徐琴 袁軍 錢萍 袁琳娜 馬禎一 張自然
[摘要]?目的?探討乳腺癌新輔助化療(neoadjuvant?chemotherapy,NAC)后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)病理完全緩解(pathological?complete?response,pCR)相關(guān)的臨床病理因素,并對術(shù)后生存情況進(jìn)行分析。方法?收集在嘉興市中醫(yī)醫(yī)院、嘉興市婦幼保健院、嘉興市第一醫(yī)院就診的116例伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者,通過單因素分析患者的臨床病理因素與乳腺癌NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR的關(guān)系,應(yīng)用二元Logistic回歸分析其獨立預(yù)測因素。采用Kaplan-Meier生存曲線分析腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR和non-pCR的術(shù)后無病生存率和總生存率。結(jié)果?116例患者中,有52例NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR,占比44.83%。單因素分析顯示,通過比較pCR和non-pCR,發(fā)現(xiàn)年齡、脈管浸潤、乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR、NAC前后Ki67差值、NAC方案、NAC治療效果差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P<0.05)。二元Logistic回歸分析結(jié)果顯示年齡、脈管浸潤、乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR是腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR的獨立預(yù)測因素(P<0.05)。腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR與non-pCR患者術(shù)后5年無病生存率(80.40%?vs.?54.60%)和總生存率(90.4%?vs.?70.10%)(P<0.05)。結(jié)論?部分伴腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者在NAC后淋巴結(jié)能夠達(dá)到pCR。分析臨床病理因素與NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR的相關(guān)性,發(fā)現(xiàn)NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR與年齡≤50歲、無脈管浸潤、乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR有關(guān)。同時發(fā)現(xiàn),腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR較non-pCR的患者預(yù)后更好。
[關(guān)鍵詞]?乳腺癌;新輔助化療;腋窩淋巴結(jié);病理完全緩解
[中圖分類號]?R655????[文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識碼]?A ????[DOI]?10.3969/j.issn.1673-9701.2024.05.007
Predictors?and?prognostic?analysis?of?pathological?complete?response?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?after?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy?in?breast?cancer
XU?Qin1,?YUAN?Jun2,?QIAN?Ping1,?YUAN?Linna3,?MA?Zhenyi1,?ZHANG?Ziran4
1.Department?of?Pathology,?Jiaxing?Hospital?of?Traditional?Chinese?Medicine?affiliated?to?Zhejiang?Chinese?Medicine?University,?Jiaxing?314000,?Zhejiang,?China;?2.Department?of?Pathology,?Jiaxing?Maternity?and?Child?Health?Care?Hospital,?Jiaxing?314000,?Zhejiang,?China;?3.Department?of?Pathology,?The?First?Hospital?of?Jiaxing,?Jiaxing?314000,?Zhejiang,?China;?4.Department?of?Breast?Diseases,?Jiaxing?Maternity?and?Child?Health?Care?Hospital,?Jiaxing?314000,?Zhejiang,?China
[Abstract]?Objective?To?investigate?the?clinicopathological?factors?associated?with?pathological?complete?response?(pCR)?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?in?breast?cancer?patients?after?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy?(NAC),?and?to?analyze?the?postoperative?survival.?Methods?A?total?of?116?patients?with?breast?cancer?with?axillary?lymph?node?metastasis?were?collected?from?Jiaxing?Hospital?of?TCM,?Jiaxing?Maternity?and?Child?Health?Care?Hospital?and?The?First?Hospital?of?Jiaxing.?Univariate?analysis?was?used?to?analyze?the?relationship?between?clinicopathological?factors?and?the?pCR?of?axillary?lymph?node?metastasis?in?breast?cancer?after?NAC.?Binary?Logistic?regression?was?used?to?analyze?the?independent?predictors?of?the?pCR?of?axillary?lymph?node?metastasis?in?breast?cancer?after?NAC.?Kaplan-Meier?survival?curve?was?used?to?analyze?the?disease-free?survival?rate?and?overall?survival?rate?of?patients?with?and?non-pCR?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes.?Results?Among?116?patients,?52?cases?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?achieved?pCR?after?NAC,?accounting?for?44.83%.?Univariate?analysis?showed?that?age,?vascular?invasion,?pCR?of?primary?breast?tumor,?the?difference?of?Ki67?before?and?after?NAC,?NAC?regimen,?and?the?efficacy?of?NAC?were?statistically?significant?between?breast?cancer?patients?with?pCR?and?those?non-pCR?(P<0.05).?Binary?Logistic?regression?analysis?showed?that?age,?vascular?invasion?and?pCR?of?primary?breast?tumor?were?independent?predictors?of?pCR?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?(P<0.05).?The?5-year?disease-free?survival?rate?(80.40%?vs.?54.60%)?and?overall?survival?rate?(90.4%?vs.?70.10%)?of?patients?with?pCR?and?non-pCR?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?were?compared.?Conclusion?Some?breast?cancer?patients?with?axillary?lymph?node?metastasis?can?reach?pCR?in?lymph?nodes?after?NAC.?Analyzing?the?correlation?between?clinical?pathological?factors?and?pCR?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?after?NAC,?it?was?found?that?pCR?of?axillary?metastatic?lymph?nodes?after?NAC?is?related?to?age?≤?50?years?old,?no?vascular?infiltration,?and?primary?breast?tumor?pCR.?At?the?same?time,?it?was?found?that?patients?with?axillary?metastatic?lymph?node?pCR?had?a?better?prognosis?than?those?with?non-pCR.
[Key?words]?Breast?cancer;?Neoadjuvant?chemotherapy;?Axillary?lymph?node;?Pathological?complete?response
對于伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者,乳腺癌新輔助化療(neoadjuvant?chemotherapy,NAC)已經(jīng)成為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)的治療模式[1]。通過NAC可使乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤和淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移灶縮小甚至消退,可以更加準(zhǔn)確地了解患者對化療藥物的敏感性,并根據(jù)化療的效果明確后續(xù)綜合治療方案。目前,對于NAC前伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者,在NAC結(jié)束后常規(guī)會進(jìn)行腋窩淋巴結(jié)清掃(axillary?lymph?node?dissection,ALND)。針對伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者,ALND在最大程度上降低了腋窩淋巴結(jié)復(fù)發(fā)轉(zhuǎn)移的同時也給臨床醫(yī)生提供了最準(zhǔn)確的腋窩淋巴結(jié)病理分期。但ALND有相當(dāng)風(fēng)險的并發(fā)癥,如上肢淋巴水腫、上肢活動受限等。乳腺癌患者伴腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移,通過NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)可達(dá)到病理完全緩解(pathological?complete?response,pCR)的患者接近40%~50%[2]。隨著NAC后患者腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR,再繼續(xù)進(jìn)行ALND,不僅會增加并發(fā)癥發(fā)生率,也會使住院時間延長,醫(yī)療費用增加。前哨淋巴結(jié)活檢可以作為NAC后評估腋窩淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)的一種替代手術(shù)方案[3]。
本研究旨在探索與腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR相關(guān)的臨床病理因素及評估腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR患者的預(yù)后生存情況,為將來在特定患者中避免ALND提供循證依據(jù)。
1??資料與方法
1.1??研究對象
本研究回顧性分析2013年11月1日至2022年10月30日嘉興市中醫(yī)醫(yī)院、嘉興市婦幼保健院、嘉興市第一醫(yī)院收治的116例乳腺癌(cT1~4N+M0)患者,年齡29~74歲,平均(51.87±9.04)歲。納入標(biāo)準(zhǔn):①乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤經(jīng)空芯針或者粗針穿刺明確為浸潤性乳腺癌的女性患者;②腋窩淋巴結(jié)腫大可觸及或彩超可探及并經(jīng)穿刺活檢明確為乳腺癌轉(zhuǎn)移;③NAC前未發(fā)現(xiàn)遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移;④均進(jìn)行NAC,治療周期完成后繼續(xù)行根治性手術(shù);⑤臨床病歷數(shù)據(jù)資料完整。排除標(biāo)準(zhǔn):①NAC前查體或者彩超探及鎖骨上淋巴結(jié)腫大;②既往乳腺癌病史或伴發(fā)其他惡性腫瘤;③NAC過程中發(fā)現(xiàn)遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移;④無法耐受NAC,終止治療。化療方案參考當(dāng)年美國國立綜合癌癥網(wǎng)絡(luò)和中國臨床腫瘤學(xué)會發(fā)布的乳腺癌臨床實踐指南,結(jié)合患者自身情況制定。NAC的臨床反應(yīng)在每2個化療周期后通過查體和彩超評估。在NAC完成后30d內(nèi)實施乳房全切或保乳手術(shù),腋窩淋巴結(jié)執(zhí)行標(biāo)準(zhǔn)ALND。術(shù)后患者均接受了包括放療、輔助系統(tǒng)治療在內(nèi)的臨床常規(guī)、符合指南的治療方案。
1.2??方法
根據(jù)患者NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)是否達(dá)到pCR分為pCR組(52例)和non-pCR組(64例)。收集臨床病理因素信息包括:患者手術(shù)時的年齡、手術(shù)時間、Ki67、人表皮生長因子受體-2(human?epidermal?growth?factor?receptor?2,HER-2)表達(dá)、雌激素受體(estrogen?receptor,ER)表達(dá)、孕激素受體(progesterone?receptor,PR)表達(dá)、分子分型、NAC前后Ki67差值、NAC方案、NAC治療效果、月經(jīng)狀態(tài)、體質(zhì)量指數(shù)(body?mass?index,BMI)、乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR、乳腺病灶分布、腫瘤直徑、組織學(xué)分級、脈管浸潤。對所收集資料進(jìn)行回顧性分析,以篩選出腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR的獨立預(yù)測因素。
1.3??NAC臨床治療效果評估
乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤臨床治療效果根據(jù)實體瘤治療效果評價標(biāo)準(zhǔn)(RECIST1.1版)進(jìn)行評估,結(jié)果分為4種:完全緩解(complete?response,CR)為乳腺中沒有可觸及的病灶;部分緩解(partial?response,PR)為病灶的大小至少減少30%;疾病進(jìn)展(progressive?disease,PD)為病灶大小增加20%;當(dāng)既不符合PR也不符合PD標(biāo)準(zhǔn)時,則表示疾病穩(wěn)定(stable?disease,SD)。
1.4??病理免疫組化指標(biāo)
根據(jù)ER、PR、HER-2和Ki67表達(dá),將分子亞型分為Luminal?A/Luminal?B(HER-2陰性)、HER-2陽性、三陰性乳腺癌。乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR定義為乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤處無浸潤性癌成分。腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)的pCR定義為腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)經(jīng)病理檢測未見癌殘留。
1.5??術(shù)后隨訪
所有入組患者術(shù)后均進(jìn)行門診或電話隨訪,術(shù)后前2年每3個月進(jìn)行1次門診彩超復(fù)查。隨訪至2022年11月30日或患者死亡。觀察終點為無病生存時間(disease?free?survival,DFS)及總生存時間(overall?survival,OS)。DFS為術(shù)后出現(xiàn)復(fù)發(fā)、轉(zhuǎn)移、其他原發(fā)性惡性腫瘤或最后一次隨訪時間,OS為術(shù)后至死亡的時間或最后一次隨訪時間。
1.6??統(tǒng)計學(xué)方法
采用SPSS?26.0統(tǒng)計學(xué)軟件對數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行處理分析,采用Graphpad?Prism8.0軟件繪制圖形。單因素分析中計數(shù)資料采用頻數(shù)和百分比描述。采用χ2檢驗比較臨床病理因素與NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)的關(guān)系。其中有序等級資料采用非參數(shù)秩和檢驗。計量資料首先考察其正態(tài)性。如服從正態(tài)分布,選擇獨立樣本t檢驗,并以均數(shù)±標(biāo)準(zhǔn)差()表式;如不服從正態(tài)分布,選擇兩個獨立樣本的非參數(shù)檢驗,并選擇中位數(shù)(四分位數(shù))的表達(dá)形式。將單因素分析中有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義的指標(biāo)進(jìn)行二元Logistic回歸分析以發(fā)現(xiàn)NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)的獨立預(yù)測因素。采用生存分析中Kaplan-Meier法估計DFS和OS,組間比較用Log-rank檢驗。以P<0.05為差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義。
2??結(jié)果
2.1??腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR預(yù)測因素的單因素分析
入組116例患者中,腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR組有52例,腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)non-pCR組有64例。入組患者臨床病理因素中的BMI、月經(jīng)狀態(tài)、組織學(xué)分級、病灶個數(shù)、腫瘤直徑、Ki67指數(shù)、分子分型與腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR分組比較,差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P>0.05);而年齡、脈管浸潤、乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR、NAC前后Ki67差值、NAC方案、NAC治療效果與腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR分組比較差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P<0.05),見表1。
2.2??腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pPCR可疑預(yù)測因素二元Logistic回歸分析
基于以上單因素篩查發(fā)現(xiàn)的可疑預(yù)測因素,繼續(xù)進(jìn)行二元Logistic回歸分析發(fā)現(xiàn),NAC前后Ki67差值、化療方案、化療治療效果不是腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pPCR的獨立預(yù)測因素(P>0.05);≤50歲、無脈管浸潤、乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR是腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pPCR的獨立預(yù)測因素(P<0.05)。見表2。
2.3??腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pPCR分組患者DFS和OS比較
到隨訪截至?xí)r116例患者中,腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pPCR患者中,6例患者出現(xiàn)局部復(fù)發(fā)或者遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移,其中4例隨訪期間死亡;腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)non-pCR患者中,21例出現(xiàn)局部復(fù)發(fā)或者遠(yuǎn)處轉(zhuǎn)移,其中1例原發(fā)胃癌,15例隨訪期間死亡;其余隨訪患者目前均存活。DFS和OS為2~101個月,DFS中位隨訪時間28.5個月,OS中位隨訪時間32.5個月。腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR與non-pCR患者術(shù)后5年DFS率(80.40%?vs.?54.60%)和OS率(90.4%?vs.?70.10%)比較差異有統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義(P<0.05),見圖1。
3??討論
伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者在NAC后轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到PCR再繼續(xù)進(jìn)行ALND的必要性日益受到質(zhì)疑。不過,術(shù)前準(zhǔn)確評估NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)也并非易事。在本研究的研究中腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)在NAC后獲得pCR率為44.83%,與相關(guān)研究的結(jié)果相似[2]。本研究發(fā)現(xiàn)乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR與腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR密切相關(guān)。二元Logistic回歸分析表明乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR是腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR的獨立預(yù)測因素。乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR伴腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR是乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤non-pCR的4.949倍(P=0.009,95%CI:1.479~16.559)。Samiei等[4]研究發(fā)現(xiàn)在cN1患者中經(jīng)過NAC后乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤pCR組中有45%的患者腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR,乳腺原發(fā)腫瘤non-pCR組中僅有9.4%腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR。腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR也與乳腺癌分子分型相關(guān),研究表明Luminal?A/Luminal?B(HER-2陰性)乳腺癌腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR率低于三陰性乳腺癌和HER-2陽性乳腺癌[5]。
Iwamoto等[6]在研究中也證實ER陰性的患者NAC后更容易實現(xiàn)腋窩淋巴結(jié)pCR。在本研究中發(fā)現(xiàn)三陰性乳腺癌NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR率為46.67%,HER-2陽性乳腺癌NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR率為50%,Luminal?A/?Luminal?B(HER-2陰性)乳腺癌NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR率僅為38.64%。Luminal型乳腺癌的腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR率要低于其他亞型,這與Luminal型乳腺癌ER誘導(dǎo)的增值效應(yīng)有關(guān)[7]。但分子分型在單因素分析中的差異無統(tǒng)計學(xué)意義,這與本研究收集的病例數(shù)較少、分組差異等因素存在一定的關(guān)聯(lián)。本研究發(fā)現(xiàn),≤50歲患者獲得腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR是>50歲患者的3.262倍(95%CI:1.174~9.062,P=0.023),因為年輕患者對化療毒不良反應(yīng)有更強的耐受力,會采用足夠的化療劑量,能順利完成NAC治療有一定的關(guān)系。
在本研究中還發(fā)現(xiàn)NAC后無脈管浸潤是腋窩淋巴結(jié)pCR的獨立預(yù)測因素,NAC后無脈管浸潤獲得腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR是有脈管浸潤的6.940倍(95%CI:2.441~19.732,P<0.001)。腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)能否能達(dá)到pCR,與患者的預(yù)后生存具有一定的相關(guān)性,腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR的患者術(shù)后DFS和OS明顯延長[8-9]。在本研究中腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR較non-pCR患者預(yù)后生存更好。
ALND作為伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的乳腺癌患者NAC后標(biāo)準(zhǔn)手術(shù)治療方法,然而有研究表明,NAC后腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR的乳腺癌患者,其DFS和OS都無法從ALND中獲益,ALND也會導(dǎo)致術(shù)后并發(fā)癥的概率升高[10-11]。這表明,NAC后腋窩病理分期應(yīng)作為一種診斷工具,而不是作為提高生存率的治療措施,即伴有腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的患者在NAC后常規(guī)進(jìn)行ALND,對部分腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR的乳腺癌患者存在過度治療的問題。隨著NAC方案的逐步完善,腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR率的提高,將會進(jìn)一步改善患者的預(yù)后,同時腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR的患者可以選擇避免ALND[12-14]。本研究認(rèn)為需要建立可靠的術(shù)前腋窩淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)評估模型,結(jié)合與腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)pCR相關(guān)的臨床病理因素評估腋窩轉(zhuǎn)移淋巴結(jié)達(dá)到pCR的概率[15]。本研究的研究也有一定的局限性,本研究是小樣本的回顧性分析,收集的病例數(shù)較少,后續(xù)還需要納入更多的病例數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行分析。
利益沖突:所有作者均聲明不存在利益沖突。
[參考文獻(xiàn)]
[1] WANG?H,?MAO?X.?Evaluation?of?the?efficacy?of?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy?for?breast?cancer[J].?Drug?Des?Devel?Ther,?2020,?14:?2423–2433.
[2] GALIMBERTI?V,?RIBEIRO?FONTANA?S?K,?MAISONNEUVE?P,?et?al.?Sentinel?node?biopsy?after?neoadjuvant?treatment?in?breast?cancer:?Five-year?follow-up?of?patients?with?clinically?node-negative?or?node-positive?disease?before?treatment[J].?Eur?J?Surg?Oncol,?2016,?42(3):?361–368.
[3] PILEWSKIE?M,?MORROW?M.?Axillary?nodal?management?following?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy:?A?review[J].?JAMA?Oncol,?2017,?3(4):?549–555.
[4] SAMIEI?S,?VAN?NIJNATTEN?T?J?A,?DE?MUNCK?L,?et?al.?Correlation?between?pathologic?complete?response?in?the?breast?and?absence?of?axillary?lymph?node?metastases?after?neoadjuvant?systemic?therapy[J].?Ann?Surg,?2020,?271(3):?574–580.
[5] GLAESER?A,?SINN?H?P,?GARCIA-ETIENNE?C,?et?al.?Heterogeneous?responses?of?axillary?lymph?node?metastases?to?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy?are?common?and?depend?on?breast?cancer?subtype[J].?Ann?Surg?Oncol,?2019,?26(13):?4381–4389.
[6] IWAMOTO?N,?ARUGA?T,?HORIGUCHI?S,?et?al.?Predictive?factors?of?an?axillary?pathological?complete?response?of?node-positive?breast?cancer?to?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy[J].?Surg?Today,?2020,?50(2):?178–184.
[7] 林偉強,?鐘慕儀,?黃河清,?等.?不同亞型乳腺癌患者新輔助化療治療及預(yù)后影響因素分析[J].?山西醫(yī)藥雜志,?2017,?21(46):?4–8.
[8] VON?MINCKWITZ?G,?BLOHMER?J?U,?COSTA?S?D,?et?al.?Response-guided?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy?for?breast?cancer[J].?J?Clin?Oncol,?2013,?31(29):?3623–3630.
[9] SPRING?L?M,?FELL?G,?ARFE?A,?et?al.?Pathologic?complete?response?after?neoadjuvant?chemotherapy?and?impact?on?breast?cancer?recurrence?and?survival:?A?comprehensive?Meta-analysis[J].?Clin?Cancer?Res,?2020,?26(12):?2838–2848.