孫矗 綜述 沈贊審校
上海交通大學(xué)附屬第六人民醫(yī)院腫瘤內(nèi)科,上海200233
隨著乳腺癌篩查和早期診斷技術(shù)的推廣,臨床腋窩淋巴結(jié)陰性的早期乳腺癌患者的檢出率明顯升高。由于腋窩分期對(duì)乳腺癌患者診療流程具有重要指導(dǎo)作用。因此,此類患者的腋窩淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)評(píng)估顯得十分必要。
評(píng)估腋窩淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)最準(zhǔn)確的方法是傳統(tǒng)的乳腺癌腋淋巴結(jié)切除術(shù)(axillary lymph node dissection,ALND),但這種手術(shù)對(duì)機(jī)體造成的創(chuàng)傷較大,術(shù)后會(huì)帶來很多并發(fā)癥,如上肢淋巴水腫、感覺異常、肩關(guān)節(jié)活動(dòng)受限等。近年的一些研究結(jié)果表明,前哨淋巴結(jié)活檢(sentinel lymph node biopsy,SLNB)結(jié)果為陰性的乳腺癌患者是否接受ALND并不影響總生存率、無病生存率和局部疾病控制情況[1-3]。隨著大量研究的開展,ALND適應(yīng)證的范圍也在不斷變化。基于9項(xiàng)2005年之后發(fā)表的隨機(jī)對(duì)照試驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù),美國(guó)臨床腫瘤學(xué)會(huì)(American Society of Clinical Oncology,ASCO)2014年更新的指南[4]對(duì)ALND的適應(yīng)證做出了以下修訂:①前哨淋巴結(jié)無轉(zhuǎn)移的女性不需要接受腋窩淋巴結(jié)清掃術(shù);②大多數(shù)僅有1~2枚前哨淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移且計(jì)劃接受保乳術(shù)和全乳放療的女性,不需接受腋窩淋巴結(jié)清掃術(shù);③前哨淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移但仍接受乳房切除術(shù)的女性,可進(jìn)行腋窩淋巴結(jié)清掃。
由于并發(fā)癥和對(duì)疾病預(yù)后改善等方面存在爭(zhēng)議,ALND的應(yīng)用受限。同時(shí),大量研究[5-10]報(bào)道,相對(duì)微創(chuàng)的SLNB可取代ALND,臨床上SLNB結(jié)果為陰性的乳腺癌患者應(yīng)接受腋窩分期。
與ALND相比,SLNB對(duì)機(jī)體的創(chuàng)傷更小、術(shù)后并發(fā)癥更少。隨著對(duì)該技術(shù)研究的深入,SLNB的適應(yīng)證也在不斷擴(kuò)大。2014年,ASCO的新指南[4]推薦:可手術(shù)的乳腺癌和多灶病變患者,和(或)將進(jìn)行乳房切除術(shù)的導(dǎo)管內(nèi)原位癌(ductal carcinoma in situ,DCIS)患者,和(或)既往接受乳腺和(或)腋窩手術(shù)女性患者,和(或)有術(shù)前全身治療或新輔助全身治療的女性患者,均可予以SLNB。SLNB相較ALND有很大優(yōu)勢(shì),但是此項(xiàng)技術(shù)也有弊端。
首先,假陽性率和假陰性率是SLNB目前亟須解決的問題。按照SLNB的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)操作流程,任何被染色的和(或)熱點(diǎn)結(jié)節(jié)都是前哨淋巴結(jié),所以有時(shí)多個(gè)結(jié)節(jié)需被清除,但其中很多結(jié)節(jié)可能并非真正的前哨淋巴結(jié)[11]。Bleiweiss等[12]認(rèn)為,假陽性的發(fā)生和醫(yī)生的操作有關(guān),術(shù)前活檢或輔助按摩可導(dǎo)致上皮細(xì)胞移位的增加,而通常認(rèn)為淋巴結(jié)中出現(xiàn)上皮細(xì)胞即意味著發(fā)生了轉(zhuǎn)移。
近來幾項(xiàng)研究[13-14]表明,SLNB假陰性率與機(jī)體組織結(jié)構(gòu)、腫瘤臨床病理學(xué)特征及活檢操作技術(shù)等因素密切相關(guān)。一項(xiàng)薈萃分析[15]顯示,SLNB假陰性率為0~29%,平均為8.4%。針對(duì)無法進(jìn)行此項(xiàng)檢查的一些患者,ASCO 2014年更新的指南[4]建議:腫塊大的或局部進(jìn)展期浸潤(rùn)性乳腺癌(T3/T4)患者,和(或)炎性乳腺癌患者,和(或)計(jì)劃行保乳手術(shù)的DCIS患者,和(或)孕期女性,均不應(yīng)該給予SLNB。
其次,雖然SLNB是微創(chuàng)的,但也會(huì)帶來一些并發(fā)癥。例如,當(dāng)大量脂肪組織在活檢過程中被移除后,一些患者會(huì)出現(xiàn)淋巴水腫和神經(jīng)病變[16-17]。Purushotham等[18]報(bào)道,SLNB之后患者血清腫的發(fā)生率為14%,同時(shí)有關(guān)節(jié)活動(dòng)度的輕微降低,以及偶發(fā)的感覺異常和感覺喪失。Wernicke等[19]報(bào)道,SLNB后,患者慢性淋巴水腫的發(fā)生率為5.4%,感覺異常的發(fā)生率為10.8%。
鑒于SLNB存在諸多問題,前哨淋巴結(jié)的評(píng)估亟須新技術(shù)、新方法。通過檢索大量文獻(xiàn),我們發(fā)現(xiàn),雖然沒有任何一種影像學(xué)技術(shù)可以獨(dú)立完成前哨淋巴結(jié)的定位和狀態(tài)評(píng)估,但是兩種以上影像學(xué)技術(shù)的聯(lián)合可以取得很好的效果。
大量研究表明,CT淋巴造影術(shù)(computed-tomography lymphgraphy,CT-LG)可精確定位前哨淋巴結(jié)。Suga等[20-23]自2003年即開始探索CT-LG在早期乳腺癌患者前哨淋巴結(jié)方面的應(yīng)用價(jià)值,并且獲得了不錯(cuò)的結(jié)果。隨后不斷有報(bào)道[24-25]證實(shí),CT-LG可準(zhǔn)確定位乳腺癌患者的前哨淋巴結(jié)。CT-LG的過程簡(jiǎn)言之:局麻后,操作者在乳暈周圍或者腫瘤周圍局部予皮下注射碘帕醇,局部按摩后行CT掃描,隨后運(yùn)用CT激光引導(dǎo)系統(tǒng)進(jìn)行前哨淋巴結(jié)定位[26]。
CT-LG顯像的質(zhì)量與癌癥病灶的病理類型、對(duì)比劑注射部位及用量、患側(cè)乳房局部切除術(shù)的關(guān)系不大,這較SLNB更具優(yōu)勢(shì)。因?yàn)镾LNB檢出前哨淋巴結(jié)的準(zhǔn)確性受腫瘤部位、淋巴結(jié)受侵襲程度和患側(cè)手術(shù)史等諸多因素的影響。
但是,CT技術(shù)本身不足以評(píng)估前哨淋巴結(jié)的性質(zhì)[27]。因此,若要避免SLNB,只以影像學(xué)方法完成前哨淋巴結(jié)的定位和性質(zhì)判定,CT還需要與其他影像學(xué)技術(shù)相結(jié)合。
近年的研究發(fā)現(xiàn),超順磁性納米顆粒增強(qiáng)MRI有助于鑒別一些腫瘤的淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移灶。Stets等[28]開展了一項(xiàng)關(guān)于腋窩淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的研究,運(yùn)用超小型超順磁性氧化鐵顆粒(ultra-small superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide,USPIO)增強(qiáng)MRI評(píng)估9例乳腺癌患者的52枚淋巴結(jié),其敏感性為81%,特異性為92%。Harisinghani等[29]應(yīng)用USPIO增強(qiáng)MRI對(duì)80例前列腺癌患者的334枚淋巴結(jié)進(jìn)行分期;其敏感性為90.5%,明顯高于傳統(tǒng)方法35.4%的敏感性(不用造影劑,以圖像上結(jié)節(jié)大小判斷其性質(zhì))。Rockall等[30]運(yùn)用USPIO增強(qiáng)MRI、傳統(tǒng)MRI(不使用對(duì)比劑)評(píng)估44例子宮內(nèi)膜癌或?qū)m頸癌患者的768枚淋巴結(jié)。結(jié)果顯示,兩種方法檢出淋巴結(jié)累及的敏感性分別為100%和27%,特異性均為94%。Will等[31]的一篇薈萃分析比較了超順磁性氧化鐵顆粒增強(qiáng)MRI與傳統(tǒng)MRI(不使用對(duì)比劑)用于不同腫瘤的評(píng)估情況;以病理活檢結(jié)果為參考,共分析了679例不同腫瘤患者的3004枚淋巴結(jié)。結(jié)果顯示:使用超順磁性氧化鐵顆粒作為造影劑時(shí),鑒別轉(zhuǎn)移狀態(tài)總的敏感性和特異性分別為88%和96%;僅根據(jù)淋巴結(jié)大小作為標(biāo)準(zhǔn)而未予增強(qiáng)MRI檢查時(shí),鑒別轉(zhuǎn)移狀態(tài)總的敏感性和特異性分別為63%和93%,提示超順磁性氧化鐵顆粒增強(qiáng)MRI具有改善傳統(tǒng)MRI評(píng)估淋巴結(jié)狀態(tài)的能力。
超順磁性氧化鐵顆粒(superparamagnetic particles of iron oxide,SPIO)造影劑是一種新型的MRI陰性造影劑。經(jīng)皮下間隙或靜脈注射后,在功能正常的淋巴組織中,SPIO顆粒被巨噬細(xì)胞吞噬,隨后通過磁化率效應(yīng)和縮短T2弛豫時(shí)間效應(yīng),導(dǎo)致信號(hào)強(qiáng)度降低。而在轉(zhuǎn)移性淋巴結(jié)中,巨噬細(xì)胞被腫瘤組織全部或部分破壞,因此不能有效吞噬SPIO,所以不攝取或僅能攝取少量的SPIO。因此,在SE T2WI序列和GRE T2WI序列上,正常淋巴結(jié)的信號(hào)強(qiáng)度均一降低,而轉(zhuǎn)移性淋巴結(jié)的信號(hào)強(qiáng)度保持不變或僅有輕度不均勻性的降低。
SPIO根據(jù)顆粒大小可被分為兩類:一類是普通型SPIO,直徑大于50 nm;另一類是USPIO,最大直徑不超過50 nm。SPIO主要被肝脾的網(wǎng)狀內(nèi)皮系統(tǒng)吸收。USPIO的顆粒直徑小,可以逃脫網(wǎng)狀內(nèi)皮系統(tǒng),進(jìn)入淋巴結(jié)和骨髓。SPIO的顆粒直徑比較大,靜脈用藥難以到達(dá)淋巴結(jié);但經(jīng)組織間質(zhì)給藥后,SPIO可被毛細(xì)淋巴管吸收,通過淋巴通路回流至區(qū)域淋巴結(jié)。
另外,SPIO的靜脈用藥安全性很好。Onishi等[32]報(bào)道,在315例患者中,SPIO所致不良反應(yīng)的發(fā)生率為14.3%。常見不良反應(yīng)為惡心、眩暈、脹氣、腹瀉、胃灼熱,程度都很輕,未觀察到嚴(yán)重不良反應(yīng)。
受試者首先經(jīng)CT-LG技術(shù)定位前哨淋巴結(jié),隨后被予以組織間質(zhì)注射SPIO;該過程類似于前哨淋巴結(jié)活檢時(shí)染料的注入。間隔一定時(shí)間后,受試者接受MRI掃描(使用SPIO前后均接受MRI檢查)。掃描序列為SE T1WI、SE T2WI和GRE T2*WI。然后,在同一層面,操作者將CT-LG圖像與T2*WI圖像進(jìn)行比對(duì),如有必要,則進(jìn)行圖像合并;隨后將比對(duì)SPIO注入前后圖像上的結(jié)節(jié)。根據(jù)Anzai等[33]提出的診斷標(biāo)準(zhǔn)評(píng)估前哨淋巴結(jié)的性質(zhì)。其標(biāo)準(zhǔn)為:①非轉(zhuǎn)移:顯示均一低信號(hào)密度;②轉(zhuǎn)移:整個(gè)淋巴結(jié)或超過50%的淋巴結(jié)區(qū)域顯示高信號(hào)密度;③可能轉(zhuǎn)移:小于50%的淋巴結(jié)區(qū)域顯示高信號(hào)密度。
Motomura等[34]采用CT-LG鑒別102例臨床淋巴結(jié)陰性乳腺癌患者的前哨淋巴結(jié),以腋窩SPIO增強(qiáng)MRI評(píng)估前哨淋巴結(jié)的轉(zhuǎn)移狀況。影像學(xué)與組織病理學(xué)的對(duì)比結(jié)果顯示:SPIO增強(qiáng)MRI診斷前哨淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的敏感性、特異性和精確性分別為84.0%、90.9%和89.2%。2013年,Motomura等在進(jìn)一步的研究[35]中嘗試確立SPIO增強(qiáng)MRI評(píng)估前哨淋巴結(jié)轉(zhuǎn)移的具體預(yù)測(cè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。該研究入組150例T1~2期乳腺癌患者,以50%為界值將前哨淋巴結(jié)陽性患者的SPIO攝取類型分成三種,即均一高信號(hào)密度、部分高信號(hào)密度(累及超過50%的淋巴結(jié))和部分高信號(hào)密度(累及小于50%淋巴結(jié))。結(jié)果顯示,高信號(hào)密度類型(均一型或者累及超過50%的淋巴結(jié))是大轉(zhuǎn)移灶(macro-metastases)淋巴結(jié)的特征。這項(xiàng)研究為SPIO增強(qiáng)MRI診斷前哨淋巴結(jié)性質(zhì)提供了更為具體的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。但是,該研究存在一定的局限性。首先,由于入組患者為臨床淋巴結(jié)陰性的T1~2期乳腺癌患者,此類患者已發(fā)生轉(zhuǎn)移的腋窩淋巴結(jié)通常不多,這導(dǎo)致該研究的樣本量不足。其次,50%界值的選取也并非公認(rèn),所以尚需進(jìn)一步研究確定最適界值。
SPIO增強(qiáng)MRI結(jié)合CT-LG對(duì)前哨淋巴結(jié)進(jìn)行定位和狀態(tài)評(píng)估,展示出很好的前景,但這項(xiàng)技術(shù)并不完善,仍有以下問題需要解決。
33..3.1假陰性的問題 高濃度SPIO可能掩蓋小的轉(zhuǎn)移灶,可降低整個(gè)前哨淋巴結(jié)的信號(hào)密度。在這種條件下,2 mm及以下的微小轉(zhuǎn)移灶很難被檢測(cè)出來。Michel等[36]的研究表明,USPIO增強(qiáng)MRI不能檢測(cè)出2 mm及以下的小轉(zhuǎn)移灶。當(dāng)然,關(guān)于微小轉(zhuǎn)移灶對(duì)于預(yù)后的影響,目前尚無定論。Hansen等[37]報(bào)道,前哨淋巴結(jié)微轉(zhuǎn)移(小于等于2 mm)患者的生存預(yù)期并不劣于淋巴結(jié)陰性的患者。但是,de Boer等[38]指出,發(fā)生微轉(zhuǎn)移患者的無病生存期和總生存期都更短。
33..3.2假陽性的問題 該問題或?yàn)榱馨徒Y(jié)門部脂肪組織與轉(zhuǎn)移病灶共存造成轉(zhuǎn)移性沉積的假象所致,或?yàn)镾PIO在前哨淋巴結(jié)內(nèi)擴(kuò)散不充分所致[39]。
在前哨淋巴結(jié)的定位和性質(zhì)判定領(lǐng)域,傳統(tǒng)ALND及其替代者SLNB的地位已經(jīng)受到新興影像學(xué)技術(shù)的挑戰(zhàn)。目前,在所有檢查手段都向微創(chuàng)和無創(chuàng)方向發(fā)展的時(shí)代背景下,影像學(xué)創(chuàng)新技術(shù)在該領(lǐng)域中的應(yīng)用將值得憧憬。
[1]Krag DN,Anderson SJ,Julian TB,et al.Sentinel-lymphnode resection compared with conventional axillarylymph-node dissection in clinically node-negative patients with breast cancer:overall survival findings from the NSABP B-32 randomised phase 3 trial[J].Lancet Oncol,2010,11(10):927-933.
[2]Veronesi U,Viale G,Paganelli G,et al.Sentinel lymph node biopsy in breast cancer:ten-year results of a randomized controlled study[J].Ann Surg,2010,251(4):595-600.
[3]van der Ploeg IM,Nieweg OE,van Rijk MC,et al.Axillary recurrence after a tumour-negative sentinel node bi-opsy in breast cancer patients:a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature[J].Eur J Surg Oncol,2008,34(12):1277-1284.
[4]Lyman GH,Temin S,Edge SB,et al.Sentinel lymph node biopsy for patients with early-stage breast cancer:American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update[J].J Clin Oncol,2014,32(13):1365-1383.
[5]Giuliano AE,Kirgan DM,Guenther JM,et al.Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymphadenectomy for breast cancer[J].AnnSur g,19.20(3):391-401.
[6]Giuliano AE,Jones RC,Brennan M,et al.Sentinel lymphadenectomy in breast cancer[J].J Clin Oncol,1997,15(6):2345-2350.
[7]Motomura K,Inaji H,Komoike Y,et al.Sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer patients with clinically negative lymph-nodes[J].Breast Cancer,1999,6(3):259-262.
[8]Krag D,Weaver D,Ashikaga T,et al.The sentinel node in breast cancer—a multicenter validation study[J].N Engl JMed,19.39(14):941-946.
[9]Veronesi U,Paganelli G,Galimberti V,et al.Sentinelnode biopsy to avoid axillary dissection in breast cancer with clinically negative lymph-nodes[J].Lancet,1997,349(9069):1864-1867.
[10]Naik AM,Fey J,Gemignani M,et al.The risk of axillary relapse after sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer is comparable with that of axillary lymph node dissection:a follow-up study of 4008 procedures[J].Ann Surg,2004,240(3):462-471.
[11]Zakaria S,Degnim AC,Kleer CG,et al.Sentinel lymph node biopsy for breast cancer:how many nodes are enough?[J].JSurg Oncol,2007,96(7):554-559.
[12]Bleiweiss IJ,Nagi CS,Jaffer S.Axillary sentinel lymph nodes can be falsely positive due to iatrogenic displacement and transport of benign epithelial cells in patients with breast carcinoma[J].J Clin Oncol,2006,24(13):2013-2018.
[13]Pesek S,Ashikaga T,Krag LE,et al.The false-negative rate of sentinel node biopsy in patients with breast cancer:a meta-analysis[J].World J Surg,2012,36(9):2239-2251.
[14]Goyal A,Newcombe RG,Chhabra A,et al.Factors affecting failed localisation and false-negative rates of sentinel node biopsy in breast cancer-results of the ALMANAC validation phase[J].Breast Cancer Res Treat,2006,99(2):203-208.
[15]Kim T,Giuliano AE,Lyman GH.Lymphatic mapping and sentinel lymph node biopsy in early-stage breast carcinoma[J].Cancer,2006,106(1):4-16.
[16]Wilke LG,McCall LM,Posther KE,et al.Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node biopsy:results from a prospective international cooperative group trial[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2006,13(4):491-500.
[17]Lucci A,McCall LM,Beitsch PD,et al.Surgical complications associated with sentinel lymph node dissection(SLND)plus axillary lymph node dissection compared with SLND alone in the American College of Surgeons Oncology Group Trial Z0011[J].J Clin Oncol,2007,25(24):3657-3663.
[18]Purushotham AD,Upponi S,Klevesath MB,et al.Morbidity after sentinel lymph node biopsy in primary breast cancer:results from a randomized controlled trial[J].JClin Oncol,2005,23(19):4312-4321.
[19]Wernicke AG,Shamis M,Sidhu KK,et al.Complication rates in patients with negative axillary nodes 10 years after local breast radiotherapy after either sentinel lymph node dissection or axillary clearance[J].Am J Clin Oncol,2013,36(1):12-19.
[20]Suga K,Ogasawara N,Okada M,et al.Interstitial CT lymphography-guided localization of breast sentinel lymph node:preliminary results[J].Surgery,2003,133(2):170-179.
[21]Suga K,Ogasawara N,Yuan Y,et al.Visualization of breast lymphatic pathways with an indirect computed tomography lymphography using a nonionic monometric contrast medium iopamidol:preliminary results[J].Invest Radiol,2003,38(2):73-84.
[22]Suga K,Yuan Y,Okada M,et al.Breast sentinel lymph node mapping at CT lymphography with iopamidol:preliminary experience[J].Radiology,2004,230(2):543-552.
[23]Suga K,Yamamoto S,Tangoku A,et al.Breast sentinel lymph node navigation with three-dimensional interstitial multidetector-row computed tomographic lymphography[J].Invest Radiol,2005,40(6):336-342.
[24]Yamamoto S,Maeda N,Tamesa M,et al.Sentinel lymph node detection in breast cancer patients by realtime virtual sonography constructed with three-dimensional computed tomography-lymphography[J].Breast J,2010,16(1):4-8.
[25]Minohata J,Takao S,Hirokaga K.Sentinel lymph node biopsy using CT lymphography in breast cancer[J].Breast cancer,2011,18(2):129-136.
[26]Tangoku A,Yamamoto S,Suga K,et al.Sentinel lymph node biopsy using computed tomography-lymphography in patients with breast cancer[J].Surgery,2004,135(3):258-265.
[27]Yuen S,Yamada K,Goto M,et al.CT-based evaluation of axillary sentinel lymph node status in breast cancer:value of added contrast-enhanced study[J].Acta Radiol,2004,45(7):730-737.
[28]Stets C,Brandt S,Wallis F,et al.Axillary lymph node metastases:a statistical analysis of various parameters in MRI with USPIO[J].J Magn Reson Imaging,2002,16(1):60-68.
[29]Harisinghani MG,Barentsz J,Hahn PF,et al.Noninvasive detection of clinically occult lymph-node metastases in prostate cancer[J].N Engl J Med,2003,348(25):2491-2499.
[30]Rockall AG,Sohaib SA,Harisinghani MG,et al.Diagnostic performance of nanoparticle-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging in the diagnosis of lymph node metastases in patients with endometrial and cervical cancer[J].J Clin Oncol,2005,23(12):2813-2821.
[31]Will O,Purkayastha S,Chan C,et al.Diagnostic precision of nanoparticle-enhanced MRI for lymph-node metastases:a meta-analysis[J].Lancet Oncol,2006,7(1):52-60.
[32]Onishi H,Murakami T,Kim T,et al.Safety of ferucarbotran in MR imaging of the liver:a pre-and postexamination questionnaire-based multicenter investigation[J].J Magn Reson Imaging,2009,29(1):106-111.
[33]Anzai Y,Piccoli CW,Outwater EK,et al.Evaluation of neck and body metastases to nodes with ferumoxtran 10-enhanced MR imaging:phaseⅢsafety and efficacy study[J].Radiology,2003,228(3):777-788.
[34]Motomura K,Ishitobi M,Komoike Y,et al.SPIO-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging for the detection of metastases in sentinel nodes localized by computed tomography lymphography in patients with breast cancer[J].Ann Surg Oncol,2011,18(12):3422-3429.
[35]Motomura K,Izumi T,Tateishi S,et al.Correlation between the area of high-signal intensity on SPIO-enhanced MR imaging and the pathologic size of sentinel node metastases in breast cancer patients with positive sentinel nodes[J].BMC Med Imaging,2013,13:32.
[36]Michel SC,Keller TM,Fro¨hlich JM,et al.Preoperative breast cancer staging:MR imaging of the axilla with ultrasmall superparamagnetic iron oxide enhancement[J].Radiology,2002,225(2):527-536.
[37]Hansen NM,Grube B,Ye X,et al.Impact of micrometastases in the sentinel node of patients with invasive breast cancer[J].J Clin Oncol,2009,27(28):4679-4684.
[38]de Boer M,van Dijck JA,Bult P,et al.Breast cancer prognosis and occult lymph node metastases,isolated tumor cells,and micrometastases[J].J Natl Cancer Inst,2010,102(6):410-425.
[39]Islam T,Harisinghani MG.Overview of nanoparticle use in cancer imaging[J].Cancer Biomark,2009,5(2):61-67.