曲文志,李子豪,涂 巍
?
·臨床診療提示·
乳頭溢液患者乳管鏡下不同數量隆起性病變的臨床特征分析
曲文志,李子豪,涂 巍
目的總結乳頭溢液患者乳管鏡下不同數量隆起性病變的臨床特征,指導臨床對乳頭溢液患者的診斷。方法選取2007年7月—2014年12月就診于中國醫科大學第四附屬醫院的乳頭溢液患者515例,患者均行乳管鏡檢查,且鏡下顯示存在隆起性病變。回顧性分析乳管鏡下不同數量隆起性病變患者的臨床特征,包括年齡、乳頭溢液情況、溢液孔數、溢液顏色,并觀察其乳管鏡下隆起性病變所在乳管級別。結果515例乳頭溢液患者中單發隆起性病變454例(88.2%),多發隆起性病變61例(11.8%);年齡≥45歲274例(53.2%),<45歲241例(46.8%);單側乳頭溢液460例(89.3%),雙側乳頭溢液55例(10.7%);單孔溢液420例(81.6%),多孔溢液95例(18.4%);紅色血性溢液233例(45.3%),黃色漿液性溢液221例(42.9%),無色清水樣溢液47例(9.1%),白色乳汁樣溢液14例(2.7%);乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管及以下437例(84.9%),隆起性病變為3級乳管以上78例(15.1%)。多發隆起性病變患者雙側乳頭溢液所占比例、多孔溢液所占比例大于單發隆起性病變(P<0.05);單發、多發隆起性病變患者年齡、溢液顏色比較,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05)。單發隆起性病變患者乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上者52例(11.5%),多發隆起性病變乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上者26例(42.6%);多發隆起性病變患者乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上的發生率大于單發隆起性病變,差異有統計學意義(χ2=40.651,P<0.01)。結論臨床應關注乳頭溢液患者的臨床特征,當患者出現雙側乳頭溢液、多孔溢液,且乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級以上乳管時,應警惕患者乳管內多發隆起性病變的可能;而患者年齡、乳頭溢液顏色不能幫助分辨患者是否出現不同數量乳管內隆起性病變。
乳溢;乳腺疾病;纖維乳管鏡;多發隆起性病變
曲文志,李子豪,涂巍.乳頭溢液患者乳管鏡下不同數量隆起性病變的臨床特征分析[J].中國全科醫學,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.
乳頭溢液是乳腺疾病的常見臨床癥狀,發生率為3.0%~7.4%,其在乳腺疾病中的發生率僅次于乳房疼痛和乳腺腫塊[1]。病理性乳頭溢液的常見病因包括乳管擴張、乳管炎、乳管內乳頭狀瘤、乳管內外周型乳頭狀瘤、乳管內癌等。乳管鏡又稱乳腺纖維內鏡,其能直觀地觀察乳腺導管內微小病變,且可準確定位病變區域,已成為乳頭溢液病因診斷的首選檢查方式。病理性乳頭溢液根據乳管鏡檢查圖像可分為隆起性病變和非隆起性病變兩大類[2],而隆起性病變根據數量又可分為單發隆起性病變和多發隆起性病變。多發隆起性病變伴乳頭溢液被認為是一種癌前病變[3],據相關研究結果顯示,我國乳腺癌高發年齡為45~55歲[4]。本研究回顧性分析了515例乳頭溢液患者的臨床資料,觀察乳管鏡下不同數量隆起性病變患者的臨床特征,旨在為臨床早期預防惡性乳腺疾病提供參考。
1.1一般資料選取2007年7月—2014年12月就診于中國醫科大學第四附屬醫院的乳頭溢液患者515例,年齡17~76歲,溢液時間1 d~10年,均排除全身性、藥物性、生理性等因素所致的乳頭溢液。患者均行乳管鏡檢查,且鏡下顯示存在隆起性病變。
1.2研究方法回顧性分析乳管鏡下不同數量隆起性病變患者的臨床特征,包括年齡、乳頭溢液情況、溢液孔數、溢液顏色,并觀察其乳管鏡下隆起性病變所在乳管級別。
1.3乳管鏡檢查患者均取平臥位,常規碘伏消毒皮膚,覆蓋無菌洞巾,采用5號針頭插入溢液側乳孔,注入2%利多卡因0.1~0.5 ml,乳管浸潤1~2 min,然后用探針依次擴張溢液乳管,乳管足夠擴張后緩慢插入纖維乳管鏡,同時另一協助操作人員通過沖洗通道持續加壓注入0.9%氯化鈉溶液,觀察乳管內分支、管壁有無出血、隆起等情況,并采集圖像,對存在明顯炎癥的患者采用藥物灌注治療(即先用0.9%氯化鈉溶液反復沖洗乳管,后注入慶大霉素4萬U+地塞米松5 mg,敷料覆蓋,禁浴1 d),對鏡下存在明顯隆起性病變的患者建議手術治療。
1.4統計學方法采用SPSS 17.0統計學軟件進行數據處理,計數資料比較采用χ2檢驗。以P<0.05為差異有統計學意義。
2.1乳頭溢液患者一般資料515例乳頭溢液患者中單發隆起性病變454例(88.2%),多發隆起性病變61例(11.8%);年齡≥45歲274例(53.2%),<45歲241例(46.8%);單側乳頭溢液460例(89.3%),雙側乳頭溢液55例(10.7%);單孔溢液420例(81.6%),多孔溢液95例(18.4%);紅色血性溢液233例(45.3%),黃色漿液性溢液221例(42.9%),無色清水樣溢液47例(9.1%),白色乳汁樣溢液14例(2.7%);乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管及以下437例(84.9%),隆起性病變為3級乳管以上78例(15.1%)。
2.2不同數量隆起性病變患者臨床特征及乳管鏡下隆起性病變所在乳管位置比較多發隆起性病變患者雙側乳頭溢液所占比例、多孔溢液所占比例大于單發隆起性病變,差異有統計學意義(P<0.05);單發、多發隆起性病變患者年齡、溢液顏色比較,差異無統計學意義(P>0.05,見表1)。單發隆起性病變患者乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上52例(11.5%),多發隆起性病變乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上26例(42.6%);多發隆起性病變患者乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上的發生率大于單發隆起性病變,差異有統計學意義(χ2=40.651,P<0.01)。
單發乳腺導管內乳頭狀瘤被認為是一種畸形病變,非癌前病變[5],而多發乳腺導管內乳頭狀瘤更易發展為惡性腫瘤,故認為其是一種癌前病變[6-8]。目前認為,80%~90%的乳頭溢液均為良性病變[9],但是仍不完全排除惡性的可能,目前尚無統一的診斷標準。有學者認為,年齡>50歲、存在紅色血性溢液、單側存在乳房腫塊與乳腺癌的相關性較高[10]。但也有學者認為,患者年齡與乳腺腫瘤的良惡性并無相關性[11]。還有學者認為,91.4%的患者乳頭紅色血性溢液與乳管惡性病變無關,而是與乳管內乳頭狀瘤關系密切[12]。為此,本研究回顧了515例乳頭溢液患者的臨床資料,分析年齡、乳頭溢液情況、溢液孔數、溢液顏色與乳管內不同數量隆起性病變的關系,并觀察不同數量隆起性病變患者乳管鏡下隆起性病變所在乳管級別,為指導臨床對乳頭溢液患者的后期治療提供幫助。
本研究結果顯示,乳頭溢液患者中多發隆起性病變發生率為11.8%,與相關研究結果相似[13]。多發隆起性病變患者雙側乳頭溢液所占比例、多孔溢液所占比例大于單發隆起性病變,因此雙側乳頭溢液、多孔溢液的患者需警惕乳管內多發隆起性病變的發生,且多發隆起性病變患者乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上的發生率大于單發隆起性病變。有研究認為,乳管內多發隆起性病變一旦確診,對于年齡<45歲的患者,臨床進行定期的觀察十分必要;對于年齡≥45歲的患者,行單純乳腺切除術為宜[14]。而本研究結果顯示,不同數量隆起性病變患者年齡間無差異,表明年齡大小不能提示乳管內出現多發隆起性病變,與相關研究不一致[15],可能與本研究樣本量大小及隨機誤差有關。不同數量隆起性病變患者溢液顏色間無差異,表明溢液顏色并不能特別提示乳管內多發隆起性病變的發生,因此還是應以術后病理為金標準。

表1 不同數量隆起性病變患者臨床特征比較〔n(%)〕
乳管內腫瘤的瘤體微小,僅為1~3 mm[16],相關臨床研究顯示,乳腺彩超和鉬靶檢查的漏檢率較高,特異度低,且定位不準確,難以區分良惡性;磁共振檢查特異度低而成本較高,對分辨無明顯隆起性病變的潛在惡性病變存在盲區;乳管造影檢查對扁平瘤體的漏檢率較高;脫落細胞學檢查靈敏度較低,且無法定位;以上檢查均不適用于乳頭溢液患者的病因篩查[17]。而乳管鏡不僅可以有效診斷乳頭溢液的病因,同時還可對乳腺導管內炎癥進行治療,且對乳腺癌的早期診斷與治療意義重大,因此臨床應用范圍逐漸擴大[18]。但由于乳管鏡長度(8 cm)有限,直徑(0.75 mm)固定,彎曲度和角度有限,且乳管內出血或炎性絮狀物等阻礙視野及患者乳管自身特征等,可能導致對多級分支內的隆起性病變漏診。因此,對于乳頭溢液患者,分析其臨床特征對預測乳管內病變及其診療預后有一定價值。
由于患者的部分臨床特征具有一定主觀性,且隨著患者就診時間及乳管內病變程度及范圍的發展,患者外在溢液表現存在變化的可能,各項實驗室檢查存在缺陷與不足,乳管內乳頭狀瘤雖為良性病變,但仍有惡變的可能[19],因此,發現乳管內隆起性病變時,患者應積極配合檢查,必要時進行手術治療,尤其是存在乳腺癌家族史的患者,應定期隨訪。
綜上所述,臨床應關注乳頭溢液患者的臨床特征,當患者出現雙側乳頭溢液、多孔溢液,且乳管鏡下隆起性病變為3級乳管以上時,應警惕患者乳管內多發隆起性病變的可能,為患者的診治及預防乳腺癌的發生提供良好的依據和價值。
作者貢獻:曲文志進行試驗設計與實施、資料收集整理、撰寫論文、成文并對文章負責;李子豪進行試驗實施、評估、資料收集;涂巍進行質量控制及審校。
本文無利益沖突。
[1]邵志敏,沈鎮宙,徐兵河.乳腺腫瘤學[M].上海:復旦大學出版社,2013.
[2]耿洪濤,趙廣才,馮佳.乳管鏡在乳頭溢液性疾病中的應用[J].中國實用醫藥,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]劉熙鵬,郭莉,李園園.乳管內乳頭狀病變的臨床分析:附1211例報告[J].中國普通外科雜志,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]李玉陽,杜賈軍,劉奇,等.山東省 61102 例婦女乳腺疾病普查報告[J].山東大學學報(醫學版),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,吳萍,全志偉.乳腺導管內乳頭狀病變的鑒別和治療進展[J].中國實用外科雜志,2010,30(S1):68-69.
[14]沈衛達,林俊生,孟莉,等.乳腺導管內乳頭狀瘤病27例臨床分析[J].現代腫瘤醫學,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]單鳴,汪成,余燕民,等.纖維乳管鏡檢查對乳頭溢液病因的診斷價值[J].上海交通大學學報(醫學版),2015,35(5):710-713.
[16]聞巍,杜亞平,黃漢源,等.乳腺導管內乳頭狀瘤病103例報告[J].解放軍醫學雜志,2005,30(1):75-76.
[17]邊學海,孫輝.乳頭溢液的個體化診斷流程[J].中國普外基礎與臨床雜志,2015,22(6):652-655.
[18]沈葉,虞貞鳳,單遠洲.纖維乳腺導管鏡在乳頭溢液疾病診治中的應用[J].南昌大學學報,2014,54(2):63-65.
[19]劉紅,范宇,惠銳,等.乳腺乳頭狀瘤病癌變的臨床診治[J].中國腫瘤臨床,2001,28(6):425-427.
(本文編輯:毛亞敏)
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遼寧省沈陽市,中國醫科大學第四附屬醫院第五普通外科(乳腺外科)
曲文志,110032遼寧省沈陽市,中國醫科大學第四附屬醫院第五普通外科(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)