World journal of surgical oncology · 2012
Different distribution of breast ductal carcinoma in situ, ductal carcinoma in situ with microinvasion, and invasion breast cancer.
Сравнительное исследованиеОценочное исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Zhang Wei, Gao Er-li, Zhou Yi-li, Zhai Qi, Zou Zhang-yong, Guo Gui-long, Chen Guo-rong, Zheng Hua-min, Huang Guan-li, Zhang Xiao-hua
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Breast ductal cancer in situ (DCIS) can recur or progress to invasive ductal cancer (IDC), and the interim stage include DCIS with microinvasion (DCIS-Mi). In this article, we attempt to study the study the differences of clinicopathological features, imaging data, and immunohistochemical-based subtypes among DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, we attempt to compare the clinicopathological features, immunohistochemical results and imaging data of 866 patients (included 73 DCIS, 72 DCIS-Mi, and 721 IDC).
RESULTS: Patients with DCIS and DCIS-Mi were younger than those with IDC (P = 0.007). DCIS and DCIS-Mi often happened in premenopausal women while IDC was opposite (P <0.001). The incidence of IDC with node-positive was significantly higher than it in DCIS and DCIS-Mi (P <0.001). We also observed that the Her2-positive was more often found in patients with pure DCIS compared to those with DCIS-Mi and DCIS-I (P <0.001). There was a significant difference between the four subgroups (Luminal-A, Luminal-B, ERBB2+, Basal-like) from DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC (P <0.001). Basal-like patients were fewer than other subgroups in DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC. The incidence of the first performance of ultrasound (catheter winded and nodular mass) and mammography (nodular mass) had significantly difference among patients with DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC (P <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Different clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and imaging features among DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC indicate that they are distinct entities. A larger sample size is needed for further study.
METHODS: In this retrospective study, we attempt to compare the clinicopathological features, immunohistochemical results and imaging data of 866 patients (included 73 DCIS, 72 DCIS-Mi, and 721 IDC).
RESULTS: Patients with DCIS and DCIS-Mi were younger than those with IDC (P = 0.007). DCIS and DCIS-Mi often happened in premenopausal women while IDC was opposite (P <0.001). The incidence of IDC with node-positive was significantly higher than it in DCIS and DCIS-Mi (P <0.001). We also observed that the Her2-positive was more often found in patients with pure DCIS compared to those with DCIS-Mi and DCIS-I (P <0.001). There was a significant difference between the four subgroups (Luminal-A, Luminal-B, ERBB2+, Basal-like) from DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC (P <0.001). Basal-like patients were fewer than other subgroups in DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC. The incidence of the first performance of ultrasound (catheter winded and nodular mass) and mammography (nodular mass) had significantly difference among patients with DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC (P <0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Different clinicopathological, immunohistochemical, and imaging features among DCIS, DCIS-Mi, and IDC indicate that they are distinct entities. A larger sample size is needed for further study.