| Literature DB >> 36246806 |
Yun Ren1, Jiao Zhang2, Jin-Dan Zhang1, Jian-Zhong Xu3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The incidence and mortality rate of breast cancer in China rank 120th and 163rd, worldwide, respectively. The incidence of breast cancer is on the rise; the risk increases with age but is slightly reduced after menopause. Early screening, diagnosis, and timely determination of the best treatment plan can ensure clinical efficacy and prognosis. AIM: To evaluate the clinical value of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) combined with digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) in diagnosing early breast cancer and the effect of breast-conserving surgery by arc incision.Entities:
Keywords: Arc incision; Breast cancer; Breast-conserving surgery; Clinical value; Digital breast tomosynthesis; Digital mammography; Magnetic resonance
Year: 2022 PMID: 36246806 PMCID: PMC9561587 DOI: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i28.10042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: World J Clin Cases ISSN: 2307-8960 Impact factor: 1.534
Pathological results of breast cancer group and benign group
|
|
|
|
| Breast cancer patient | 110 | 100.00 |
| Invasive ductal carcinoma | 66 | 60.00 |
| Ductal carcinoma in situ | 22 | 20.00 |
| Lobular carcinoma in situ | 13 | 11.82 |
| Other types | 9 | 8.18 |
| Patients with benign breast tumors | 110 | 100.00 |
| Breast fibroma | 55 | 50.00 |
| Breast disease | 27 | 24.55 |
| Cystic hyperplasia of breast | 14 | 12.73 |
| Granulomatous lobular mastitis | 8 | 7.27 |
| Other types | 6 | 5.45 |
Matches four tables
|
|
|
|
| |
| Pathology | Malignant | 81 | 29 | 110 |
| Benign | 17 | 93 | 110 | |
| Total | 98 | 122 | 220 | |
| MRI | ||||
| Pathology | Malignant | 93 | 17 | 110 |
| 16 | 94 | 110 | ||
| Benign | ||||
| Total | 109 | 111 | 220 | |
| MRI + DBT | ||||
| Pathology | Malignant | 107 | 3 | 110 |
| Benign | 7 | 103 | 110 | |
| Total | 114 | 106 | 220 | |
MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; DBT: Digital breast tomosynthesis.
The value of magnetic resonance imaging and digital breast tomosynthesis in differential diagnosis of breast benign and malignant diseases
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| DBT | 73.64% | 84.55% | 26.36% | 15.45% | 0.791 |
| MRI | 84.55% | 85.45% | 15.45% | 14.55% | 0.850 |
| DBT + MRI | 97.27% | 93.64% | 2.73% | 6.36% | 0.955 |
MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; DBT: Digital breast tomosynthesis; AUC: Area under the curve.
Figure 1Receiver operating characteristic curve of magnetic resonance imaging and digital breast tomosynthesis differential diagnosis of breast benign and malignant diseases. MRI: Magnetic resonance imaging; DBT: Digital breast tomosynthesis.
Figure 2Digital breast tomosynthesis and magnetic resonance imaging examination. A and B: Images of digital breast tomosynthesis examination. Irregular lumps in the upper quadrant of the left breast and burr signs can be seen on the periphery (red arrows); C and D: Magnetic resonance imaging examination images of the same patient. The irregular lumps on the left breast show obvious postoperative disease (red arrows). It was confirmed by physiology as stage II invasive ductal carcinoma.
Comparison of general data between the breast-conserving group and the modified radical treatment group
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 69 | 41 | |||
| Age (yr) | 37.1 ± 7.1 | 39.2 ± 6.8 | -1.523 | 0.131 | |
| BMI (kg/m2) | 23.9 ± 1.9 | 23.2 ± 1.7 | 1.941 | 0.055 | |
| Affected side distribution, | Left side | 34 (49.28) | 25 (60.98) | 1.416 | 0.243 |
| Right side | 35 (50.72) | 16 (39.02) | |||
| Lesion diameter (cm) | 2.18 ± 0.68 | 2.34 ± 0.70 | -1.18 | 0.24 | |
| Pathology type | Invasive ductal carcinoma | 43 (62.32) | 23 (56.1) | 2.171 | 0.538 |
| Ductal carcinoma in situ | 15 (21.74) | 7 (17.07) | |||
| Lobular carcinoma in situ | 6 (8.70) | 7 (17.07) | |||
| Other types | 5 (7.25) | 4 (9.76) | |||
BMI: Body mass index.
Comparison of perioperative indexes between the breast-conserving group and the modified radical treatment group (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Breast-conserving group | 69 | 66.2 ± 15.8 | 143.8 ± 24.1 | 9.5 ± 2.2 |
| Modified radical cure group | 41 | 106.7 ± 19.6 | 185.5 ± 28.0 | 13.7 ± 2.8 |
|
| -11.869 | -8.256 | -8.731 | |
|
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Comparison of postoperative cosmetic effects between breast-conserving group and modified radical treatment group, n (%)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Breast-conserving group | 69 | 58 (84.06) | 11 (15.94) | 0 (0.00) |
| Modified radical cure group | 41 | 8 (19.51) | 22 (53.66) | 11 (26.83) |
|
| -6.921 | |||
|
| 0.000 | |||
Figure 3The postoperative appearance of patients undergoing small incision breast-conserving surgery and modified radical surgery. A: The postoperative appearance of patients undergoing small incision breast-conserving surgery; B: The postoperative appearance of modified radical surgery.
Comparison of quality of life between breast-conserving group and modified radical treatment group (mean ± SD)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Breast-conserving group | 69 | 81.03 ± 6.82 | 75.46 ± 8.14 | 3.850 | 0.000 |
| Modified radical cure group | 41 | 83.26 ± 7.24 | 70.04 ± 8.65 | 8.604 | 0.000 |
|
| -1.621 | 3.299 | |||
|
| 0.108 | 0.001 |
Figure 4Comparison of the quality of life scores between the breast-conserving group and the modified radical treatment group. a P < 0.05.