曲文志,李子豪,涂 巍
·临床诊疗提示·
乳头溢液患者乳管镜下不同数量隆起性病变的临床特征分析
曲文志,李子豪,涂 巍
目的总结乳头溢液患者乳管镜下不同数量隆起性病变的临床特征,指导临床对乳头溢液患者的诊断。方法选取2007年7月—2014年12月就诊于中国医科大学第四附属医院的乳头溢液患者515例,患者均行乳管镜检查,且镜下显示存在隆起性病变。回顾性分析乳管镜下不同数量隆起性病变患者的临床特征,包括年龄、乳头溢液情况、溢液孔数、溢液颜色,并观察其乳管镜下隆起性病变所在乳管级别。结果515例乳头溢液患者中单发隆起性病变454例(88.2%),多发隆起性病变61例(11.8%);年龄≥45岁274例(53.2%),<45岁241例(46.8%);单侧乳头溢液460例(89.3%),双侧乳头溢液55例(10.7%);单孔溢液420例(81.6%),多孔溢液95例(18.4%);红色血性溢液233例(45.3%),黄色浆液性溢液221例(42.9%),无色清水样溢液47例(9.1%),白色乳汁样溢液14例(2.7%);乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管及以下437例(84.9%),隆起性病变为3级乳管以上78例(15.1%)。多发隆起性病变患者双侧乳头溢液所占比例、多孔溢液所占比例大于单发隆起性病变(P<0.05);单发、多发隆起性病变患者年龄、溢液颜色比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。单发隆起性病变患者乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上者52例(11.5%),多发隆起性病变乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上者26例(42.6%);多发隆起性病变患者乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上的发生率大于单发隆起性病变,差异有统计学意义(χ2=40.651,P<0.01)。结论临床应关注乳头溢液患者的临床特征,当患者出现双侧乳头溢液、多孔溢液,且乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级以上乳管时,应警惕患者乳管内多发隆起性病变的可能;而患者年龄、乳头溢液颜色不能帮助分辨患者是否出现不同数量乳管内隆起性病变。
乳溢;乳腺疾病;纤维乳管镜;多发隆起性病变
曲文志,李子豪,涂巍.乳头溢液患者乳管镜下不同数量隆起性病变的临床特征分析[J].中国全科医学,2016,19(30):3711-3713,3718.[www.chinagp.net]
QU W Z,LI Z H,TU W.Analysis on clinical features of protrusion lesions of nipple discharge patients with different amounts of protrusion lesions under breast ductoscopy[J].Chinese General Practice,2016,19(30):3711-3713,3718.
乳头溢液是乳腺疾病的常见临床症状,发生率为3.0%~7.4%,其在乳腺疾病中的发生率仅次于乳房疼痛和乳腺肿块[1]。病理性乳头溢液的常见病因包括乳管扩张、乳管炎、乳管内乳头状瘤、乳管内外周型乳头状瘤、乳管内癌等。乳管镜又称乳腺纤维内镜,其能直观地观察乳腺导管内微小病变,且可准确定位病变区域,已成为乳头溢液病因诊断的首选检查方式。病理性乳头溢液根据乳管镜检查图像可分为隆起性病变和非隆起性病变两大类[2],而隆起性病变根据数量又可分为单发隆起性病变和多发隆起性病变。多发隆起性病变伴乳头溢液被认为是一种癌前病变[3],据相关研究结果显示,我国乳腺癌高发年龄为45~55岁[4]。本研究回顾性分析了515例乳头溢液患者的临床资料,观察乳管镜下不同数量隆起性病变患者的临床特征,旨在为临床早期预防恶性乳腺疾病提供参考。
1.1一般资料选取2007年7月—2014年12月就诊于中国医科大学第四附属医院的乳头溢液患者515例,年龄17~76岁,溢液时间1 d~10年,均排除全身性、药物性、生理性等因素所致的乳头溢液。患者均行乳管镜检查,且镜下显示存在隆起性病变。
1.2研究方法回顾性分析乳管镜下不同数量隆起性病变患者的临床特征,包括年龄、乳头溢液情况、溢液孔数、溢液颜色,并观察其乳管镜下隆起性病变所在乳管级别。
1.3乳管镜检查患者均取平卧位,常规碘伏消毒皮肤,覆盖无菌洞巾,采用5号针头插入溢液侧乳孔,注入2%利多卡因0.1~0.5 ml,乳管浸润1~2 min,然后用探针依次扩张溢液乳管,乳管足够扩张后缓慢插入纤维乳管镜,同时另一协助操作人员通过冲洗通道持续加压注入0.9%氯化钠溶液,观察乳管内分支、管壁有无出血、隆起等情况,并采集图像,对存在明显炎症的患者采用药物灌注治疗(即先用0.9%氯化钠溶液反复冲洗乳管,后注入庆大霉素4万U+地塞米松5 mg,敷料覆盖,禁浴1 d),对镜下存在明显隆起性病变的患者建议手术治疗。
1.4统计学方法采用SPSS 17.0统计学软件进行数据处理,计数资料比较采用χ2检验。以P<0.05为差异有统计学意义。
2.1乳头溢液患者一般资料515例乳头溢液患者中单发隆起性病变454例(88.2%),多发隆起性病变61例(11.8%);年龄≥45岁274例(53.2%),<45岁241例(46.8%);单侧乳头溢液460例(89.3%),双侧乳头溢液55例(10.7%);单孔溢液420例(81.6%),多孔溢液95例(18.4%);红色血性溢液233例(45.3%),黄色浆液性溢液221例(42.9%),无色清水样溢液47例(9.1%),白色乳汁样溢液14例(2.7%);乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管及以下437例(84.9%),隆起性病变为3级乳管以上78例(15.1%)。
2.2不同数量隆起性病变患者临床特征及乳管镜下隆起性病变所在乳管位置比较多发隆起性病变患者双侧乳头溢液所占比例、多孔溢液所占比例大于单发隆起性病变,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);单发、多发隆起性病变患者年龄、溢液颜色比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05,见表1)。单发隆起性病变患者乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上52例(11.5%),多发隆起性病变乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上26例(42.6%);多发隆起性病变患者乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上的发生率大于单发隆起性病变,差异有统计学意义(χ2=40.651,P<0.01)。
单发乳腺导管内乳头状瘤被认为是一种畸形病变,非癌前病变[5],而多发乳腺导管内乳头状瘤更易发展为恶性肿瘤,故认为其是一种癌前病变[6-8]。目前认为,80%~90%的乳头溢液均为良性病变[9],但是仍不完全排除恶性的可能,目前尚无统一的诊断标准。有学者认为,年龄>50岁、存在红色血性溢液、单侧存在乳房肿块与乳腺癌的相关性较高[10]。但也有学者认为,患者年龄与乳腺肿瘤的良恶性并无相关性[11]。还有学者认为,91.4%的患者乳头红色血性溢液与乳管恶性病变无关,而是与乳管内乳头状瘤关系密切[12]。为此,本研究回顾了515例乳头溢液患者的临床资料,分析年龄、乳头溢液情况、溢液孔数、溢液颜色与乳管内不同数量隆起性病变的关系,并观察不同数量隆起性病变患者乳管镜下隆起性病变所在乳管级别,为指导临床对乳头溢液患者的后期治疗提供帮助。
本研究结果显示,乳头溢液患者中多发隆起性病变发生率为11.8%,与相关研究结果相似[13]。多发隆起性病变患者双侧乳头溢液所占比例、多孔溢液所占比例大于单发隆起性病变,因此双侧乳头溢液、多孔溢液的患者需警惕乳管内多发隆起性病变的发生,且多发隆起性病变患者乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上的发生率大于单发隆起性病变。有研究认为,乳管内多发隆起性病变一旦确诊,对于年龄<45岁的患者,临床进行定期的观察十分必要;对于年龄≥45岁的患者,行单纯乳腺切除术为宜[14]。而本研究结果显示,不同数量隆起性病变患者年龄间无差异,表明年龄大小不能提示乳管内出现多发隆起性病变,与相关研究不一致[15],可能与本研究样本量大小及随机误差有关。不同数量隆起性病变患者溢液颜色间无差异,表明溢液颜色并不能特别提示乳管内多发隆起性病变的发生,因此还是应以术后病理为金标准。
表1 不同数量隆起性病变患者临床特征比较〔n(%)〕
乳管内肿瘤的瘤体微小,仅为1~3 mm[16],相关临床研究显示,乳腺彩超和钼靶检查的漏检率较高,特异度低,且定位不准确,难以区分良恶性;磁共振检查特异度低而成本较高,对分辨无明显隆起性病变的潜在恶性病变存在盲区;乳管造影检查对扁平瘤体的漏检率较高;脱落细胞学检查灵敏度较低,且无法定位;以上检查均不适用于乳头溢液患者的病因筛查[17]。而乳管镜不仅可以有效诊断乳头溢液的病因,同时还可对乳腺导管内炎症进行治疗,且对乳腺癌的早期诊断与治疗意义重大,因此临床应用范围逐渐扩大[18]。但由于乳管镜长度(8 cm)有限,直径(0.75 mm)固定,弯曲度和角度有限,且乳管内出血或炎性絮状物等阻碍视野及患者乳管自身特征等,可能导致对多级分支内的隆起性病变漏诊。因此,对于乳头溢液患者,分析其临床特征对预测乳管内病变及其诊疗预后有一定价值。
由于患者的部分临床特征具有一定主观性,且随着患者就诊时间及乳管内病变程度及范围的发展,患者外在溢液表现存在变化的可能,各项实验室检查存在缺陷与不足,乳管内乳头状瘤虽为良性病变,但仍有恶变的可能[19],因此,发现乳管内隆起性病变时,患者应积极配合检查,必要时进行手术治疗,尤其是存在乳腺癌家族史的患者,应定期随访。
综上所述,临床应关注乳头溢液患者的临床特征,当患者出现双侧乳头溢液、多孔溢液,且乳管镜下隆起性病变为3级乳管以上时,应警惕患者乳管内多发隆起性病变的可能,为患者的诊治及预防乳腺癌的发生提供良好的依据和价值。
作者贡献:曲文志进行试验设计与实施、资料收集整理、撰写论文、成文并对文章负责;李子豪进行试验实施、评估、资料收集;涂巍进行质量控制及审校。
本文无利益冲突。
[1]邵志敏,沈镇宙,徐兵河.乳腺肿瘤学[M].上海:复旦大学出版社,2013.
[2]耿洪涛,赵广才,冯佳.乳管镜在乳头溢液性疾病中的应用[J].中国实用医药,2010,5(10):33-34.
GENG H T,ZHAO G C,FENG J.Fiberoptic ductoscopy in application of nipple discharge disease[J].China Prac Med,2010,5(10):33-34.
[3]刘熙鹏,郭莉,李园园.乳管内乳头状病变的临床分析:附1211例报告[J].中国普通外科杂志,2013,22(11):1426-1430.
LIU X P,GUO L,LI Y Y.Clinical analysis of intraductal papillary lesions of the breast:a report of 1211 cases[J].Chinese Journal of General Surgery,2013,22(11):1426-1430.
[4]李玉阳,杜贾军,刘奇,等.山东省 61102 例妇女乳腺疾病普查报告[J].山东大学学报(医学版),2011,49(8):157-160.
LI Y Y,DU J J,LIU Q,et al.Screening for breast diseases among 61,102 women in Shandong Province[J].Journal of Shandong University (Health Sciences),2011,49(8):157-160.
[5]MOKBEL K,ESCOBAR P F,MATSUNAGA T.Mammary ductoscopy:current status and future prospects[J].Eur J Surg Oncol,2005,31(1):3-8.
[6]ROSEN E L,BENTEY R C,BAKER J A,et al.Imaging-guided core needle biopsy of papillary lasions of the breast[J].AJR Am J Roentgenol,2002,179(5):1185-1192.
[7]HE J H,LIANG X M,HOU J H,et al.Study of CD44v6 protein expression in intraductal papilloma and its malignant transformation of breast[J].Ai Zheng,2002,21(6):615-618.
[8]SIMPSON J S,CONNOLLY E M,LEONG W L,et al.Mammary ductoscopy in the evaluation and treatment of pathologic nipple discharge:a Canadian experience[J].Can J Surg,2009,52(6):E245-248.
[9]CHANG J M, CHO N, MOON W K,et al.Does ultrasound-guided directional vacuum-assisted removal help eliminate abnormal nipple discharge in patients with benign intraductal single mass?[J].Korean J Radiol,2009,10(6):575-580.[10]DOLAN R T,BUTLER J S,Kell M R,et al.Nipple discharge and the efficacy of duct cytology in evaluating breast cancer risk[J].Surgeon,2010,8(5):252-258.
[11]LANITIS S,FILIPPAKIS G,THOMAS J,et al. Microdochectomy for single-duct pathologic nipple discharge and normal or benign imaging and cytology[J].Breast,2008,17(3):309-313.
[12]FAJDIC J,GOTOVAC N,GLAVIC Z,et al. Microdochectomy in the management of pathologic nipple discharge [J].Arch Gynecol Obstet,2011,283(4):851-854.
[13]陶怡菁,吴萍,全志伟.乳腺导管内乳头状病变的鉴别和治疗进展[J].中国实用外科杂志,2010,30(S1):68-69.
[14]沈卫达,林俊生,孟莉,等.乳腺导管内乳头状瘤病27例临床分析[J].现代肿瘤医学,2006,14(4):416-417.
SHEN W D,LIN J S,MENG L,et al.Clinical analysis of the intraductal papillomatosis of breast(a report of 27 cases)[J].Modern Oncology,2006,14(4):416-417.
[15]单鸣,汪成,余燕民,等.纤维乳管镜检查对乳头溢液病因的诊断价值[J].上海交通大学学报(医学版),2015,35(5):710-713.
[16]闻巍,杜亚平,黄汉源,等.乳腺导管内乳头状瘤病103例报告[J].解放军医学杂志,2005,30(1):75-76.
[17]边学海,孙辉.乳头溢液的个体化诊断流程[J].中国普外基础与临床杂志,2015,22(6):652-655.
[18]沈叶,虞贞凤,单远洲.纤维乳腺导管镜在乳头溢液疾病诊治中的应用[J].南昌大学学报,2014,54(2):63-65.
[19]刘红,范宇,惠锐,等.乳腺乳头状瘤病癌变的临床诊治[J].中国肿瘤临床,2001,28(6):425-427.
(本文编辑:毛亚敏)
Analysis on Clinical Features of Protrusion Lesions of Nipple Discharge Patients with Different Amounts of Protrusion Lesions under Breast Ductoscopy
QUWen-zhi,LIZi-hao,TUWei.
DepartmentoftheFifthGeneralSurgery(BreastSurgery),theFourthAffiliatedHospitalofChinaMedicalUniversity,Shenyang110032,China
Correspondingauthor:QUWen-zhi,DepartmentoftheFifthGeneralSurgery(BreastSurgery),theFourthAffiliatedHospitalofChinaMedicalUniversity,Shenyang110032,China;E-mail:doctorqwz@sina.com
ObjectiveTo provide guidance for clinical diagnosis of patients with nipple discharge by studying the clinical features of protrusion lesions of nipple discharge patients with different amounts of protrusion lesions under breast ductoscopy.MethodsIn 515 patients with nipple discharge under treatment in the Fourth Affiliated Hospital of China Medical University from July 2007 to December 2014 were selected;all patients received breast ductoscopy and protrusion lesions were observed by breast ductoscopy.Clinical features of patients with different amounts of protrusion lesions under breast ductoscopy were retrospectively analyzed,including age,discharge amount,pore number,discharge color,and grade of duct of protrusion lesions were observed by breast ductoscopy.ResultsIn 515 patients with nipple discharge,454 cases(88.2%) were diagnosed with single protrusion lesion and 61 cases(11.8%) were diagnosed with multiple protrusion lesions;274 cases(53.2%) were ≥45 years old and 241 cases(46.8%) were <45 years old;460 cases (89.3%) had unilateral nipple discharge and 55 cases (10.7%) had bilateral nipple discharge;420 cases (81.6%) had single-pore nipple discharge and 95 cases (18.4%) had multiple-pore nipple discharge;233 cases (45.3%) had red bloody discharge,221 cases (42.9%) had discharge of yellow serosity,47 cases (9.1%) had colorless water-like discharge and 14 cases (2.7%) had white milk-like discharge;437 cases (84.9%) had protrusion lesions on ducts below and equal to Grade 3 and 78 cases (15.1%) had protrusion lesions on ducts above Grade 3.Proportion of bilateral nipple discharge and multiple-pore nipple discharge in patients with multiple protrusion lesions were both larger than those in patients with single protrusion lesions (P<0.05);there was no significant difference in age and discharge color between patients with single and mulliple of protrusion lesions(P>0.05).52 cases (11.5%) of single protrusion lesions had protrusion lesions on ducts above Grade 3 under breast ductoscopy and 26 cases (42.6%) of multiple protrusion lesions had protrusion lesions on ducts above Grade 3 under breast ductoscopy;the incidence rate of protrusion lesions on ducts above Grade 3 under breast ductoscopy in patients with multiple protrusion lesions was higher than that in patients with single protrusion lesions(χ2=40.651,P<0.01).ConclusionAttention should be paid to clinical features of nipple discharge.When a patient is diagnosed with bilateral nipple discharge,multiple-pore nipple discharge and protrusion lesions on ducts above Grade 3 under breast ductoscopy,the patient should be informed of the possibility of multiple protrusion lesions;however age and discharge color cannot help to judge whether protrusion lesions of different amounts exist.
Galactorrhea;Breast diseases;Fiberoptic ductoscopy;Multiple apophysis lesions
110032辽宁省沈阳市,中国医科大学第四附属医院第五普通外科(乳腺外科)
曲文志,110032辽宁省沈阳市,中国医科大学第四附属医院第五普通外科(乳腺外科);E-mail:doctorqwz@sina.com
R 655.8
B
10.3969/j.issn.1007-9572.2016.30.014
2016-01-12;
2016-06-03)