Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Mod Pathol. 2010 Apr;23(4):629-36. doi: 10.1038/modpathol.2009.188. Epub 2010 Jan 15.
There is debate whether interval carcinomas differ from screen-detected tumours biologically. In this study, clinico-pathological parameters and the expression of well-validated biological markers were compared between 'true' interval carcinomas and screen-detected/missed carcinomas hypothesising that 'true' interval carcinomas show a more aggressive biological behaviour. The study group consisted of 92 consecutive postmenopausal women attending the breast screening programme and presenting with an invasive ductal carcinoma. All screening mammograms were re-reviewed. Sixteen patients had a 'true' interval carcinoma. Seven carcinomas were missed at screening, but detected on re-reviewing of the screening mammogram. Radiological characteristics were assessed from diagnostic mammograms. Data on patient- and tumour characteristics and follow-up data were recorded from hospital records. Median follow-up was 61 months. Immunohistochemistry for ER, PR, Her2/neu and p53 was performed on TMA sections. Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed. In univariate analysis, 'true' interval carcinomas were significantly larger (odd ratios (OR) 7.2, 95% CI 1.8-28.1) and less frequently ER (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-0.9) and PR (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.0) positive. In multivariate analysis, 'true' interval carcinoma was independently associated with larger tumours (OR 7.0, 95% CI 1.4-36.2). A trend toward ER negativity was found (OR 0.3, 95% CI 0.1-1.1). 'True' interval carcinomas showed a trend toward a decreased relapse-free survival (HR 1.7 95% CI 0.9-3.1). Although 'true' interval carcinomas were significantly larger than screen-detected/missed interval carcinomas, it remains challenging to observe parameters that determine this difference between 'true' interval carcinomas and screen-detected lesions.
是否间隔期癌在生物学上与筛查发现的肿瘤不同存在争议。本研究比较了“真正”间隔期癌与筛查发现/漏诊癌之间的临床病理参数和经过充分验证的生物学标志物表达,假设“真正”间隔期癌具有更具侵袭性的生物学行为。研究组包括 92 名绝经后妇女,她们正在参加乳房筛查计划并出现浸润性导管癌。所有筛查乳房 X 线照片均重新进行了审查。16 例患者患有“真正”间隔期癌。7 例癌在筛查中漏诊,但在重新审查筛查乳房 X 线照片时被发现。从诊断性乳房 X 线照片评估放射学特征。从医院记录中记录患者和肿瘤特征以及随访数据。中位随访时间为 61 个月。在 TMA 切片上进行 ER、PR、Her2/neu 和 p53 的免疫组织化学染色。进行单变量和多变量逻辑回归分析。在单变量分析中,“真正”间隔期癌明显更大(比值比 (OR) 7.2,95%置信区间 1.8-28.1),并且 ER(OR 0.3,95%置信区间 0.1-0.9)和 PR(OR 0.3,95%置信区间 0.1-1.0)阳性的频率较低。在多变量分析中,“真正”间隔期癌与较大的肿瘤独立相关(OR 7.0,95%置信区间 1.4-36.2)。发现 ER 阴性呈趋势(OR 0.3,95%置信区间 0.1-1.1)。“真正”间隔期癌的无复发生存率呈下降趋势(HR 1.7,95%置信区间 0.9-3.1)。尽管“真正”间隔期癌明显大于筛查发现/漏诊的间隔期癌,但观察确定“真正”间隔期癌与筛查发现病变之间差异的参数仍然具有挑战性。