Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

Á¶±âÀ¯¹æ¾Ï¿¡¼­ À¯¹æº¸Á¸¼ö¼ú ¹× ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·áÈÄÀÇ ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú Cosmetic Results of Conservative Treatment for Early Breast Cancer

´ëÇѹæ»ç¼±Á¾¾çÇÐȸÁö 2001³â 19±Ç 1È£ p.21 ~ 26
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±èº¸°æ/Bo Kyoung Kim ½Å¼º¼ö/±è¼º´ö/ÇϼºÈ¯/³ëµ¿¿µ/seong soo Shin/Seong Deok Kim/Sung Whan Ha/Dong Young Noh

Abstract

¸ñÀû : º¸Á¸Àû¼ö¼ú ÈÄ ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¸¦ ¹ÞÀº À¯¹æ¾Ï ȯÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î Çѱ¹Àο¡¼­ÀÇ Á¶±â À¯¹æ¾ÏÀÇ º¸Á¸ÀûÄ¡·áÀÇ Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú¿Í À¯¹æÀÇ ´ëĪ¼º ¹× ÀÌ¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ÀÎÀÚµéÀ» ºÐ¼®À» À§ÇÏ¿© º» ¿¬±¸¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù.
´ë»ó ¹× ¹æ¹ý: 1992³â 2¿ùºÎÅÍ 1997³â 1¿ù±îÁö Á¶±â À¯¹æ¾ÏÀ¸·Î º¸Á¸Àû¼ö¼ú ÈÄ ¼­¿ï´ëÇб³
º´¿ø Ä¡·á¹æ»ç¼±°ú¿¡¼­ ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á¸¦ ½ÃÇà ¹ÞÀº 120¸íÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¸¦ ´ë»óÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ´ë»ó ȯ
ÀÚµéÀÇ ÃßÀû°üÂû ±â°£Àº 16°³¿ù¿¡¼­ 74°³¿ù·Î Áß¾Ó°ªÀº 33°³¿ùÀ̾ú´Ù. À¯¹æº¸Á¸¼ö¼úÀº »çºÐ
À§ÀýÁ¦¼ú ¹× ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀýÀýÁ¦¼ú 108·Ê, Á¾¾çÀýÁ¦¼ú ¹× ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀýÀýÁ¦¼ú 4·Ê, Á¾¾çÀýÁ¦¼ú 2
·Ê, ÀüÀýÁ¦ »ý°Ë¼ú 4·Ê, ÇÇÇÏÀ¯¹æÀýÁ¦¼ú ¹× ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀý ÀýÁ¦¼úÀÌ 2·Ê¿´´Ù. ¼ö¼ú ÈÄ ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡
·á´Â 4 MV, 6 MV ¶Ç´Â 10 MV X ¼±À» ÀÌ¿ëÇÏ¿© 1 ÀÏ 1.8 Gy ¾¿ 50.4 Gy¸¦ À¯¹æÀüü¿¡
Á¢¼±Á¶»ç¾ß·Î Á¶»çÇÑ ÈÄ ¿ø¹ß ºÎÀ§¿¡ 7 ¶Ç´Â 9 MeV ÀüÀÚ¼±À¸·Î 1ÀÏ 2 Gy ¾¿ 10 Gy¸¦ Ãß
°¡Á¶»çÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç 21·Ê¿¡¼­ ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀý°ú ¼â°ñ»ó ¸²ÇÁÀýÀ» 9·Ê¿¡¼­ ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀý, ¼â°ñ»ó¸²ÇÁÀý,
³»À¯¸²ÇÁÀýÀ» Ä¡·á¹üÀ§¿¡ Æ÷ÇÔÇÏ¿´´Ù. Ç×¾ÏÈ­Çпä¹ýÀº ÃÑ 46·Ê¿¡¼­ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´À¸¸ç 45·Ê¿¡¼­
CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, 5-fluorouraci) º¹ÇÕ¿ä¹ý 6ȸ¸¦, 1·Ê¿¡¼­ CAF
(cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, 5-fluorouraci) º¹ÇÕ¿ä¹ý 12ȸ¸¦ ½ÃÇàÇÏ¿´´Ù. Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ ¹Ì¿ë
Àû °á°ú´Â À¯¹æÀÇ ºÎÁ¾(edema), ¼öÃà(retraction), »ó½Â(elevation), ¼¶À¯È­(fibrosis), °æÈ­
(induration) ¹× ÇǺκ¯È­ µîÀ» °í·ÁÇÏ¿© excellent, good, fair poor ÀÇ 4 ´Ü°è·Î Æò°¡ÇÏ¿´À¸
¸ç, À¯¹æÀÇ ´ëĪ¼ºÀÇ ÆÇÁ¤À» À§ÇÏ¿© symmetry index¸¦ »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù. Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú
ÀÇ ºñ±³ ¹× ºÐ¼®À» À§ÇÏ¿© polytomous logistic regression ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´°í, À¯¹æÀÇ ´ëĪ
¼º Æò°¡¸¦ À§ÇØ logistic regression ¹æ¹ýÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´´Ù.
°á°ú : ÃÖÁ¾ ÃßÀû°üÂû ½Ã Àü¹ÝÀûÀÎ ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú´Â excellent °¡ 29¸í(24%), good 62¸í
(52%), fair 23¸í(19%), poor°¡ 6¸í(5%)À¸·Î 76%ÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡¼­ good ÀÌ»óÀÇ °á°ú¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù.
´Üº¯·®ºÐ¼® »ó Á¾¾çÀÇ Å©±â°¡ 2 cm ÀÌÇÏÀÎ °æ¿ì (p=0.04), ¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌ°¡ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì
(p=0.0002), Á¾¾ç ÀýÁ¦¼ú ¶Ç´Â ÀüÀýÁ¦»ý°Ë¼úÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÑ °æ¿ì(p=0.02), ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·áÀÇ ¹üÀ§¿¡ ¾×
¿Í¸²ÇÁÀýÀÌ Æ÷ÇÔµÇÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì(p=0.005), Ç×¾ÏÈ­Çпä¹ýÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì (p=0.001) ´õ
ÁÁÀº ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. ´Ùº¯·®ºÐ¼® »ó Á¾¾ßÀýÁ¦¼ú ¶Ç´Â ÀüÀýÁ¦»ý°Ë¸¸À» ½ÃÇàÇÑ °æ¿ì
(p=0.04), Ç×¾ÏÈ­Çпä¹ýÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì(p=0.04), Ç×¾ÏÈ­Çпä¹ýÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì
(p=0.002)¿¡ ´õ ÁÁÀº ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù. À¯¹æÀÇ ´ëĪ¼º¿¡ ¿µÇâÀ» ¹ÌÄ¡´Â ¿äÀÎÀ¸·Î´Â ´Ü
º¯·®ºÐ¼® »ó Á¾¾çÀÇ Å©±â°¡ 2 cm ÀÌÇÏÀÎ °æ¿ì (p=0.007), ¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌ°¡ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì
(p=0.005), Ç×¾ÏÈ­Çпä¹ýÀ» ½ÃÇàÇÏÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì (p=0.001), ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·áÀÇ ¹üÀ§¿¡ ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀý
ÀÌ Æ÷ÇÔµÇÁö ¾ÊÀº °æ¿ì (p=0.09) ´ëĪ¼ºÀÌ ³ôÀº °æÇâÀ» º¸¿´´Ù. ´Ùº¯·®ºÐ¼® »óÀ¸·Î´Â Á¾¾çÀÇ
Å©±â°¡ 2 cm ÀÌÇÏÀÎ °æ¿ì(p=0.003), ¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌ°¡ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì (p=0.007), ´õ ÁÁÀº À¯¹æÀÇ ´ë
Ī¼ºÀ» º¸¿´´Ù.
°á·Ð: Á¶±â À¯¹æ¾Ï¿¡¼­ÀÇ º¸Á¸Àû¼ö¼ú ¹× ¹æ»ç¼±Ä¡·á´Â 76%ÀÇ È¯ÀÚ¿¡¼­ good ÀÌ»óÀÇ ¹Ì¿ëÀû
°á°ú¸¦ º¸¿´´Ù ¶ÇÇÑ ´ë»ó ȯÀÚ Áß Á¾¾çÀÇ Å©±â°¡ ÀÛÀº °æ¿ì, ¾×¿Í¸²ÇÁÀý ÀüÀÌ°¡ ¾ø´Â °æ¿ì
¹× ¼ö¼úÀÇ ¹üÀ§°¡ ÀÛÀº °æ¿ì ¹Ì¿ëÀû °á°ú°¡ ´õ ¿ì¼öÇÔÀ» È®ÀÎÇÒ ¼ö ÀÖ¾ú´Ù.

Purpose: This study was peformed to evaluate the cosmetic outcome of conservative treatment for early breast cancer and to analyze the factors influencing cosmetic outcome.
Materials and Methods: From February 1992 through January 1997, 120 patients with
early breast cancer were treated with conservative surgery and postoperative
radiotherapy. The types of conservative surgery were quadrantectomy and axillary node
dissection for 108 patients (90%) and lumpectomy or excisional biopsy for 10 patients
(8.3%). Forty six patients (38%) received adjuvant chemotherapy (CMF or CAF).
Cosmetic result evaluation was carried out between 16 and 74 months (median, 33
months) after surgery. The cosmetic results were classified into four categories, i.e.,
excellent, good, fair and poor. The appearances of the patients' breasts were also
analyzed for symmetry using the differences in distances from the sternal notch to right
and left ripples. A logistic regression analysis was performed to identify independent
variables influencing the cosmetic outcome.
Results: Cosmetic score was excellent or good in 76% (91/120), far in 19% (23/120) and
poor in 5% (6/120) of the patients. Univariate analysis showed that tumor size (T1
versus T2) (p=0.04), axillary node status (No versus N1) (p=0.0002), extent of surgery
(quadrantectomy versus lumpectomy or excisional biopsy) (p=0.02), axillary node
irradiation (p=0.0005) and chemotherapy (p=0.0001) affected cosmetic score. Multivariate
analysis revealed that extent of surgery (p=0.04) and chemotherapy (p=0.0002) were
significant factors. For breast symmetry, univariate analysis confirmed exactly the same
factors as above. Multivariate analysis revealed that tumor size (p=0.003) and lymph
node status (p=0.007) affected breast symmetry
Conclusion: conservative surgery and postoperative radiotherapy resulted in excellent or
good cosmetic outcome in a large portion of the patients. Better cosmetic results were
achieved generally in the group of patients with smaller tumor size, without axillary
node metastasis and treated with less extensive surgery without chemotherapy.

Å°¿öµå

À¯¹æ¾Ï; º¸Á¸Àû¼ö¼ú; ¹Ì¿ë; ´ëĪ¼º; Breast cancer; Conservative therapy; Cosmesis; Symmetry;

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI
KoreaMed
KAMS