对于宫颈神经内分泌肿瘤多参照常见宫颈癌的分期治疗原则,主张手术、化疗和放疗的综合性治疗,但其治疗是否应有别于宫颈鳞癌需要更大样本、多中心的研究。美国国立综合癌症网络(National Comprehensive Cancer Network, NCCN)指南也将SCNEC列入特殊类型宫颈癌。
关于SCNEC患者生存率及预后方面的研究,Ishikawa等的一项多中心研究显示淋巴血管间隙受侵是患者的总生存率及无进展生存率的重要预后因素,盆腔淋巴结转移是DFS的重要预后影响因素[9]。Cohen等研究发现Ⅰ~ⅡA、ⅡB~ⅣA、ⅣB期5年生存率分别为36.8%、9.8%和0[10],本研究结果显示临床分期与预后密切相关,各期别5年生存率均较以往文献报道略高。FIGO分期是较为公认的影响患者预后的最重要的独立危险因素[11-12]。由于SCNEC侵袭性强,易发生远处转移,有学者认为早期SCNEC患者手术联合化疗的预后优于单纯手术者[13-14]。本研究中ⅠB~ⅡA期患者均采用手术+放化疗综合治疗,5年总生存率60%以上,提示手术联合术后放化疗对此类患者疗效较好。
宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌早期容易发生转移,但从72例早期患者手术情况发现,仅1例(1.39%)发生卵巢转移。提示对于存在生育要求的年轻SCNEC患者,是否一定要行卵巢切除有待进一步研究证实。研究证实,SCNEC好发转移器官为肺、脑、肝,预后差[15-16]。
此外,几乎所有文献均支持此类肿瘤早期即容易发生远处转移,本研究资料中,死亡病例主要病因为肺转移、全身转移,临床观察也支持上述观点。关于淋巴结转移,有研究认为,即使是早期的SCNEC患者,淋巴结转移也非常普遍,淋巴结转移率为41.6%~57%[17]。本研究中,72例早期SCNEC患者手术后病理提示淋巴结转移22例,转移率37.5%,与文献报道接近,但是对于腹主动脉旁淋巴结,72例患者中47例患者行腹主动脉旁淋巴结活检或切除,仅1例发生腹主动脉旁淋巴结转移,转移率仅为2.13%,远低于盆腔淋巴结转移率。这一研究结果提示我们,即便是早期SCNEC患者,化疗对于控制转移也有重要的临床意义。
与以往报道相比,本研究中手术患者术后均补充了放化疗,且均达到6个疗程,其中49例采用紫杉醇+铂类化疗方案,23例采用顺铂+环磷酰胺+表阿霉素化疗方案,提示手术后放化疗的必要性。
总之,宫颈小细胞神经内分泌癌发病率低、恶性程度高、易发生远处转移和复发,患者预后差、死亡率高、有独特的病理特征,诊断主要依据病理诊断和免疫组织化学结果可提高其诊断的准确率。由于研究样本少,尚需大量的临床资料及多中心研究探索最佳早期诊断及治疗的方法。
作者贡献莫文菊:资料收集、数据分析及文稿撰写丁小文:数据分析郭振英:病理资料复核赵帅、丁雨钦:资料收集陈益定:数据分析和指导论文撰写 -
表 1 152例男性乳腺癌患者的临床及病理特征
Table 1 Clinical and pathological characteristics of 152 male breast cancer patients
表 2 152例男性乳腺癌患者的治疗情况
Table 2 Treatments of 152 male breast cancer patients
-
[1] Anderson WF, Jatoi I, Tse J, et al. Male breast cancer: a population-based comparison with female breast cancer[J]. J Clin Oncol, 2010, 28(2): 232-239. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2009.23.8162
[2] Vermeulen MA, Slaets L, Cardoso F, et al. Pathological characterisation of male breast cancer: Results of the EORTC 10085/TBCRC/BIG/NABCG International Male Breast Cancer Program[J]. Eur J Cancer, 2017, 82: 219-227. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2017.01.034
[3] Giordano SH. Breast Cancer in Men[J]. N Engl J Med, 2018, 378(24): 2311-2320. doi: 10.1056/NEJMra1707939
[4] Gucalp A, Traina TA, Eisner JR, et al. Male breast cancer: a disease distinct from female breast cancer[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2019, 173(1): 37-48. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK/NSTL_QKJJ023386940/
[5] Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version)[J]. Arch Pathol Lab Med, 2010, 134(7): e48-e72. http://www.wanfangdata.com.cn/details/detail.do?_type=perio&id=Open J-Gate000000214520
[6] Johansen Taber KA, Morisy LR, Osbahr AJ 3rd, et al. Male breast cancer: risk factors, diagnosis, and management (Review)[J]. Oncol Rep, 2010, 24(5): 1115-1120. http://d.old.wanfangdata.com.cn/NSTLQK/NSTL_QKJJ0217254816/
[7] Ram D, Rajappa SK, Selvakumar VP, et al. Male breast cancer: A retrospective review of clinical profile from a tertiary cancer care center of India[J]. South Asian J Cancer, 2017, 6(4): 141-143. doi: 10.4103/sajc.sajc_2_17
[8] Ioka A, Tsukuma H, Ajiki W, et al. Survival of male breast cancer patients: a population-based study in Osaka, Japan[J]. Jpn J Clin Oncol, 2006, 36(11): 699-703. doi: 10.1093/jjco/hyl095
[9] Fan L, Strasser-Weippl K, Li JJ, et al. Breast cancer in China[J]. Lancet Oncol, 2014, 15(7): e279-289. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70567-9
[10] Abd-Elhay FA, Elhusseiny KM, Kamel MG, et al. Negative Lymph Node Count and Lymph Node Ratio Are Associated With Survival in Male Breast Cancer[J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2018, 18(6): e1293-e1310. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2018.07.003
[11] Zhou FF, Xia LP, Guo GF, et al. Changes in therapeutic strategies in Chinese male patients with breast cancer: 40 years of experience in a single institute[J]. Breast, 2010, 19(6): 450-455. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2010.04.007
[12] Maráz R, Boross G, Pap-Szekeres J, et al. The role of sentinel node biopsy in male breast cancer[J]. Breast Cancer, 2016, 23(1): 85-91. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=2752fe9498eaa576cb19a619ebca9890&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[13] Fentiman IS. Surgical options for male breast cancer[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2018, 172(3): 539-544. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4952-2
[14] Zaenger D, Rabatic BM, Dasher B, et al. Is Breast Conserving Therapy a Safe Modality for Early-Stage Male Breast Cancer? [J]. Clin Breast Cancer, 2016, 16(2): 101-104. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=875ca08679887d3425993e310ed3bcad&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[15] Walshe JM, Berman AW, Vatas U, et al. A prospective study of adjuvant CMF in males with node positive breast cancer: 20-year follow-up[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2007, 103(2): 177-183. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=839c754d5ea4ac29d97ecd7a460c4c99&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[16] Eggemann H, Ignatov A, Smith BJ, et al. Adjuvant therapy with tamoxifen compared to aromatase inhibitors for 257 male breast cancer patients[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2013, 137(2): 465-470. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=2d5f6feb7419a30654ee86667feffdfe&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[17] Kuba S, Ishida M, Oikawa M, et al. Aromatase inhibitors with or without luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone agonist for metastatic male breast cancer: report of four cases and review of the literature[J]. Breast Cancer, 2016, 23(6): 945-949. doi: 10.1007/s12282-016-0679-2
[18] Zagouri F, Sergentanis TN, Azim HA Jr, et al. Aromatase inhibitors in male breast cancer: a pooled analysis[J]. Breast Cancer Res Treat, 2015, 151(1): 141-147. http://cn.bing.com/academic/profile?id=060f2ee501c55ba51b8840f7edcea743&encoded=0&v=paper_preview&mkt=zh-cn
[19] Sun W, Cheng M, Zhou H, et al. Nomogram Predicting Cause-Specific Mortality in Nonmetastatic Male Breast Cancer: A Competing Risk Analysis[J]. J Cancer, 2019, 10(3): 583-593. doi: 10.7150/jca.28991