Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 13  No. 02 ( 2023 ), Article ID: 61521 , 8 pages
10.12677/ACM.2023.132325

磁共振联合临床病理因素预测新辅助化疗后 乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转阴率

李正浩1,2,艾宪程3,马天怡2,毛艳2,吕萌2,王海波2*

1青岛大学,山东 青岛

2青岛大学附属医院,山东 青岛

3山东大学第二医院,山东 济南

收稿日期:2023年1月16日;录用日期:2023年2月13日;发布日期:2023年2月20日

摘要

目的:探索磁共振成像(MRI)联合临床病理因素预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗(NAC)后腋窝淋巴结阳性患者降期为临床阴性的可行性。方法:回顾性收集2019年1月~2021年12月于青岛大学附属医院乳腺病诊疗中心完成新辅助化疗且新辅助化疗前腋窝淋巴结穿刺病理结果为阳性,至少具有新辅助化疗前磁共振影像学资料、新辅助化疗完成后的磁共振影像学资料,并于该中心接受腋窝淋巴结清扫的病人359例。比较术前肿块穿刺标本病理类型、Ki-67、MRI评估NAC前肿块大小、腋窝淋巴结分期、新辅助化疗后MRI评估肿块疗效、腋窝淋巴结疗效对新辅助化疗后腋窝淋巴结降期为临床阴性(ypN0)的影响。结果:多因素分析显示,NAC前腋窝淋巴结分期、MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应、MRI评估NAC后淋巴结化疗反应、病理类型为影响NAC后ypN0的独立预测因素,且HER-2过表达型乳腺癌NAC后ypN0率最高、三阴性乳腺癌次之,Luminal型乳腺癌最低。结论:乳腺癌NAC前腋窝淋巴结分期早、NAC后经MRI评估肿块化疗反应达到CR、腋窝淋巴结化疗反应达到CR的病人,术后达到ypN0可能性更大,术前穿刺病理类型为HER-2阳性的病人术后达到ypN0的可能性最大,TNBC病人其次,Luminal型病人最小。

关键词

乳腺癌,新辅助化疗,磁共振成像,腋窝淋巴结

MRI Combining with Clinicopathological Factors Predict the Negative Rate of Axillary Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy

Zhenghao Li1,2, Xiancheng Ai3, Tianyi Ma2, Yan Mao2, Meng Lv2, Haibo Wang2*

1Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong

2The Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University, Qingdao Shandong

3Second Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan Shandong

Received: Jan. 16th, 2023; accepted: Feb. 13th, 2023; published: Feb. 20th, 2023

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To investigate the feasibility of combining magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with clinicopathological factors in predicting the downstaging of axillary lymph node-positive patients to clinically negative breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). Methods: Retrospectively collecting 359 patients who received neoadjuvant chemotherapy at the breast disease treatment center of the Affiliated Hospital of Qingdao University from January 2019 to December 2021, all patients had the pathological results of axillary lymph node before NAC, at least had MRI databefore and after NAC, and underwent axillary lymph node dissection in the center following the completion of NAC. The study compared the impact of preoperative biopsy pathological type, Ki-67, MRI-assessed tumor size and axillary lymph node stage prior to NAC, MRI-assessed response of the tumor andaxillary lymph nodes after NAC on the axillary lymph node downstaging to clinical negativity (ypN0) after NAC. Results: Multivariate analysis demonstrated that axillary lymph node staging before NAC (OR = 1.863, P = 0.021), MRI-assessed tumor (OR = 0.353, P < 0.001) and lymph node chemotherapeutic response (OR = 0.301, P < 0.001) to chemotherapy after NAC, and pathological type were independent predictors of pathologically negative axillary lymph nodes after NAC (ypN0), and the rate in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2) positive breast cancer was the highest (OR = 0.252, P < 0.001), followed by triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), and Luminal breast cancer was the lowest (OR = 2.783, P = 0.015). Conclusions: Patients with early axillary lymph node staging prior to NAC, MRI-assessed tumor and axillary lymph node complete response (CR) after NAC are more likely to achieve ypN0. The patients with HER-2 positive biopsy type had the highest probability of achieving ypN0 thereafter surgery, followed by TNBC patients, and the least in Luminal patients.

Keywords:Breast Cancer, Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Axillary Lymph Node

Copyright © 2023 by author(s) and Hans Publishers Inc.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0).

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

1. 引言

新辅助化疗目前已经成为乳腺癌局部晚期患者的标准治疗 [1] ,美国国立综合癌症网络指南2018.V3认为,新辅助化疗可以使不可手术的乳腺癌变为可手术切除,可以使有保乳意愿但无法保乳的乳腺癌变为可保乳,将不可保腋窝的乳腺癌降期至可保腋窝,并且能够获得药物敏感的相关信息,进而对进一步治疗提供指导 [2] 。

乳腺癌患者行腋窝淋巴结清扫(axillary lymph node dissection, ALND)后常见的术后并发症之一为上肢淋巴水肿,常导致患肢肿胀、疼痛,严重影响患者术后生活质量与心理健康 [3] ,随着乳腺癌治疗理念的转变,外科医生对腋窝淋巴结的处理策略也在不断变化,前哨淋巴结活检(sentinel lymph node biopsy, SLNB)的普遍应用有效降低了腋窝淋巴结清扫造成的术后上肢水肿等并发症的发生率,有研究表示,患者行SLNB术后18个月内出现上肢淋巴水肿的比例可以降至7.0% [4] 。

然而,对于腋窝淋巴结穿刺为阳性的病人,接受NAC后行SLNB的安全性一直存在较大争议,SENTINA试验 [5] 与ACOSOG Z1071试验 [6] 中临床淋巴结阳性乳腺癌经NAC后接受SLNB时,SLN的检出率为80.1%和92.9%,假阴性率分别为14.2%和12.6%,尽管上述两项试验的SLN假阴性率均超过了10%,已经超过可接受范围 [7] [8] ,但仍然显示出了腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌NAC后行SLNB的临床应用潜能。本研究旨在分析术前肿块穿刺标本病理类型、Ki-67等临床病理因素及MRI评估术前肿块大小、腋窝淋巴结分期、新辅助化疗后MRI评估肿块疗效、腋窝淋巴结疗效等影像学因素对NAC后腋窝降期为临床阴性的影响,预测何种类型的NAC前腋窝淋巴结阳性乳腺癌病人降期为腋窝临床阴性的可能性大,为新辅助化疗后的腋窝降阶梯治疗提供参考。

2. 资料与方法

2.1. 一般资料

收集2019年1月~2021年12月青岛大学附属医院乳腺病诊疗中心的T1-3N1-3M0乳腺癌病人359例。所有病人均经乳房肿瘤空心针穿刺活检确诊为乳腺癌,并经全身检查排除远处转移。所有病人术前体检和(或)影像学检查(MRI)提示腋窝淋巴结异常,并行超声引导下腋窝淋巴结空心针穿刺活检,病理证实为转移。入组病人手术前接受4~8周期NAC,且每2周期进行疗效评估,依据RE-CIST实体瘤评定标准1.1进行乳房肿块及腋窝淋巴结疗效评估。入组病人至少具有NAC前MRI影像学检查资料及NAC后MRI影像学检查资料。NAC的方案主要为TA、TAC、AC-T(HP)、TCbHP等。

入组病人年龄为26~71岁,平均50.3岁,其中绝经前188例(52.4%),绝经后171例(47.6%)体质量指数BMI < 25 kg/m2病人169例(47.1%),≥25 kg/m2病人190例(52.9%)。无乳腺癌家族史347例(96.7%),有乳腺癌家族史12例(3.3%),肿瘤分期T1病人30例(8.3%),肿瘤分期T2病人174例(48.5%),肿瘤分期T3病人155例(43.2%),淋巴结分期N1病人254例(70.8%),淋巴结分期N2病人91例(25.3%),淋巴结分期N3病人14例(3.9%)。穿刺病理组织学I级12例(3.3%),组织学II级291例(81.1%),组织学III级56例(15.6%)。Luminal型病人159例(44.3%),TNBC病人48例(13.4%),人表皮生长因子受体-2 (HER-2)阳性病人152例(42.3%)。NAC后所有病人均行ALND,最终结果以石蜡切片病理检查结果为准。

2.2. 病理检查

切除的乳癌组织及淋巴结均常规石蜡包埋,连续切片,行苏木精–伊红染色和免疫组织化学染色。

2.3. 统计学方法

应用SPSS 25.0软件进行统计分析,单因素分析中,率的比较采用卡方检验,多因素分析采用Logistics回归,以P < 0.05为差异有统计学意义。

3. 结果

3.1. 腋窝淋巴结阴性分布情况

本组病人ypN0率为41.2% (148/359),其中年龄 < 50岁的病人ypN0率为41.5% (76/183),年龄 ≥ 50岁的病人为40.9% (72/104)。BMI < 25 kg/m2的病人ypN0率为43.2% (73/169),BMI ≥ 25 kg/m2的病人为39.5% (75/190)。无乳腺癌家族史的病人ypN0率为41.8% (145/347),无乳腺癌家族史的病人为25% (3/9)。肿瘤临床分期T1的病人ypN0率为56.7% (17/30),肿瘤临床分期T2的病人为39.1% (68/174),肿瘤临床分期为T3的病人为40.6% (63/155)。腋窝临床分期为N1的病人ypN0率为41.7% (106/254),腋窝临床分期为N2的病人为39.6% (36/91),腋窝临床分期为N3的病人为42.9% (6/14)。MRI评估新辅助化疗后肿块化疗反应为CR的病人ypN0率为75.0% (39/52),MRI评估新辅助化疗后肿块化疗反应为PR的病人为47.0% (95/202),MRI评估新辅助化疗后肿块化疗反应为SD的病人为13.6% (14/103),MRI评估新辅助化疗后肿块化疗反应为PD的病人为0 (0/2)。MRI评估新辅助化疗后腋窝化疗反应为CR的病人ypN0率为63.5% (73/115) MRI评估新辅助化疗后腋窝化疗反应为non-CR的病人为30.7% (75/244)。穿刺病理Ki-67低表达的病人ypN0率为28.7% (27/94),术前穿刺病理Ki-67高表达的病人为45.7% (121/265)。穿刺病理类型为Luminal型的病人ypN0率为14.5% (23/159),穿刺病理类型为TNBC的病人为37.5% (18/48),穿刺为Her-2阳性的病人为70.4% (107/152)。

3.2. 影响新辅助化疗后腋窝淋巴结降期为阴性的单因素分析

单因素分析显示,年龄、BMI、有无乳腺癌家族史、肿瘤临床分期、腋窝淋巴结临床分期均不影响NAC后腋窝淋巴结能否降期为阴性;MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应为CR、MRI评估NAC后腋窝化疗反应为CR、穿刺病理Ki-67高表达、穿刺病理为Her-2阳性的病人,其ypN0率明显高于MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应为non-CR、MRI评估NAC后腋窝化疗反应为non-CR、穿刺病理Ki-67低表达、穿刺病理为Luminal型或TNBC的病人,差异均具有统计学意义(卡方 = 8.215~100.641,p < 0.05),见表1

Table 1. The correlation between ypN0 after NAC and clinicopathological characteristics of the breast cancer patients

表1. NAC后ypN0与乳腺癌症患者临床或病理特征的相关性

3.3. 影响新辅助化疗后腋窝淋巴结降期为阴性的多因素分析

多因素分析显示,MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应程度可显著影响NAC后腋窝淋巴结是否降期为阴性,p < 0.05,影响系数B = 1.063 > 0,意味着MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应程度越好,NAC后达到ypN0的可能性越大,OR = 2.894;MRI评估NAC后腋窝化疗反应程度可显著影响NAC后腋窝淋巴结是否降期为阴性,p < 0.05,影响系数B = 1.043 > 0,意味着MRI评估NAC后腋窝化疗反应程度为CR时,NAC后达到ypN0的可能性越大,OR = 2.839;穿刺病理类型可显著影响NAC后腋窝淋巴结是否降期为阴性,且病理类型为Her-2阳性时,其NAC后ypN0率比TNBC乳腺癌大(OR = 0.254),而Luminal型乳腺癌NAC后ypN0率比TNBC乳腺癌小(OR = 2.623),见表2

Table 2. Multivariate logistic analysis of ypN0 related factors after NAC

表2. NAC后ypN0相关因素的多因素Logistic分析

4. 讨论

既往的研究显示,NAC能够使20%~40%病人的腋窝淋巴结降期为临床阴性 [9] ,且KANG等 [10] 对韩国1247例病人进行回顾性研究的结果显示,NAC后腋窝淋巴结降期为临床阴性的病人行前哨淋巴结活检组与腋窝淋巴结清扫组的4年无腋窝淋巴结复发生存率分别为97.8%与99.0%,差异无统计学意义。这些研究可能表示,NAC后的乳腺癌患者,有一部分并未从腋窝淋巴结清扫中获益,反而增加了腋窝淋巴结清扫后的淋巴水肿、肢体麻木等不良反应的风险。

本研究回顾性地分析了359例腋窝淋巴结穿刺为阳性的乳腺癌新辅助化疗病人,术后病理结果显示ypN0率为41.2%,基本与既往的研究结果相一致,证明有相当一部分病人并未从腋窝淋巴结清扫中获益,存在腋窝降阶梯治疗的可能性。Yu [11] 等进行的一项回顾性多中心研究分析,利用MRI预测术前腋窝淋巴结显示出了较高的预测质量,证实了MRI对腋窝淋巴结反应具有较高的敏感性与准确性。Samia等 [12] 的研究分析了87例MRI影像学资料完整的接受NAC治疗的腋窝阳性病人,认为乳房肿块的MRI评估CR是预测腋窝反应的影响因素,MRI评估乳房CR时,ypN0的比例可达到64%,但受限于样本量个数,MRI评估腋窝淋巴结反应的结果并不显著(p = 0.087)。本研究中的359例样本中,MRI评估肿块化疗反应达到CR的52例样本中有39例(75%)达到了ypN0 (p < 0.001),与Samia等的研究结果一致,MRI评估腋窝化疗反应为CR的115例病人中有73例(63.5%)达到了ypN0 (p < 0.001),证明了MRI评估腋窝CR同样也是预测腋窝反应的影响因素。多项研究证明Her-2阳性与TNBC乳腺癌的患者,NAC后达到ypN0率可达70%~80% [13] [14] [15] ,Colleoni M等 [16] 的研究显示,Luminal型乳腺癌NAC后的ypN0率仅有24.7%。本研究152例Her-2阳性病人有107例达到ypN0 (70.4%),48例TNBC患者有18例达到ypN0 (37.5%),而159例Luminal型病人仅有23例达到ypN0 (14.5%),结果显示Her-2阳性病人NAC后腋窝淋巴结化疗反应明显优于三阴性与Luminal型病人,这可能与帕妥珠单抗联合曲妥珠单抗带来的tpCR率明显提高有关 [17] [18] 。van Zeeland M等 [19] 的研究认为,NAC前的淋巴结临床分期是ypN0的独立预测因素,Eun N. L等 [20] 的研究认为,NAC前的肿瘤大小也是ypN0的独立影响因素,这种观点认为,NAC前乳房肿瘤越小、淋巴结分期越早,越有可能达到ypN0,本研究多因素分析显示,NAC前的腋窝淋巴结分期是ypN0的独立预测因素,而NAC前的乳房肿瘤分期并非ypN0的独立影响因素(p = 0.339),这可能提示,某些腋窝淋巴结分期较早的患者,即使乳房肿块较大,经过NAC后,也可达到ypN0,进而存在腋窝降阶梯治疗的可能性。

本研究结果显示,NAC前腋窝淋巴结分期、MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应、MRI评估NAC后腋窝淋巴结化疗反应、肿块病理分型是NAC后ypN0的独立预测因素,这些预测指标在临床中较易获取,能够为外科医生在NAC后的腋窝淋巴结手术决策中提供帮助与指导,一项Meta分析纳入了23项临床研究中的1521例新辅助化疗后行前哨淋巴结活检以及腋窝淋巴结清扫的患者,前哨淋巴结活检评估腋窝状态的准确率为89%,假阴性率为13% [21] ,而另一项研究显示,在接受新辅助化疗腋窝淋巴结转阴的患者前哨淋巴结活检的假阴性率为8.4% [22] ,已达到可接受水平。因此,经过预测筛选出可能达到ypN0的病人,对降低腋窝淋巴结穿刺阳性的病人NAC后行SLNB的假阴性率具有重要作用。

5. 结论

综上所述,NAC前腋窝淋巴结分期、MRI评估NAC后肿块化疗反应、MRI评估NAC后腋窝淋巴结化疗反应、病理类型为影响NAC后ypN0的独立预测因素,NAC前较早的腋窝淋巴结分期、NAC后肿块MRI评估CR、NAC后腋窝MRI评估CR、均与NAC后ypN0显著相关,且HER-2阳性乳腺癌NAC后ypN0率最高、三阴性乳腺癌次之,Luminal型乳腺癌最低。本研究结果能够预测腋窝淋巴结阳性NAC后达到ypN0的病人,降低这类人群的SLNB假阴性率,为外科医生对这类人群NAC后的腋窝淋巴结手术方式决策提供帮助与指导。

文章引用

李正浩,艾宪程,马天怡,毛 艳,吕 萌,王海波. 磁共振联合临床病理因素预测新辅助化疗后乳腺癌腋窝淋巴结转阴率
MRI Combining with Clinicopathological Factors Predict the Negative Rate of Axillary Lymph Nodes in Breast Cancer after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy[J]. 临床医学进展, 2023, 13(02): 2325-2332. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2023.132325

参考文献

  1. 1. 牟鹏, 厉红元. 乳腺癌新辅助化疗的研究进展[J]. 中国普外基础与临床杂志, 2011, 18(9): 1011-1016.

  2. 2. Goetz, M.P., Gradishar, W.J., Anderson, B.O., Abraham, J., Aft, R., Allison, K.H., et al. (2019) NCCN Guidelines Insights: Breast Cancer, Version 3.2018. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 17, 118-126. https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2019.0102

  3. 3. 高宇, 郭仁德. 乳腺癌根治术后上肢淋巴结水肿发病机制及治疗研究进展[J]. 四川解剖学杂志, 2020, 28(2): 196-197.

  4. 4. Fleissig, A., Fallowfield, L.J., Langridge, C.I., Johnson, L., Newcombe, R.G., Dixon, J.M., et al. (2006) Post-Operative Arm Morbidity and Quality of Life. Results of the ALMANAC Randomised Trial Comparing Sentinel Node Biopsy with Standard Axillary Treatment in the Management of Patients with Early Breast Cancer. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 95, 279-293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-005-9025-7

  5. 5. Kuehn, T., Bauerfeind, I., Fehm, T., Fleige, B., Hausschild, M., Helms, G., et al. (2013) Sentinel-Lymph-Node Biopsy in Patients with Breast Cancer before and after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy (SENTINA): A Prospective, Multicentre Cohort Study. The Lancet Oncology, 14, 609-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(13)70166-9

  6. 6. Boughey, J.C., Suman, V.J., Mittendorf, E.A., Ahrendt, G.M., Wilke, L.G., Taback, B., et al. (2013) Sentinel Lymph Node Surgery after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients with Node-Positive Breast Cancer: The ACOSOG Z1071 (Alliance) Clinical Trial. JAMA, 310, 1455-1461. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.278932

  7. 7. Krag, D.N., Anderson, S.J., Julian, T.B., Brown, A.M., Harlow, S.P., Costantino, J.P., et al. (2010) Sentinel-Lymph-Node Resection Compared with Conventional Axillary-Lymph-Node Dissection in Clinically Node-Negative Patients with Breast Cancer: Overall Survival Findings from the NSABP B-32 Randomised Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 11, 927-933. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70207-2

  8. 8. Mansel, R.E., Fallowfield, L., Kissin, M., Goyal, A., New-combe, R.G., Dixon, J.M., et al. (2006) Randomized Multicenter Trial of Sentinel Node Biopsy versus Standard Axillary Treatment in Operable Breast Cancer: The ALMANAC Trial. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 98, 599-609. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djj158

  9. 9. Kuerer, H.M., Sahin, A.A., Hunt, K.K., Newman, L.A., Breslin, T.M., Ames, F.C., et al. (1999) Incidence and Impact of Documented Eradication of Breast Cancer Axillary Lymph Node Metastases before Surgery in Patients Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Annals of Surgery, 230, 72-78. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-199907000-00011

  10. 10. Kang, Y.-J., Han, W., Park, S., You, J.Y., Yi, H.W., Park, S., et al. (2017) Outcome Following Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy-Guided Decisions in Breast Cancer Patients with Conversion from Positive to Negative Axillary Lymph Nodes after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Re-search and Treatment, 166, 473-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-017-4423-1

  11. 11. Yu, Y., He, Z., Ouyang, J., Tan, Y., Chen, Y., Gu, Y., et al. (2021) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Radiomics Predicts Preoperative Axillary Lymph Node Metastasis to Support Sur-gical Decisions and Is Associated with Tumor Microenvironment in Invasive Breast Cancer: A Machine Learning, Mul-ticenter Study. EBioMedicine, 69, Article ID: 103460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ebiom.2021.103460

  12. 12. Al-Hattali, S., Vinnicombe, S.J., Gowdh, N.M., Evans, A., Armstrong, S., Adamson, D., et al. (2019) Breast MRI and Tumour Biology Predict Axillary Lymph Node Response to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. Cancer Imaging, 19, Article No. 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40644-019-0279-4

  13. 13. Boughey, J.C., McCall, L.M., Ballman, K.V., Mittendorf, E.A., Ahrendt, G.M., Wilke, L.G., et al. (2014) Tumor Biology Correlates with Rates of Breast-Conserving Surgery and Path-ologic Complete Response after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer: Findings from the ACOSOG Z1071 (Al-liance) Prospective Multicenter Clinical Trial. Annals of Surgery, 260, 608-616. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000000924

  14. 14. Gianni, L., Pienkowski, T., Im, Y.-H., Roman, L., Tseng, L.M., Liu, M.C., et al. (2012) Efficacy and Safety of Neoadjuvant Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab in Women with Locally Advanced, Inflammatory, or Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer (NeoSphere): A Randomised Multicentre, Open-Label, Phase 2 Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 13, 25-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70336-9

  15. 15. Mamtani, A., Barrio, A.V., King, T.A., Van Zee, K.J., Plitas, G., Pilewskie, M., et al. (2016) How Often Does Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Avoid Axillary Dissection in Patients With Histologically Confirmed Nodal Metastases? Results of a Prospective Study. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 23, 3467-3474. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-016-5246-8

  16. 16. Colleoni, M., Bagnardi, V., Rotmensz, N., Gelber, R.D., Viale, G., Pruneri, G., et al. (2009) Increasing Steroid Hormone Receptors Expression Defines Breast Cancer Subtypes Non Responsive to Preoperative Chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 116, 359-369. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-008-0223-y

  17. 17. González-Santiago, S., Saura, C., Ciruelos, E., Alonso, J.L., de la Morena, P., Santisteban Eslava, M., et al. (2020) Real-World Effectiveness of Dual HER2 Blockade with Pertuzumab and Trastuzumab for Neoadjuvant Treatment of HER2-Positive Early Breast Cancer (The NEOPETRA Study). Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 184, 469-479. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-05866-1

  18. 18. Singh, J.C., Mamtani, A., Barrio, A., Morrow, M., Sugarman, S., Jones, L.W., et al. (2017) Pathologic Complete Response with Neoadjuvant Doxorubicin and Cyclophosphamide Fol-lowed by Paclitaxel with Trastuzumab and Pertuzumab in Patients with HER2-Positive Early Stage Breast Cancer: A Single Center Experience. The Oncologist, 22, 139-143. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.2016-0268

  19. 19. van Zeeland, M., Westhoff, P., Wauters, C., Bult, P., Werner, A., Laurens, N., et al. (2020) Omission of Axillary Lymph Node Dissection after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Clini-cally Node-Positive Breast Cancer: How Can We Select Patients? The Breast Journal, 26, 1869-1870. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13930

  20. 20. Eun, N.L., Son, E.J., Gweon, H.M., Kim, J.-A. and Youk, J.H. (2020) Pre-diction of Axillary Response by Monitoring with Ultrasound and MRI during and after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Breast Cancer Patients. European Radiology, 30, 1460-1469. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-019-06539-4

  21. 21. Shirzadi, A., Mahmoodzadeh, H. and Qorbani, M. (2019) As-sessment of Sentinel Lymph Node Biopsy after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer in Two Subgroups: Ini-tially Node Negative and Node Positive Converted to Node Negative—A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis. Journal of Research in Medical Sciences, 24, Article No. 18. https://doi.org/10.4103/jrms.JRMS_127_18

  22. 22. Morency, D., Dumitra, S., Parvez, E., Martel, K., Basik, M., Robidoux, A., et al. (2019) Axillary Lymph Node Ultrasound Following Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy in Biopsy-Proven Node-Positive Breast Cancer: Results from the SN FNAC Study. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 26, 4337-4345. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-019-07809-7

  23. NOTES

    *通讯作者。

期刊菜单