Joseph J Weber, Lisa S Bellin, David E Milbourn, Kathryn M Verbanac, Jan H Wong
{"title":"乳腺癌妇女术前选择性磁共振成像:未降低再手术率。","authors":"Joseph J Weber, Lisa S Bellin, David E Milbourn, Kathryn M Verbanac, Jan H Wong","doi":"10.1001/archsurg.2012.1660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>The use of preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may have an effect on the reoperation rate in women with operable breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University medical center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Women with operable breast cancer treated by a single surgeon between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Selective preoperative MR imaging based on breast density and histologic findings.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Reoperation rate and pathologically avoidable mastectomy at initial operation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 313 patients in the study, 120 underwent preoperative MR imaging. Patients undergoing MR imaging were younger (mean age, 53.6 vs 59.5 years; P < .001), were more often of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity (61.7% vs 52.3%, P < .05), and more likely had heterogeneously dense or very dense breasts (68.4% vs 22.3%, P < .001). The incidence of lobular carcinoma (8.3% in the MR imaging group vs 5.2% in the no MR imaging group, P = .27) and the type of surgery performed (mastectomy vs partial mastectomy, P = .67) were similar in both groups. The mean pathological size of the index tumor in the MR imaging group was larger than that in the no MR imaging group (2.02 vs 1.72 cm, P = .009), but the extent of disease was comparable (75.8% in the MR imaging group vs 82.9% in the no MR imaging group had pathologically localized disease, P = .26). The reoperation rate was similar between the 2 groups (19.1% in the MR imaging group vs 17.6% in the no MR imaging group, P = .91) even when stratified by breast density (P = .76), pT2 tumor size (P = .35), or lobular carcinoma histologic findings (P = .26). Pathologically avoidable mastectomy (multifocal or multicentric MR imaging and unifocal histopathological findings) was observed in 12 of 47 patients (25.5%) with preoperative MR imaging who underwent mastectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The selective use of preoperative MR imaging to decrease reoperation in women with breast cancer is not supported by these data. In a considerable number of patients, MR imaging overestimates the extent of disease.</p>","PeriodicalId":8298,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Surgery","volume":"147 9","pages":"834-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/archsurg.2012.1660","citationCount":"27","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Selective preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in women with breast cancer: no reduction in the reoperation rate.\",\"authors\":\"Joseph J Weber, Lisa S Bellin, David E Milbourn, Kathryn M Verbanac, Jan H Wong\",\"doi\":\"10.1001/archsurg.2012.1660\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Hypothesis: </strong>The use of preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may have an effect on the reoperation rate in women with operable breast cancer.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Retrospective cohort study.</p><p><strong>Setting: </strong>University medical center.</p><p><strong>Patients: </strong>Women with operable breast cancer treated by a single surgeon between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010.</p><p><strong>Intervention: </strong>Selective preoperative MR imaging based on breast density and histologic findings.</p><p><strong>Main outcome measures: </strong>Reoperation rate and pathologically avoidable mastectomy at initial operation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 313 patients in the study, 120 underwent preoperative MR imaging. Patients undergoing MR imaging were younger (mean age, 53.6 vs 59.5 years; P < .001), were more often of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity (61.7% vs 52.3%, P < .05), and more likely had heterogeneously dense or very dense breasts (68.4% vs 22.3%, P < .001). The incidence of lobular carcinoma (8.3% in the MR imaging group vs 5.2% in the no MR imaging group, P = .27) and the type of surgery performed (mastectomy vs partial mastectomy, P = .67) were similar in both groups. The mean pathological size of the index tumor in the MR imaging group was larger than that in the no MR imaging group (2.02 vs 1.72 cm, P = .009), but the extent of disease was comparable (75.8% in the MR imaging group vs 82.9% in the no MR imaging group had pathologically localized disease, P = .26). The reoperation rate was similar between the 2 groups (19.1% in the MR imaging group vs 17.6% in the no MR imaging group, P = .91) even when stratified by breast density (P = .76), pT2 tumor size (P = .35), or lobular carcinoma histologic findings (P = .26). Pathologically avoidable mastectomy (multifocal or multicentric MR imaging and unifocal histopathological findings) was observed in 12 of 47 patients (25.5%) with preoperative MR imaging who underwent mastectomy.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The selective use of preoperative MR imaging to decrease reoperation in women with breast cancer is not supported by these data. In a considerable number of patients, MR imaging overestimates the extent of disease.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":8298,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Surgery\",\"volume\":\"147 9\",\"pages\":\"834-9\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2012-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1001/archsurg.2012.1660\",\"citationCount\":\"27\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Surgery\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.1660\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1001/archsurg.2012.1660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 27
摘要
假设:术前磁共振(MR)成像可能对可手术乳腺癌患者的再手术率有影响。设计:回顾性队列研究。地点:大学医疗中心。患者:2006年1月1日至2010年12月31日期间接受单一外科医生治疗的可手术乳腺癌患者。干预:术前选择性磁共振成像基于乳腺密度和组织学表现。主要观察指标:术后再手术率及病理可避免的乳房切除术。结果:在研究的313例患者中,120例接受了术前磁共振成像。接受磁共振成像的患者更年轻(平均年龄,53.6 vs 59.5岁;P < .001),非西班牙裔白人/族裔(61.7%对52.3%,P < .05),更可能患有异质性致密或非常致密的乳房(68.4%对22.3%,P < .001)。两组小叶癌的发生率(磁共振成像组为8.3%,无磁共振成像组为5.2%,P = 0.27)和手术类型(乳房切除术与部分乳房切除术,P = 0.67)相似。磁共振成像组指数肿瘤的平均病理大小大于无磁共振成像组(2.02 vs 1.72 cm, P = 0.009),但病变程度相当(75.8%的磁共振成像组vs 82.9%的无磁共振成像组,P = 0.26)。即使按乳腺密度(P = 0.76)、pT2肿瘤大小(P = 0.35)或小叶癌组织学表现(P = 0.26)分层,两组的再手术率相似(磁共振成像组19.1% vs无磁共振成像组17.6%,P = 0.91)。47例术前mri行乳房切除术的患者中有12例(25.5%)发现病理上可避免的乳房切除术(多灶或多中心MR成像和单灶组织病理学发现)。结论:术前选择性使用磁共振成像来减少乳腺癌患者的再手术,这些数据不支持。在相当数量的患者中,MR成像高估了疾病的程度。
Selective preoperative magnetic resonance imaging in women with breast cancer: no reduction in the reoperation rate.
Hypothesis: The use of preoperative magnetic resonance (MR) imaging may have an effect on the reoperation rate in women with operable breast cancer.
Design: Retrospective cohort study.
Setting: University medical center.
Patients: Women with operable breast cancer treated by a single surgeon between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010.
Intervention: Selective preoperative MR imaging based on breast density and histologic findings.
Main outcome measures: Reoperation rate and pathologically avoidable mastectomy at initial operation.
Results: Of 313 patients in the study, 120 underwent preoperative MR imaging. Patients undergoing MR imaging were younger (mean age, 53.6 vs 59.5 years; P < .001), were more often of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity (61.7% vs 52.3%, P < .05), and more likely had heterogeneously dense or very dense breasts (68.4% vs 22.3%, P < .001). The incidence of lobular carcinoma (8.3% in the MR imaging group vs 5.2% in the no MR imaging group, P = .27) and the type of surgery performed (mastectomy vs partial mastectomy, P = .67) were similar in both groups. The mean pathological size of the index tumor in the MR imaging group was larger than that in the no MR imaging group (2.02 vs 1.72 cm, P = .009), but the extent of disease was comparable (75.8% in the MR imaging group vs 82.9% in the no MR imaging group had pathologically localized disease, P = .26). The reoperation rate was similar between the 2 groups (19.1% in the MR imaging group vs 17.6% in the no MR imaging group, P = .91) even when stratified by breast density (P = .76), pT2 tumor size (P = .35), or lobular carcinoma histologic findings (P = .26). Pathologically avoidable mastectomy (multifocal or multicentric MR imaging and unifocal histopathological findings) was observed in 12 of 47 patients (25.5%) with preoperative MR imaging who underwent mastectomy.
Conclusion: The selective use of preoperative MR imaging to decrease reoperation in women with breast cancer is not supported by these data. In a considerable number of patients, MR imaging overestimates the extent of disease.