4.5 Article

No evidence for shedding of circulating tumor cells to the peripheral venous blood as a result of mammographic breast compression

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 141, 期 2, 页码 187-195

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-013-2674-z

关键词

Circulating tumor cells; Breast compression; Breast cancer; Mammography

类别

资金

  1. Gunnar Nilssons Cancerstiftelse
  2. Magnus Bergvalls Stiftelse
  3. Region Skane (regional forskningsstod)
  4. Stiftelsen for cancerforskning vid Onkologiska kliniken vid Universitetssjukhuset MAS

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This pilot study aimed to investigate whether mammographic compression procedures might cause shedding of tumor cells into the circulatory system as reflected by circulating tumor cell (CTC) count in peripheral venous blood samples. From March to October 2012, 24 subjects with strong suspicion of breast malignancy were included in the study. Peripheral blood samples were acquired before and after mammography. Enumeration of CTCs in the blood samples was performed using the CellSearch(A (R)) system. The pressure distribution over the tumor-containing breast was measured using thin pressure sensors. The median age was 66.5 years (range, 51-87 years). In 22 of the 24 subjects, breast cancer was subsequently confirmed. The difference between the average mean tumor pressure 6.8 +/- A 5.3 kPa (range, 1.0-22.5 kPa) and the average mean breast pressure 3.4 +/- A 1.6 kPa (range, 1.5-7.1 kPa) was statistically significant (p < 0.001), confirming that there was increased pressure over the tumor. The median pathological tumor size was 19 mm (range, 9-30 mm). Four subjects (17 %) were CTC positive before compression and two of these (8 %) were also CTC positive after compression. A total of seven CTCs were isolated with a mean size of 8 x 6 mu m(2) (range of the longest diameter, 5-12 mu m). The study supports the view that mammography is a safe procedure from the point of view of tumor cell shedding to the peripheral blood.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据