目的：探讨乳腺癌动态增强时间-信号（TIC）曲线类型与生物因子ER/PR、CerbB-2的相关性。方法：回顾性分析33例经手术病理证实的乳腺癌患者的DCE-MRI资料及免疫组化结果，绘制并分析病灶的TIC曲线，统计ER/PR及CerbB-2表达水平，采用四格表资料χ2检验分析病灶TIC曲线与生物学因子的相关性。结果：33例病灶中，浸润性导管癌30例，浸润性小叶癌、皮脂腺癌、导管内癌各1例；动态增强后31例呈肿块型强化，2例呈局灶型强化；TIC曲线以Ⅱ型、Ⅲ型曲线为主，其中有12例病灶同时表现为Ⅱ型和Ⅲ型曲线，Ⅱ型曲线23例，Ⅲ型曲线22例。免疫组化结果显示ER/PR表达阳性者22例，阴性者11例；CerbB-2表达阳性者14例，CerbB-2阴性者19例。认为增强后的TIC曲线与ER/PR（χ2=0.012，P>0.05），CerbB-2（χ2=0.030，P>0.05）表达水平无相关性。结论：乳腺癌MRI动态增强扫描后的TIC曲线类型与患者体内ER/PR、CerbB-2表达水平无相关性。
Abstract
Objective: To investigate the correlation of dynamic contrast-enhanced time-signal intensity curve(TIC) of breast cancer and biological factors included ER/PR, CerbB-2. Methods: Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI(DCE-MRI) imaging data and immunohistochemical results of 33 patients with breast cancer proved by operation and pathology were retrospectively analyzed, then the TIC was drawn for 33 lesions and ER/PR and CerbB-2 status were analyzed, a chi-square test was used to explore the correlation between TIC types and biological factors of breast cancers. Results: Among the 33 lesions, 30 lesions were invasive ductal carcinoma, the rest of the cases were invasive lobular carcinoma(1), sebaceous gland carcinoma(1) and ductal carcinoma in situ(1) respectively. Thirty-one masses enhancement lesions and 2 focal enhancement lesions were idenfied. The main type of TIC were type Ⅱ and type Ⅲ, and there were 12 lesions that behave as both type Ⅱ and type Ⅲ, therefore 23 cases with type Ⅱ and 22 cases with type Ⅲ. For the immunohistochemical results, 22 lesions were ER/PR positive, and 11 lesion were negative; 14 lesions were CerbB-2 positive, 19 were negative. There was no correlation between TIC types and biological factors include ER/PR(χ2=0.012, P>0.05) and CerbB-2(χ2=0.030, P>0.05) of breast cancers. Conclusion: There was no correlation between TIC of breast cancer and biological factors(ER/PR, CerbB-2).
关键词
乳腺肿瘤 /
磁共振成像
Key words
Breast neoplasms /
Magnetic resonance imaging
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
参考文献
[1]李艳玲，李洁，曹崑，等. 乳腺癌动态增强MRI特征：非肿块样强化与肿块样强化的比较[J]. 中国医学影像技术，2010，26（7）：1258-1261.
[2]Fernández-Guinea O, Andicoechea A, González LO, et al. Relationship between morphological features and kinetic patterns of enhancement of the dynamic breast magnetic resonance imaging and clinico-pathological and biological factors in invasive breast cancer[J]. BMC Cancer, 2010, 10: 8.
[3]Kato F, Kudo K, Yamashita H, et al. Differences in morphological features and minimum apparent diffusion coefficient values among breast cancer subtypes using 3-tesla MRI[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2016, 85(1): 96-102.
[4]Gokalp G, Topal U, Yildirim N, et al. Malignant spiculated breast masses: dynamic contrast enhanced MR(DCE-MR) imaging enhancement characteristics and histopathological correlation[J]. Eur J Radiol, 2012, 81(2): 203-208.
[5]Osman NM, Chalabi N, Raboh NMA. Triple negative breast cancer: MRI features in comparison to other breast cancer subtypes with correlation to prognostic pathologic factors[J]. Egyp J Radiol Nucl Med, 2014, 45(4): 1309-1316.
[6]Ko ES, Lee BH, Kim HA, et al. Triple-negative breast cancer: correlation between imaging and pathological findings[J]. Eur Radiol, 2010, 20(5): 1111-1117.
[7]Chen JH, Baek HM, Nalcioglu O, et al. Estrogen receptor and breast MR imaging features: a correlation study[J]. J Magn Reson Imaging, 2008, 27(4): 825-833.
[8]Kim JY, Kim SH, Kim YJ, et al. Enhancement parameters on dynamic contrast enhanced breast MRI: do they correlate with prognostic factors and subtypes of breast cancers?[J]. Magn Reson Imaging, 2015, 33(1): 72-80.
[9]Fan XY. MRI diagnosis of infiltrating ductal carcinoma of mammary gland[J]. Radiol Pract, 2010, 25(1): 59-62.
[10]Arponen O, Sudah M, Masarwah A, et al. Diffusion-Weighted Imaging in 3.0 Tesla Breast MRI: Diagnostic Performance and Tumor Characterization Using Small Subregions vs. Whole Tumor Regions of Interest[J]. PLoS One, 2015, 10(10): e0138702.
[11]韦苇，黄仲奎，龙莉玲，等. 乳腺浸润性导管癌的3.0T MRI诊断[J]. 磁共振成像，2012，3（6）：434-439.
基金
甘肃省自然科学基金（编号：1606RJZA160）。
