Advances in Clinical Medicine
Vol. 14  No. 01 ( 2024 ), Article ID: 79362 , 9 pages
10.12677/ACM.2024.141109

乳腺癌术后放疗后复发的危险因素及 复发模式

肖若敏1*,陈子琴2,罗家顺1,吴涛1#

1吉首大学医学院,湖南 吉首

2常德市第一中医医院,湖南 常德

收稿日期:2023年12月17日;录用日期:2024年1月11日;发布日期:2024年1月17日

摘要

乳腺癌是目前威胁全球女性健康的第一大肿瘤,据全球癌症统计显示,2020年全球新发癌症病例1929万例,其中乳腺癌新增人数达约230万例,发病率首次超过了肺癌,居恶性肿瘤首位。放疗在乳腺癌综合治疗中具有重要的地位,它可以降低高危患者局部复发风险,但仍有8%~14.3%的患者在放疗后出现复发。乳腺癌预后相关影响因素众多,如肿瘤大小、淋巴结转移数目、分子分型、脉管癌栓、年龄、不同治疗手段等。因此在临床上密切关注导致疾病复发的危险因素,并给予有效干预,对降低肿瘤复发、改善患者生存是极为重要的。目前关于乳腺癌术后放疗后复发模式与乳腺癌相关危险因素的研究存在差异,因此本文旨在探讨乳腺癌术后放疗后相关复发模式与乳腺癌相关危险因素的关系,以期为临床运用提供参考。

关键词

乳腺癌,放射治疗,危险因素,复发模式

Risk Factors and Recurrence Patterns of Breast Cancer Recurrence after Postoperative Radiotherapy

Ruomin Xiao1*, Ziqin Chen2, Jiashun Luo1, Tao Wu1#

1School of Medicine, Jishou University, Jishou Hunan

2No. 1 Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital in Changde, Changde Hunan

Received: Dec. 17th, 2023; accepted: Jan. 11th, 2024; published: Jan. 17th, 2024

ABSTRACT

Breast cancer is currently the number one tumor threatening women’s health worldwide. According to global cancer statistics, in 2020, there were 19.29 million new cancer cases worldwide, of which the number of new breast cancer cases reached about 2.3 million, and the incidence rate exceeded lung cancer for the first time, ranking the first in malignant tumors. Radiotherapy has an important position in the comprehensive treatment of breast cancer, which can reduce the risk of local recurrence in high-risk patients, but there are still 8% to 14.3% of patients who experience recurrence after radiotherapy. There are numerous influencing factors related to the prognosis of breast cancer, such as tumor size, number of lymph node metastases, molecular staging, vascular cancer embolism, age, and different treatments. Therefore, it is extremely important to pay close attention to the risk factors that lead to recurrence of the disease and provide effective intervention to reduce tumor recurrence and improve patient survival. At present, there are differences in the studies on the recurrence pattern after postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer and the risk factors associated with breast cancer, so this paper aims to explore the relationship between the recurrence pattern associated with postoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer and the risk factors associated with breast cancer, with a view to providing a reference for clinical application.

Keywords:Breast Cancer, Radiotherapy, Risk Factors, Recurrence Patterns

Copyright © 2024 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

乳腺癌是威胁全球女性健康常见的恶性肿瘤之一,据全球癌症统计 [1] 显示,2020年乳腺癌发病率居恶性肿瘤首位,在我国,乳腺癌的发病率也呈逐年升高的趋势,据统计,每年新发乳腺癌病例可达545.29/10万 [2] 。放疗是乳腺癌综合治疗的重要手段之一,可以降低保乳手术及根治术后高危患者局部复发风险 [3] ,进一步改善部分患者的总体生存期 [4] ,但仍有8%~14.3% [5] [6] [7] 的患者在放疗后出现复发。乳腺癌术后放疗后复发模式影响因素较多如:年龄、临床病理特征、手术方式、术后辅助治疗方式等 [8] [9] [10] [11] 。目前关于乳腺癌术后放疗后复发模式与乳腺癌相关危险因素的研究存在差异,复发后患者预后及治疗策略也各不相同,因此本文旨在探讨乳腺癌术后放疗后相关复发模式与乳腺癌相关危险因素的关系。

2. 乳腺癌与放射治疗

放射治疗在乳腺癌的综合治疗中具有重要的地位。乳腺癌保乳术后的患者,在早期的研究中如CALGB9343 [12] ,对于年龄 > 70岁、T1N0M0、ER+的患者可以考虑豁免乳腺癌保乳手术后的辅助放疗,放疗组的局部复发率为2%,未放疗组的局部复发率为9%,尽管未放疗组的患者局部复发率有所增高,但两组间远处复发及生存大致相同(但在该研究中并没有分析组织学为G3及血管淋巴管受累这样一些危险因素)。PRIME II研究 [13] 也得出了同样的结论,对于年龄 ≥ 65岁、肿瘤 ≤ 3厘米、N0、ER阳性并接受保乳术的女性乳腺癌患者接受全乳放疗与不接受放疗,中位随访9.1年,两组之间区域复发率、总生存期(OS)等长期影响相似,但该研究也给大家带来了新的启示,在未接受放疗的患者中ER表达水平高低影响着局部的复发风险,ER低表达为19.1%,ER高表达仅为8.4%。随着乳腺癌患者发病的年轻化,对于更为年轻的早期保乳术后患者是否同样可以豁免放疗。今年LUMINA研究 [14] ,纳入了年龄 ≥ 55岁,肿瘤 ≤ 2 cm、N0、G1、G2级且Ki-67 < 13.25%的保乳术后患者,除了常见的预后因素,这个研究还考虑到Ki-67这一代表肿瘤增殖指数的指标。所有入组患者在术后接受芳香酶抑制剂(即阿那曲唑、来曲唑或依西美坦)或他莫昔芬内分泌治疗至少5年,但不接受乳房放疗,研究主要终点为同侧乳腺局部复发,中位随访时间为5年,结果显示5年同侧乳腺局部累计复发率仅为2.3%,这一结果与目前标准术后放疗的复发率差距较小。上述研究为特定患者安全豁免术后放疗提供了有力的证据。目前,我们也在寻求各种生物标志物的基础上选择特定的年轻患者省略放疗,如:LUMINA试验 [14] 纳入了Ki-67的临界值(>13.25%的患者不符合条件)、NRG-BR007 DEBRA试验则要求Oncotype DX乳房复发评分下限为18。因此,我们期待在未来可以通过更多生物标记物对患者进行进一步的风险分层,从而帮助患者及临床大夫做出更好的治疗决策。

术后的乳腺癌患者,大肿块(原发灶 > 5 CM)及淋巴结阳性(N2及以上)的患者需行放疗。但随着新辅助化疗在乳腺癌综合治疗中地位的提升,它的适应症也从之前无法手术的局部晚期拓展到早期可手术者。新辅助化疗可影响肿瘤的分期及分子分型,也使得乳腺癌新辅助化疗后术后放疗的抉择变得更为复杂 [15] 。目前,NCCN指南及国内各大指南推荐根据新辅助化疗前最高疾病分期及术后病理情况来进行辅助放疗的决策,但对于新辅助化疗后病理完全缓解(pCR)或腋窝淋巴结转阴的患者术后放疗尚存在争议。Janghee Lee等的研究 [16] 显示在接受新辅助化疗后pCR的患者中,接受放疗组较未放疗组的局部无复发生存(LRRFS)及OS并没有明显差异。Yuran [17] 等的研究显示,对于新辅助化疗和全乳房切除术后实现腋窝病理完全缓解的cT1-2N1乳腺癌患者来说,接受放疗后的无病生存期(DFS)及OS获益有限。RAPCHEM研究 [18] 将838例接受过至少三个周期新辅助化疗并行乳房及腋窝手术的cT1-2N1的浸润性乳腺癌患者按照ypN状态分为三组,分别为低风险组、中等风险组及高风险组,每个风险组都有各自的局部放射治疗建议,结果显示,5年局部区域复发率在不同风险组之间无显著差异,5年局部区域复发率在总体人群中为2.2%,低于4%,支持了研究者的假设,即对于接受新辅助化疗的cT1-2N1乳腺癌患者,可以根据局部区域复发风险降低术后局部区域放疗强度。

放疗技术的进步,从最初的二维时代发展到如今的四维时代。让肿瘤放疗在降低不良反应的同时提高治疗效率,减少治疗偏差,为患者提供更全面、科学、精准的技术解决方案。

目前,也有更多关于放疗技术相关探索,如呼吸控制放疗技术(DIBH),据相关数据统计 [19] [20] ,DIBH技术可使患者平均心脏剂量降至<50%、左冠状动脉前降支最大剂量降至50%左右、肺平均剂量至少减少16%,并且使肺体积照射减少至少20%,对于需要重点保护心脏的患者可选用此项技术。大分割放疗是一种在与常规分割放疗模式相对生物总剂量等效的前提下,增加每次照射剂量(>2 Gy/F),从而使治疗总时间缩短的放射治疗新模式,多项临床研究数据表明 [6] [21] [22] ,大分割放疗与常规分割放疗的安全性和有效性类似,甚至更有优势,且3级急性皮肤反应发生率较常规分割模式低(常规分割放疗组3级急性皮肤反应发生率为8%,大分割放疗组为3% (p < 0.0001))。

临床分期决定患者的放疗区域,早期乳腺癌术后患者,胸壁、乳房、区域淋巴结放疗已被随机对照研究证实可以显著减少复发率和死亡率,但由于内乳紧邻心脏,该区域接受放疗导致非乳腺癌死亡风险也有所增加,因此,内乳淋巴结放疗能否获益仍然存在巨大争议。两项大型III期随机临床试验,NCIC-CTG MA.20 [23] 和EORTC 22922/10925 [24] 研究表明,淋巴结阳性乳腺癌或高危淋巴结阴性乳腺癌患者手术后,在全乳或胸壁放疗的基础上增加局部淋巴结照射可使DFS受益,但不能改善OS。EORTC 22922/10925研究的长期随访数据还显示,局部淋巴结照射可显著降低乳腺癌死亡率和复发风险。在以上两项研究中,放疗区域均针对内乳和锁骨上淋巴结,所以目前还不清楚哪部分区域淋巴结的照射有助于改善治疗结果。而一项基于丹麦人群的DBCG-IMN前瞻性研究 [25] 表明,照射内乳链可将8年OS从72.2%提高到75.9% (HR = 0.82, p = 0.005),并且在≥4枚阳性淋巴结或1~3枚阳性淋巴结和内侧肿瘤的患者亚组中,可观察到更大的OS获益。KROG 08-06研究 [26] 纳入了735名经组织学证实的淋巴结阳性女性乳腺癌患者,根据N分期和手术类型对患者进行分层。其次,将患者按1:1进行随机分组,其中373名患者未接受内乳区域淋巴结放疗,另外362名患者接受内乳区域淋巴结放疗,中位随访时间100.4个月,主要终点为7年DFS,结果显示,两组之间7年DFS率没有显著差异,亚组分析显示,在肿瘤位置为中心区域的患者中,接受内乳淋巴结照射的患者较未接受的患者DFS率高。两组患者的心脏毒性反应和放射性肺炎等的不良反应发生率无明显差异。目前,内乳淋巴结照射还需要更多的研究来确定适宜人群。

综上所述,我们应综合患者年龄、肿瘤大小、ER状态、淋巴结转移数目、病理分级、心脏功能、区域淋巴结阳性位置等相关因素,充分评估放疗风险及获益,个体化选择乳腺癌术后辅助放疗方案,甚至豁免放疗,也期待更多临床研究进一步就乳腺癌术后辅助放疗方案进行探讨。

3. 乳腺癌复发相关危险因素

3.1. 肿瘤大小

乳腺癌原发肿瘤大小是评估患者预后的间接生物学因素,也是影响乳房切除术式选择和是否行辅助放疗的重要因素。肿瘤直径越大表明受累范围越广泛,预后越差。有研究指出肿瘤大小与较差的DFS及OS相关 [27] 。而Dat Nguyen [28] 等指出,肿瘤直径较大的患者在放疗后OS及RFS仍较差。Xuran Zhao [29] 等对7073名未接受乳房切除术后放疗的女性乳腺癌患者进行分析,结果显示肿瘤大小是局部复发及区域复发的独立预后因素。Sota Asaga [30] 等对428名分期为T1-2N1的女性乳腺癌患者进行分析,结果显示肿瘤大小 < 2 cm与较好的DFS相关。Akimitsu [31] 等对8914名T分期为1~2、1~3个淋巴结阳性的乳腺癌患者进行分析,将其分为乳房切除术后放疗(PMRT)组及No-PMRT组,中位观察时间为6.3年,结果显示肿瘤大小与LRR显著相关。Robin [32] 等对3765名女性早期乳腺癌患者的复发情况进行分析,结果显示肿瘤直径 > 5 cm与复发风险显著增加相关。

3.2. 淋巴结转移情况

腋窝淋巴结转移的存在、数目及位置决定了乳腺癌的病理分期,淋巴结转移是影响总复发率和生存率的最重要的指标。腋窝数越多,肿瘤转移的范围越广,彻底清除的难度也会越大。肿瘤位置局限于乳房的乳腺癌患者5年存活率为98.8%,而区域性淋巴结转移患者的5年存活率降至85.8% [33] 。Mariko Asaoka等的研究 [27] 纳入了接受新辅助治疗后病理完全缓解(pCR)的1599名乳腺癌患者,结果显示,在单变量分析中,与复发的重要预测因子是Her-2阳性(p = 0.04)、临床肿瘤大小(p < 0.01)和新辅助治疗之前的淋巴结转移(p < 0.01),而在多变量分析中只有淋巴结转移。Minh Tung等 [34] 发表的一项系统性综述中显示:在选择的96篇文章中最常用的预测因子为淋巴结状态。Victoria等 [35] 纳入了1987年至2000年间2312名女性乳腺癌患者,结果显示淋巴结阳性与远处复发后死亡率增加显著相关。

3.3. 分子分型

不同分子分型在基因特征、发病年龄、临床特征、恶性程度、治疗敏感性及预后等各方面均存在差异。Maria等的研究 [36] 纳入了677例HER2阳性、I~III期乳腺癌患者,中位随访时间为8.4年,结果显示内在分子亚型与转移扩散的特定模式相关,与其他亚型相比,HER2富集的肿瘤更容易发生脑转移,基底样肿瘤与肺转移的风险增加相关,Luminal亚型患者则更易发生骨转移。Jong等的研究 [37] 对16,462名女性乳腺癌患者进行分析,结果显示HR阴性患者在治疗早期复发率较高,而HR阳性患者术后5年以上复发率基本稳定,HER-2阳性患者的无同侧肿瘤复发(IBTR)生存率最差,三阴性患者无区域复发及无对侧肿瘤复发生存率最差。也就是说不同分子分型乳腺癌复发模式并不一致。此外,也有研究表明HER2的高表达是新辅助治疗后达pCR患者复发的重要预测因素 [27] 。在一项系统回顾及荟萃分析中显示,HER2阳性患者的局部控制率比Luminal A型患者差 [38] 。一些研究报道HER2富集型及三阴型乳腺癌最容易出现局部区域复发,且三阴型的区域复发风险显著高于其他亚型 [30] [31] 。

3.4. 年龄

国际年轻乳腺癌共识专家组将40岁以下患者定义为年轻乳腺癌,目前临床研究也多以40岁作为界限来定义年轻乳腺癌。中国<40岁的乳腺癌患者5年DFS和10年OS分别为88.1%和88.7%,这种差异可能与年轻乳腺癌较强的侵袭性生物学行为相关,有研究显示,年轻乳腺癌患者更易发生血行及淋巴结转移、组织学分级更高,Ki-67高表达比例更高,脉管侵犯的比例更高,三阴性乳腺癌比例更高,且更易存在乳腺癌易感基因的胚系致病突变。H. Vihervuori等的研究 [39] 显示确诊年龄是预测三阴性乳腺癌(TNBC)疾病特异性死亡率的决定性因素。Yanis Hassaine等的研究 [40] 纳入了23,703例浸润性乳腺癌病例,将所纳入患者依照不同年龄分为四组(<40岁、40~49岁、50~74岁、≥75岁),结果显示<40岁人群浸润性乳腺癌发病率年平均变化百分比为+2.1% (95% CI 1.3; 2.8),与其他年龄组相比,发病率增幅最高;且<40岁人群10年相对生存率在1990~1999年和2000~2008年中分别为74.6%及78.3%,是除了≥75岁组10年相对生存率最低的。Youssef Bouferraa等的一项前瞻性研究 [41] 纳入了119名乳腺癌患者,中位随访时间为96个月,结果显示≥40岁患者的10年OS率为98.6%,<40岁患者的10年OS率为77.6% (p = 0.001)。≥40岁患者的10年DFS率为90%,<40岁患者的10年DFS率为70.4% (p = 0.004)。证实了年轻(<40岁)是非转移性乳腺癌患者的不良预后因素。因此,我们在决定临床治疗方案的同时也需综合考虑患者年龄,从而达到精细化诊治。

3.5. CPS + EG评分

CPS + EG评分是结合癌症临床分期(CS)、最终病理分期(PS)、雌激素受体状态(E)、细胞核分级(G)组建的一个预先定义和需要验证的乳腺癌分期新系统。Jose等 [42] 的研究证实CPS + EG评分较临床分期及病理分型可以更好的预测乳腺癌新辅助化疗后局部复发风险。且对CPS + EG评分 ≥ 3的患者,术后放疗可以降低乳房切除术后LRR风险。Frederik等的研究 [43] 计算了1795名三阴性乳腺癌患者的CPS + EG评分,结果显示CPS + EG评分系统较临床分期提供的预后信息更佳,但与病理分型相比提供的预后信息较差。Lingxu等 [44] 对403名接受术前全身治疗及手术治疗原发性乳腺癌患者的资料进行回顾性分析,中位随访时间为45个月,结果显示CPS + EG评分系统可以改善PST后non-pCR乳腺癌患者的预后预测。故在临床治疗决策上,CPS + EG评分是一个可参考的因素。

3.6. Ki-67

Ki-67是一种由MKI67编码的核蛋白,是构成有丝分裂染色体外围的一个组成部分,可防止染色体在核膜分解后坍塌成单个染色质团块。Ki-67是反映肿瘤细胞增殖情况的指标,Ki-67水平越高,说明处于分裂阶段的细胞越多,可直接反映出恶性肿瘤中内源性细胞群的增殖活性,评估肿瘤的侵袭性。一项德国的单中心回顾性研究显示 [45] ,Ki-67指数与肿瘤组织学分级、T分期及淋巴结状态呈正相关,Ki-67指数小于10%患者的DFS明显优于Ki-67指数大于20%的患者,与Ki-67中等指数(10%~20%)或高指数(>20%)的患者相比,具有低Ki-67指数(<10%)的患者的总生存(OS)率有明显提高,但作者指出Ki-67指数虽然对DFS的预测有明显的指导意义,却对患者的OS预测指导有限。Xiuzhi Zhu等 [46] 将1800名早期浸润性TNBC纳入研究,在这项研究中Ki-67指数以30%为分界线,Ki-67 > 30%为高表达组,否则为低表达组,结果显示Ki-67高表达组的DFS和OS较差,Ki-67以30%为界值可进一步将TNBC分为两种不同反应和预后的亚型。

4. 乳腺癌术后放疗后复发模式

了解乳腺癌术后放疗后相关复发模式可以更好地为临床上靶区勾画提供指导。通过收集209例具有锁骨上淋巴结转移患者,根据其锁骨上淋巴结的具体位置、绘制成图谱,从而得出结论 [47] :在锁骨上区域中,最易好发的部位为胸锁乳突肌外侧(占43.2%),其次为前斜角肌背侧、脊髓外侧。Haojing等的研究 [48] 对55位锁骨上转移的患者进行了地理定位和图谱复盖分析,结果显示有50例(91%)和40例(81.8%)患者在锁骨上内侧亚区和外侧亚区有淋巴结转移,36例患者在颈静脉–锁骨下静脉交界处有淋巴结转移,且在当时,RTOG图谱只覆盖了25.5%患者的所有锁骨上淋巴结转移结节,在其中,锁骨上淋巴结区域侧缘及后缘是最容易被忽视的区域。Almahariq等的研究 [49] 对106位淋巴结活检证实为转移的患者进行分析,结果显示在下腋窝区域,横向和上外侧方向是最容易被忽视的位置,这些患者的复发主要是由于术后照射覆盖面积不足所致,因此,我们可能需要更多临床研究帮助确定术后靶区勾画面积。Deselm等的研究 [50] 对153例接受手术治疗后出现区域性淋巴结复发的患者(其中60%的患者接受了放射治疗)进行分析,腋窝是最常见的区域性淋巴结复发位置,其次为内乳淋巴引流区。而对于接受锁骨上淋巴结区域放疗的高危患者,内侧锁骨上淋巴结的复发率与未接受放射治疗的低危患者相似。这也表明了我们现有的靶区勾画指南还需要进一步更新,以期为临床诊治提供指导。

Xu等的研究 [51] 对832名早期乳腺癌接受保乳手术及放射治疗的患者进行研究,中位随访时间为6.4年,结果显示有36名患者出现局部区域复发,其中有28名患者出现胸壁局部复发,2名出现局部复发和区域淋巴结复发,6名仅出现区域淋巴结复发,中位复发时间为50个月,在大多数情况下,局部复发位于原发瘤床附近,而与区域淋巴结复发患者相比,局部复发病例患者的远处转移率显著降低(p < 0.001),总生存期显著延长(p < 0.001)。Yingzhen Yi等的研究 [52] 纳入了在2015年1月至2017年1月间接受改良根治术后行放射治疗的乳腺癌患者,得出3年无病生存率为71%,在纳入研究的200例患者中,共有58例患者发生局部复发或远处转移,此外,单因素分析显示,这可能与患者年龄、临床分期、病理类型相关,故这种失败模式主要原因为患者自身的肿瘤特征所导致。

5. 结语

放射治疗是乳腺癌综合治疗策略中重要的一环,在提高患者生存率的同时,其带来的副反应及并发症不容忽视。我们可结合患者的年龄、肿瘤大小、ER状态、淋巴结转移数目、病理分级、心脏功能、区域淋巴结阳性位置等相关因素,充分评估放疗风险及获益,并制定个体化放疗方案。相关临床资料显示,仍有8%~14.3%接受乳腺癌术后放疗的患者会出现局部复发,因此,探讨乳腺癌患者术后放疗后相关危险因素及复发模式是十分必要的。乳腺癌术后放疗后复发模式并不相同,有可能是由于自身肿瘤特性(如肿瘤大小、分子分型、Ki-67等)所致,也有可能由于靶区勾画不充分所致,因此,这也提示我们在临床中应当综合考虑患者自身肿瘤特性,以及注意临床靶区勾画区域、范围。综上所述,乳腺癌患者术后放疗后复发模式、危险因素及预后均存在一定的异质性,期待更多前瞻性试验来进行验证。

文章引用

肖若敏,陈子琴,罗家顺,吴 涛. 乳腺癌术后放疗后复发的危险因素及复发模式
Risk Factors and Recurrence Patterns of Breast Cancer Recurrence after Postoperative Radiotherapy[J]. 临床医学进展, 2024, 14(01): 781-789. https://doi.org/10.12677/ACM.2024.141109

参考文献

  1. 1. Sung, H., Ferlay, J., Siegel, R.L., et al. (2021) Global Cancer Statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN Estimates of Incidence and Mortality Worldwide for 36 Cancers in 185 Countries. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 71, 209-249. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21660

  2. 2. 中国进展期乳腺癌共识指南2020 (CABC3) [J]. 癌症进展, 2020, 18(19): 1945-1964.

  3. 3. Huang, E.H., Tucker, S.L., Strom, E.A., et al. (2004) Postmastectomy Radiation Improves Lo-cal-Regional Control and Survival for Selected Patients with Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy and Mastectomy. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical On-cology, 22, 4691-4699. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2004.11.129

  4. 4. Clarke, M., Collins, R., Darby, S., et al. (2005) Effects of Radio-therapy and of Differences in the Extent of Surgery for Early Breast Cancer on Local Recurrence and 15-Year Survival: An Overview of the Randomised Trials. The Lancet (London, England), 366, 2087-2106. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67887-7

  5. 5. Sjöström, M., Fyles, A., Liu, F.F., et al. (2023) Development and Validation of a Genomic Profile for the Omission of Local Adjuvant Radiation in Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 41, 1533-1540. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.22.00655

  6. 6. Wang, S.L., Fang, H., Song, Y.W., et al. (2019) Hypofractionated versus Conventional Fractionated Postmastectomy Radiotherapy for Patients with High-Risk Breast Cancer: A Random-ised, Non-Inferiority, Open-Label, Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 20, 352-360. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(18)30813-1

  7. 7. Fisher, B., Anderson, S., Bryant, J., et al. (2002) Twen-ty-Year Follow-Up of a Randomized Trial Comparing Total Mastectomy, Lumpectomy, and Lumpectomy plus Irradiation for the Treatment of Invasive Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 347, 1233-1241. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152

  8. 8. Li, C., Wang, J., Mo, M., et al. (2021) Outcomes in Patients with pT3N0M0 Breast Cancer with and without Postmastectomy Radiotherapy. Cancer Management and Research, 13, 3889-3899. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S309224

  9. 9. Mccormick, B., Winter, K.A., Woodward, W., et al. (2021) Randomized Phase III Trial Evaluating Radiation Following Surgical Excision for Good-Risk Ductal Carcinoma in Situ: Long-Term Report from NRG Oncology/RTOG 9804. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology, 39, 3574-3582.

  10. 10. Ma, J.C., Zhong, X.R., Luo, T., et al. (2021) The Effect of Postmastectomy Radiotherapy on Breast Cancer Patients after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy by Molecular Subtype. Annals of Surgical Oncology, 28, 5084-5095. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-020-09523-1

  11. 11. Wang, X., Zhang, L., Zhang, X., et al. (2021) Impact of Clini-cal-Pathological Factors on Locoregional Recurrence in Mastectomy Patients with T1-2N1 Breast Cancer: Who Can Omit Adjuvant Radiotherapy? Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 190, 277-286. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-021-06378-2

  12. 12. Hughes, K.S., Schnaper, L.A., Bellon, J.R., et al. (2013) Lum-pectomy plus Tamoxifen with or without Irradiation in Women Age 70 Years or Older with Early Breast Cancer: Long-Term Follow-Up of CALGB 9343. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clin-ical Oncology, 31, 2382-2387. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.2615

  13. 13. Kunkler, I.H., Williams, L.J., Jack, W.J.L., et al. (2023) Breast-Conserving Surgery with or without Irradiation in Early Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 388, 585-594. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2207586

  14. 14. Whelan, T.J., Smith, S., Parpia, S., et al. (2023) Omitting Radiotherapy after Breast-Conserving Surgery in Luminal A Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Med-icine, 389, 612-619. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2302344

  15. 15. Ren, X., Yu, Y., Liu, L., et al. (2023) Axillary Response and Outcome in Breast Cancer Patients after Neoadjuvant Treatment: The Role of Radiotherapy in Reducing Recurrence in ypN0 Patients with Initially cN+ Stage. Frontiers in Oncology, 13, Article ID: 1093155. https://doi.org/10.3389/fonc.2023.1093155

  16. 16. Lee, J., Kim, J.Y., Bae, S.J., et al. (2021) The Impact of Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy on Survival Outcomes in Breast Cancer Patients Who Underwent Neoadjuvant Chemo-therapy. Cancers, 13, Article No. 6205. https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers13246205

  17. 17. Dai, Y., Ma, S., Lan, A., et al. (2023) The Impact of Postmastecto-my Radiotherapy on cT1-2N1 Breast Cancer Patients with ypN0 after Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study Based on Real-World Data. Discover Oncology, 14, 2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12672-022-00609-8

  18. 18. De Wild, S.R., De Munck, L., Simons, J.M., et al. (2022) De-Escalation of Radiotherapy after Primary Chemotherapy in cT1-2N1 Breast Cancer (RAPCHEM; BOOG 2010-03): 5-Year Follow-Up Results of a Dutch, Prospective, Registry Study. The Lancet Oncology, 23, 1201-1210. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(22)00482-X

  19. 19. Gaál, S., Kahán, Z., Paczona, V., et al. (2021) Deep-Inspirational Breath-Hold (DIBH) Technique in Left-Sided Breast Cancer: Various Aspects of Clinical Utility. Radiation Oncology (London, England), 16, Article No. 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-021-01816-3

  20. 20. Bruzzaniti, V., Abate, A., Pinnarò, P., et al. (2013) Dosimetric and Clinical Advantages of Deep Inspiration Breath- Hold (DIBH) during Radiotherapy of Breast Cancer. Journal of Experimental & Clinical Cancer Research: CR, 32, Article No. 88. https://doi.org/10.1186/1756-9966-32-88

  21. 21. Bentzen, S.M., Agrawal, R.K., Aird, E.G., et al. (2008) The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial A of Radiotherapy Hypofractionation for Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Randomised Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 9, 331-341. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(08)70077-9

  22. 22. Bentzen, S.M., Agrawal, R.K., Aird, E.G., et al. (2008) The UK Standardisation of Breast Radiotherapy (START) Trial B of Radiotherapy Hypofractionation for Treatment of Early Breast Cancer: A Randomised Trial. The Lancet (London, England), 371, 1098-1107. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60348-7

  23. 23. Whelan, T.J., Olivotto, I.A., Parulekar, W.R., et al. (2015) Regional Nodal Irradiation in Early-Stage Breast Cancer. The New England Journal of Medicine, 373, 307-316. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1415340

  24. 24. Poortmans, P.M., Weltens, C., Fortpied, C., et al. (2020) Internal Mammary and Medial Supraclavicular Lymph Node Chain Irradiation in Stage I-III Breast Cancer (EORTC 22922/10925): 15-Year Results of a Randomised, Phase 3 Trial. The Lancet Oncology, 21, 1602-1610. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(20)30472-1

  25. 25. Thorsen, L.B., Offersen, B.V., Danø, H., et al. (2016) DBCG-IMN: A Population-Based Cohort Study on the Effect of Internal Mammary Node Irradiation in Early Node-Positive Breast Cancer. Journal of Clinical Oncology: Official Journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncolo-gy, 34, 314-320. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.6456

  26. 26. Kim, Y.B., Byun, H.K., Kim, D.Y., et al. (2022) Effect of Elective Internal Mammary Node Irradiation on Disease-Free Survival in Women with Node-Positive Breast Cancer: A Randomized Phase 3 Clinical Trial. JAMA Oncology, 8, 96-105. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2021.6036

  27. 27. Asaoka, M., Narui, K., Suganuma, N., et al. (2019) Clinical and Pathological Predictors of Recurrence in Breast Cancer Patients Achieving Pathological Complete Response to Neoadju-vant Chemotherapy. European Journal of Surgical Oncology: The Journal of the European Society of Surgical Oncology and the British Association of Surgical Oncology, 45, 2289-2294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2019.08.001

  28. 28. Nguyen, D., Yu, J., Reinhold, W.C., et al. (2020) Association of Independent Prognostic Factors and Treatment Modality with Survival and Recurrence Outcomes in Breast Cancer. JAMA Network Open, 3, e207213. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.7213

  29. 29. Zhao, X., Tang, Y., Wang, S., et al. (2020) Locoregional Recurrence Patterns in Women with Breast Cancer Who Have Not Undergone Post-Mastectomy Radiotherapy. Radiation Oncology (London, England), 15, Article No. 212. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-020-01637-w

  30. 30. Asaga, S., Kinoshita, T., Shiino, S., et al. (2019) Prognostic Factors for Breast Cancer Patients with T1-2 Tumor and 1-3 Positive Axillary Nodes Treated Using Total Mastectomy without Radiotherapy. The Breast Journal, 25, 26-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13148

  31. 31. Yamada, A., Hayashi, N., Kumamaru, H., et al. (2022) Prognostic Impact of Postoperative Radiotherapy in Patients with Breast Cancer and With pT1-2 and 1-3 Lymph Node Metastases: A Retro-spective Cohort Study Based on the Japanese Breast Cancer Registry. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 172, 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2022.05.017

  32. 32. Stuart-Harris, R., Dahlstrom, J.E., Gupta, R., et al. (2019) Recur-rence in Early Breast Cancer: Analysis of Data from 3765 Australian Women Treated between 1997 and 2015. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 44, 153-159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2019.02.004

  33. 33. Chang, J.M., Leung, J.W.T., Moy, L., et al. (2020) Axillary Nodal Evaluation in Breast Cancer: State of the Art. Radiology, 295, 500-515. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020192534

  34. 34. Phung, M.T., Tin Tin, S. and Elwood, J.M. (2020) Prognostic Models for Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review. BMC Cancer, 19, Article No. 230. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-019-5442-6

  35. 35. Sopik, V., Sun, P. and Narod, S.A. (2019) Predictors of Time to Death after Distant Recurrence in Breast Cancer Patients. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 173, 465-474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5002-9

  36. 36. Dieci, M.V., Conte, P.P., Bisagni, P.G., et al. (2023) Metastatic Site Patterns by Intrinsic Subtype and HER2DX in Early HER2-Positive Breast Cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 116, 69-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djad179

  37. 37. Cheun, J.H., Kim, H.K., Moon, H.G., et al. (2023) Locoregional Recur-rence Patterns in Patients with Different Molecular Subtypes of Breast Cancer. JAMA Surgery, 158, 841-852. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2023.2150

  38. 38. Pan, X.B., Chen, R.J., Huang, S.T., et al. (2017) Systematic Re-view and Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Breast Conservation Therapy Followed by Radiotherapy in Four Breast Can-cer Subtypes. Oncotarget, 8, 57414-57420. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.18205

  39. 39. Vihervuori, H., Korpinen, K., Autere, T.A., et al. (2022) Varying Outcomes of Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in Different Age Groups-Prognostic Value of Clinical Features and Prolifer-ation. Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, 196, 471-482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-022-06767-1

  40. 40. Hassaine, Y., Jacquet, E., Seigneurin, A., et al. (2022) Evolution of Breast Cancer Incidence in Young Women in a French Registry from 1990 to 2018: Towards a Change in Screening Strategy? Breast Cancer Research: BCR, 24, Article No. 87. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-022-01581-5

  41. 41. Bouferraa, Y., Haibe, Y., Chedid, A., et al. (2022) The Impact of Young Age (< 40 Years) on the Outcome of a Cohort of Patients with Primary Non-Metastatic Breast Cancer: Analysis of 10-Year Survival of a Prospective Study. BMC Cancer, 22, Article No. 27. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-021-09100-z

  42. 42. Vila, J., Teshome, M., Tucker, S.L., et al. (2017) Combining Clinical and Pathologic Staging Variables Has Prognostic Value in Predicting Local-Regional Recurrence Following Ne-oadjuvant Chemotherapy for Breast Cancer. Annals of Surgery, 265, 574-580. https://doi.org/10.1097/SLA.0000000000001492

  43. 43. Marmé, F., Solbach, C., Michel, L., et al. (2021) Utility of the CPS + EG Scoring System in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. European Journal of Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990), 153, 203-212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2021.05.027

  44. 44. Xu, L., Duan, X., Zhou, B., et al. (2018) Validation of the CPS + EG and Neo-Bioscore Staging Systems after Preoperative Systemic Therapy for Breast Cancer in a Single Center in Chi-na. Breast (Edinburgh, Scotland), 40, 29-37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2018.03.010

  45. 45. Thangarajah, F., Enninga, I., Malter, W., et al. (2017) A Retro-spective Analysis of Ki-67 Index and Its Prognostic Significance in over 800 Primary Breast Cancer Cases. Anticancer Research, 37, 1957-1964. https://doi.org/10.21873/anticanres.11536

  46. 46. Zhu, X., Chen, L., Huang, B., et al. (2020) The Prognostic and Pre-dictive Potential of Ki-67 in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer. Scientific Reports, 10, Article No. 225. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57094-3

  47. 47. Jing, H., Tang, Y., Wang, Z.Z., et al. (2023) Individualized Clinical Target Volume for Irradiation of the Supraclavicular Region in Breast Cancer Based on Mapping of the Involved Ipsilateral Supraclavicular Lymph Nodes. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 115, 922-932. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2022.10.030

  48. 48. Jing, H., Wang, S.L., Li, J., et al. (2015) Mapping Patterns of Ip-silateral Supraclavicular Nodal Metastases in Breast Cancer: Rethinking the Clinical Target Volume for High-Risk Pa-tients. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 93, 268-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2015.08.022

  49. 49. Almahariq, M.F., Maywood, M.J., Levitin, R.B., et al. (2020) Mapping of Metastatic Level I Axillary Lymph Nodes in Patients with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 106, 811-820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2019.12.010

  50. 50. Deselm, C., Yang, T.J., Cahlon, O., et al. (2019) A 3-Dimensional Mapping Analysis of Regional Nodal Recurrences in Breast Cancer. International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, Physics, 103, 583-591. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrobp.2018.10.021

  51. 51. Xu, H.P., Bronsart, E., Costa, É., et al. (2019) Patterns of Lo-coregional Failure in Women with Early-Stage Breast Cancer Treated by Whole Breast Irradiation in the Lateral Isocentric Decubitus Position: Large-Scale Single-Centre Experience. Cancer Radiotherapie: Journal de la Societe Francaise de Radiotherapie Oncologique, 23, 116-124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canrad.2018.08.002

  52. 52. 弋振营, 申凤乾, 李宁, 等. 乳腺癌改良根治术术后放疗的疗效及预后影响因素分析[J]. 癌症进展, 2021, 19(2): 171-173+193.

  53. NOTES

    *第一作者。

    #通讯作者。

期刊菜单