切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版) ›› 2022, Vol. 16 ›› Issue (05) : 518 -521. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1674-3946.2022.05.014

论著

三种不同示踪显示方案在乳腺癌手术中的临床价值对比研究
孙传伟1, 林师佈1, 蒋曼妃1,(), 吴煌福1, 王璐瑶1, 王锐1, 杨彦1   
  1. 1. 570100 海口,海南医学院第二附属医院甲乳外科
  • 收稿日期:2021-07-27 出版日期:2022-10-26
  • 通信作者: 蒋曼妃

Comparative study of clinical value of three different tracer display schemes in breast cancer surgery

Chuanwei Sun1, Shibu Lin1, Manfei Jiang1,(), Huangfu Wu1, Luyao Wang1, Rui Wang1, Yan Yang1   

  1. 1. Department of Thyroid and Breast Surgery, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical College, Haikou Hainan Province 570100, China
  • Received:2021-07-27 Published:2022-10-26
  • Corresponding author: Manfei Jiang
  • Supported by:
    national Natural Science Foundation of China(21864011); Cultivation Fund project of Affiliated Hospital of Hainan Medical University(HYZ201915)
引用本文:

孙传伟, 林师佈, 蒋曼妃, 吴煌福, 王璐瑶, 王锐, 杨彦. 三种不同示踪显示方案在乳腺癌手术中的临床价值对比研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2022, 16(05): 518-521.

Chuanwei Sun, Shibu Lin, Manfei Jiang, Huangfu Wu, Luyao Wang, Rui Wang, Yan Yang. Comparative study of clinical value of three different tracer display schemes in breast cancer surgery[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Operative Procedures of General Surgery(Electronic Edition), 2022, 16(05): 518-521.

目的

探讨三种不同示踪显示方案在乳腺癌手术中的临床价值。

方法

前瞻性选取2018年1月至2020年12月114例乳腺癌患者,采用随机数字表法将患者分为三组:MB组、ICG组和联合组,每组各38例。MB组采用亚甲蓝(MB)示踪法;ICG组采用吲哚菁绿(ICG)示踪法;联合组采用ICG+MB双示踪法。应用SPSS 22.0软件处理数据,前哨淋巴结(SLN)检出率、准确率、假阴性率等计数资料行χ2检验;肿瘤直径等计量资料以(

xˉ
±s)表示,多组间比较行单因素方差分析,两组间比较行LSD-t检验分析。P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。

结果

MB组、ICG组及联合组患者SLN检出率分别为78.9%、94.7%、97.4%,SLN平均检出枚数分别为(2.1±0.8)、(2.5±0.9)、(2.8±1.1),MB组患者SLN检出率及平均检出枚数显著低于ICG组和联合组(P<0.05);联合组患者SLN检出准确率为95.6%,显著高于MB组的73.1%(χ2=6.333,P=0.042);联合组SLN假阴性率(4.1%)显著低于MB组(17.6%),差异有统计学意义(χ2=6.417,P=0.040)。

结论

ICG不论是单独应用还是联合应用均取得了较高的诊断价值,且ICG联合MB双示踪法更具有优势,不仅提高了SLN的检出数、检出率和准确率,而且更有利于降低SLN的假阴性率。

Objective

To investigate the clinical value of three different tracer display schemes in breast cancer surgery.

Methods

A total of 114 breast cancer patients from January 2018 to December 2020 were prospectively selected and divided into three groups by random number table method:MB group,ICG group and combined group,with 38 cases in each group. Methylene blue(MB)tracer method was used in MB group. Indocyanine green(ICG)tracer was used in ICG group. ICG+MB double tracer was used in the combined group. SPSS 22.0 software was used to process the data. The detection rate,accuracy rate and false negative rate of sentinel lymph node(SLN)were analyzed by χ2 test. Measurement data such as tumor diameter were expressed as(

xˉ
±s). One-way ANOVA of variance was used for comparison between multiple groups,and LSD-t test was used for comparison between two groups. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The detection rates of SLN in MB group,ICG group and combined group were 78.9%,94.7% and 97.4%,respectively. The average number of SLN detected was(2.1±0.8),(2.5±0.9)and(2.8±1.1),respectively. The detection rate and average number of SLN detected in MB group were significantly lower than those in ICG group and combined group(P<0.05). The detection accuracy of SLN in the combined group was 95.6%,which was significantly higher than that in the MB group(73.1%,χ2=6.333,P=0.042). The false negative rate of SLN in combined group(4.1%)was significantly lower than that in MB group(17.6%),and the difference was statistically significant(χ2=6.417,P=0.040).

Conclusion

ICG alone or in combination has achieved high diagnostic value,and ICG combined with MB dual tracer method has more advantages,not only improves the detection number,detection rate and accuracy of SLN,but also is more conducive to reducing the false negative rate of SLN.

表 1 114例乳腺癌不同示踪显示方案三组患者一般资料[(
xˉ
±s),例]
表2 114例乳腺癌不同示踪显示方案三组患者SLN检出情况(
xˉ
±s)
表3 114例乳腺癌不同示踪显示方案三组患者SLN检出准确率
表4 114例乳腺癌不同示踪显示方案三组患者SLN检出假阴性率
[1]
Coughlin SS. Epidemiology of breast cancer in women[J]. Adv Exp Med Biol20191152:9-29.
[2]
Fahad Ullah M. Breast cancer:current perspectives on the disease status[J]. Adv Exp Med Biol20191152:51-64.
[3]
Waks AGWiner EP. Breast cancer treatment:a review[J]. JAMA2019321(3):288-300.
[4]
唐琴,朱际飚,孙劲松,等. 前哨淋巴结活检在乳腺癌手术中的临床意义研究[J/CD].中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202115(3):302-305.
[5]
Papathemelis TJablonski EScharl A,et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer patients by means of indocyanine green using the Karl Storz VITOM fluorescence camera[J]. Biomed Res Int20182018:6251468.
[6]
杨小军,唐海利,樊东,等. 乳腺癌非前哨淋巴结转移的预测模型构建[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)202014(6):612-615.
[7]
Ersoy YEKadioglu H. Review of novel sentinel lymph node biopsy techniques in breast cancer patients treated with neoaduvant chemotherapy[J]. Clin Breast Cancer201818(4):e555-e559.
[8]
商木岩,郭帅. 中国乳腺癌筛查现状[J]. 实用癌症杂志202035(11):1911-1914.
[9]
吴晓琴,韦伟. 乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检方法中国研究现状[J]. 临床外科杂志201927(3):259-261.
[10]
Balaya VGuani BBonsang-Kitzis H,et al. Sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage cervical cancer:current state of art[J]. Bull Cancer2020107(6):696-706.
[11]
颜晓敏,章联,许诚. 应用亚甲蓝作为乳腺癌前哨淋巴结示踪剂的临床分析[J/CD]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版)20175(11):449-450.
[12]
于志强,韩彬,朱丽璋,等. 放射性核素染料法与超声造影法用于乳腺癌前哨淋巴结定位的比较[J]. 中国老年学杂志201838(5):1096-1097.
[13]
吴爽,孙晓,丛斌斌,等. 新型荧光示踪剂在乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检术中的应用研究[J]. 中国癌症杂志202030(3):174-178.
[14]
Egloff-Juras CBezdetnaya LDolivet G,et al. NIR fluorescenceguided tumor surgery:new strategies for the use of indocyanine green[J]. Int J Nanomedicine201914:7823-7838.
[15]
Qin XYang MZheng X. Comparative study of indocyanine green combined with blue dye with methylene blue only and carbon nanoparticles only for sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer[J]. Ann Surg Treat Res201997(1):1-6.
[16]
吴迪,范志民. 乳腺癌前哨淋巴结活检的若干问题和处理方案[J]. 中国实用外科杂志201838(11):1254-1260.
[1] 李洋, 蔡金玉, 党晓智, 常婉英, 巨艳, 高毅, 宋宏萍. 基于深度学习的乳腺超声应变弹性图像生成模型的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2024, 21(06): 563-570.
[2] 河北省抗癌协会乳腺癌专业委员会护理协作组. 乳腺癌中心静脉通路护理管理专家共识[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 321-329.
[3] 刘晨鹭, 刘洁, 张帆, 严彩英, 陈倩, 陈双庆. 增强MRI 影像组学特征生境分析在预测乳腺癌HER-2 表达状态中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 339-345.
[4] 张晓宇, 殷雨来, 张银旭. 阿帕替尼联合新辅助化疗对三阴性乳腺癌的疗效及预后分析[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 346-352.
[5] 邱琳, 刘锦辉, 组木热提·吐尔洪, 马悦心, 冷晓玲. 超声影像组学对致密型乳腺背景中非肿块型乳腺癌的诊断价值[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 353-360.
[6] 程燕妮, 樊菁, 肖瑶, 舒瑞, 明昊, 党晓智, 宋宏萍. 乳腺组织定位标记夹的应用与进展[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 361-365.
[7] 涂盛楠, 胡芬, 张娟, 蔡海峰, 杨俊泉. 天然植物提取物在乳腺癌治疗中的应用[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 366-370.
[8] 朱文婷, 顾鹏, 孙星. 非酒精性脂肪性肝病对乳腺癌发生发展及治疗的影响[J/OL]. 中华乳腺病杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 371-375.
[9] 费翔, 马帅, 张颖, 高洋, 毕冬宁, 孙平东, 崔建春. 乳腺腺叶可视化技术在乳管内乳头状瘤手术中的应用[J/OL]. 中华普通外科学文献(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 464-464.
[10] 周世振, 朱兴亚, 袁庆港, 刘理想, 王凯, 缪骥, 丁超, 汪灏, 管文贤. 吲哚菁绿荧光成像技术在腹腔镜直肠癌侧方淋巴结清扫中的应用效果分析[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 44-47.
[11] 高杰红, 黎平平, 齐婧, 代引海. ETFA和CD34在乳腺癌中的表达及与临床病理参数和预后的关系研究[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 64-67.
[12] 韩萌萌, 冯雪园, 马宁. 乳腺癌改良根治术后桡神经损伤1例[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2025, 19(01): 117-118.
[13] 唐梅, 周丽, 牛岑月, 周小童, 王倩. ICG荧光导航的腹腔镜肝切除术临床意义[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 655-658.
[14] 王兴, 文阳辉, 姚戈冰, 郭平学, 杨自华. ICG荧光腹腔镜下胆囊切除术的临床应用[J/OL]. 中华普外科手术学杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(06): 663-666.
[15] 崔军威, 蔡华丽, 胡艺冰, 胡慧. 亚甲蓝联合金属定位夹及定位钩针标记在乳腺癌辅助化疗后评估腋窝转移淋巴结的临床应用价值探究[J/OL]. 中华临床医师杂志(电子版), 2024, 18(07): 625-632.
阅读次数
全文


摘要