Advertisement

BMC Cancer

, 19:1070 | Cite as

Less micrometastatic risk related to circulating tumor cells after endoscopic breast cancer surgery compared to open surgery

  • Shichao Li
  • Wenting Yan
  • Xinhua Yang
  • Li Chen
  • Linjun Fan
  • Haoxi Liu
  • Kun Liu
  • Yi ZhangEmail author
  • Jun JiangEmail author
Open Access
Research article
  • 25 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Surgical oncology, cancer imaging, and interventional therapeutics

Abstract

Background

Increase of circulating tumor cells (CTCs) has been found after surgery for various carcinomas but not confirmed for breast cancer, and whether endoscopic surgery confers identical effect to CTCs as open surgery did is not clear. The present study aimed to investigate whether CTCs increase after surgery and whether there is a difference between open surgery and endoscopic surgery.

Methods

Pre- and postoperative peripheral blood (5 mL) obtained from 110 female patients with operable breast cancer (53 underwent endoscopic surgery, 57 underwent open radical mastectomy). Quantitative real-time reverse transcription-PCR was done to detect cytokeratin 19 mRNA-positive CTC. CTC detection rate, cell number and the increase after surgery (named micrometastasis) were compared between the two groups.

Results

In the open group, CTC positive rate before and after surgery were 22.81 and 33.33%; median CTC number before and after surgery were 0.21 and 0.43 and 17 patients (29.82%) had increased micrometastatic risk. In the endoscopic group, CTC positive rate before and after surgery were 24.53 and 28.30%; median CTC number before and after surgery were 0.27 and 0.36, and 8 patients (15.09%) had increased micrometastatic risk. There was a suggestive higher postoperative CTC detection rate and CTC number and a significant increased postoperation micrometastatic risk was observed in the open group compared to the endoscopic group (OR = 3.19, 95%CI: 1.05–9.65) after adjustment for clinicopathologic characteristics.

Discussion

CTC tends to increase in breast cancer patients after surgery, and the micrometastatic risk was higher for open surgery compared to endoscopic surgery.

Trial registration

This study was prospectively registered at Chinese Clinical Trial Register (ChiCTR-OCH-10000859, 24 April 2010).

Keywords

Breast neoplasms Neoplastic cells Circulating tumor cells Micrometastases Endoscopic breast surgery Open surgery 

Abbreviations

CK-19

cytokeratin-19

CTC

circulating tumor cell

MCF-7

Michigan Cancer Foundation-7 breast cancer cell line

Background

Breast cancer is by far the most common malignancy in women and it is ranked as the leading cause of cancer death [1]. However, relapse and metastasis are still the primary reason for mortality, which mainly result from micrometastasis undetected by conventional approaches in blood, bone marrow or lymph nodes. Recent clinical researches have focused on detection and exploration of micrometastasis in the form of circulating tumor cells (CTC) in peripheral blood, which significantly contributes to distant metastasis [2]. Results from studies have showed a clinical value of detecting and monitoring levels of CTC for evaluation of prognosis and therapeutic regime, as well as providing reference information for clinical decision-making [3, 4, 5]. Evidence from previous clinical investigations showed that tumor surgical manipulations induce tumor cell dissemination during operation of breast, hepatic, colorectal, cervical and prostatic cancers [6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12], even leading to an increased incidence of distant metastases according to further results of animal studies [13]. In contrast to traditional open surgery, although endoscopic breast cancer surgery is capable of achieving local disease control in the majority of patients, it is considered that special procedures in endoscopic performance, including lipolysis solution, liposuction and endoscopic axillary dissection and so on, might increase the possibility of hematogenous dissemination of tumor cells, and there is a lack of evidence in support of the oncological security of this technique [14]. Accordingly, the aim of this pilot study was to evaluate the effect of the surgical approach on micrometastatic risk correlated to surgery.

Detection of CTC before and after resection of primary breast tumor might be helpful to expand our knowledge about the effect of surgery on dissemination of malignant cells. One of the most frequently used markers for the detection of CTCs in the PB of patients with breast cancer is cytokeratin-19 (CK-19), a cytoskeletal protein expressed on epithelial but not on mesenchymal cells, that is expressed on virtually all breast cancer cells. Previous studies have reported that the detection of CTCs by real-time reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) based on detection of CK-19 mRNA provides a sensitive, accurate approach and allows for reliable quantification of mRNA transcripts in an individual sample [15, 16].

Methods

Patients

Between 2010 and 2011, a total of 110 female patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer (stageI-III) treated with primary surgery at the Breast Disease Center of Southwest Hospital were prospectively enrolled. A preoperative diagnosis of breast carcinoma by core needle biopsy was required. Before surgery, a complete baseline diagnostic evaluation for the detection of distant metastases was performed, including chest X-rays, liver function tests, ultrasound of the liver and whole-body bone scan when indicated. Patients with distant metastases or open biopsy prior to operation were excluded. The choice of open or endoscopic approach depended on the surgeon to whom the patient was referred, and surgery was performed or supervised by an experienced surgeon. Fifty three of these 110 patients underwent endoscopic subcutaneous mastectomy and axillary dissection, including 20 patients who received immediate breast reconstruction with implant or latissimus dorsi flap and 33 patients who just received endoscopic nipple and/or skin sparing subcutaneous mastectomy first and will received breast reconstruction at a second stage. And 57 patients received open radical mastectomy. There was no difference in the protocol of anesthesia between the two groups. In endoscopic procedures, axillary dissection was performed before subcutaneous mastectomy and an endoscopic work space was maintained by inflation of the subcutaneous tissue using carbon dioxide at a pressure of 8-10 mmHg (1 mmHg = 1.33 kPa). The axillary lymph node dissection was also done for the open surgery cases, although mastectomy is performed followed by axillary dissection in the routine open modified radical mastectomy, while in the endoscopic procedure, axillary dissection is prior to mastectomy. Among the 53 microscopic surgery cases, 20(37.7%) received immediate breast reconstruction.

All the patients also participated in a prospective study for early diagnosis of recurrence, metastasis and prognosis monitoring by circulating breast-tumor cells detecting (ChiCTR-OCH-10000859). Tumor stage was classified according to the sixth edition of the TNM classification of the American Joint Commission on Cancer (6th edition). Written informed consent for the collection of blood samples was obtained from all participating patients and the protocol of this study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Southwest Hospital (KY201003).

Blood samples, real-time RT-PCR assay for CK-19 mRNA detection

Five mL peripheral blood was drawn from every patient prior to surgery (t0) and 12 h after the operation (t1) and all laboratory analyses were conducted in a blinded fashion. Mononuclear cells, including tumor cells, were harvested by gradient density centrifugation using Ficoll-Hypaque. Total RNA isolation was carried out by using TRNzol reagent (Tiangen Biotech, Beijing, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All RNA preparations and handling steps took place in a laminar flow hood under RNAse-free conditions. The isolated RNA was dissolved in diethylpyrocarbonate-treated water and stored at − 80 °C for future use. The purity and quantity of RNA were determined using a spectrophotometer (260 nm/280 nm). Reverse transcription of RNA was carried out with the PrimeScript™ RT reagent (TOYOBO, Japan). Two μg of total RNA was used as template to synthesize cDNA according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The real-time RT-PCR assay for CK-19 mRNA-positive CTCs has been previously described in detail elsewhere (SYBR Green Realtime PCR Master Mix, TOYOBO, Japan). The number of CTCs in each of the tested samples was expressed as Michigan Cancer Foundation-7 (MCF-7) breast cancer cell line equivalents per 2 μg of total-RNA, as determined by LightCycler system (Roche Diagnostics, Germany) software 3.1, according to the external standard calibration curve. According to the analytic detection limit of our assay, the presence of ≥0.9 MCF-7 cell equivalents/2 μg of total RNA was considered a positive result of CTCs, following the protocol of Stathopoulou et al. [17] Using this detecting limit as a cut-off, surgery is considered to implement an increased micrometastatic risk if the number of CTCs is increased beyond this cut-off after operation. Moreover, all blood samples were simultaneously tested for the integrity of RNA by demonstrating positive detection of the house keeping β-actin gene.

Statistical analysis

The Mann-Whitney test was used to compare the non-normally distributed number of CTCs between different surgical groups. The Wilcoxon test was used for paired comparison of the CTC numbers before and after surgery. Unpaired comparison of binomial variables was done using the Chi-square test or Fisher exact test (when the prerequisite of Chi-square test was not fulfilled). The paired comparison of binomial variables was done using the McNemar test. Unpaired comparison of ordinal variables between the two surgical groups was done using the Mann-Whitney test. Mantel-Haenszel stratified analysis was done to exclude the potential confounder bias introduced by tumor size, lymph node status or tumor stage. Propensity score matching was done with control for age, menopausal status, tumor size, lymph node, tumor stage, histology type, estrogen receptors status, progesterone receptors status, HER-2 status and pre-operation CTC status. The matching error was set to 0.1. Then Mc Nemar test was done for comparing the micrometastatic status between the matched two groups. Multi-variate analysis for the association of surgical type and micrometastatic risk was done by binary logistic regression (backward likelihood method), with adjustment for age (transformed into ordinal variable by optimal scaling analysis), menopausal status (premenopausal V.S. postmenopausal), tumor size (T1 to T3), lymph node (pN0 to pN3), tumor stage (I to III), histology type (Invasive ductal V.S. other type), estrogen receptors status (− V.S. +), progesterone receptors status (− V.S. +), HER-2 status (− to +++) and pre-operation CTC status (negative V.S. positive). The entry and removal probability for stepwise was set as default value (0.05 and 0.10, respectively). Furthermore, the interaction of surgical type and pre-operation CTC status was additionally analyzed by binary logistic regression, too. Data analysis was carried out with PASW Statistical software version 18.0 (SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL) and Review Manager 5.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen).

Results

Patient characteristics

A total of 110 female patients with breast cancer were recruited. The median age at diagnosis was 46 years, ranged from 32 to 60 years. Fifty-seven patients were in the open group, whereas 53 were in the endoscopic group. The characteristics were not different between the two groups (Table 1). Compared to the microscopic surgery, the open surgery had a shorter surgery duration (P < 0.001) but similar bleeding volume (P = 0.766). Nevertheless, neither surgery duration nor bleeding volume showed statistically significant difference between the micrometastatic patients and the non-micrometastatic patients (P > 0.05, respectively; see Additional file 1: Table S1).
Table 1

Characteristics of the recruited patients

Characteristic

Endoscopic group (n = 53)

Open group (n = 57)

P value

Age

45(33–60)

48(32–60)

0.245

Menopausal status

  

0.391

 Premenopausal

34(64.15%)

32(56.14%)

 

 Postmenopausal

19(35.85%)

25(43.86%)

 

Tumor size

  

0.100

 T1

44(83.02%)

40(70.18%)

 

 T2

9(16.98%)

15(26.32%)

 

 T3

0(0%)

2(3.51%)

 

Lymph node (pN)

  

0.108

 pN0

33(62.26%)

28(49.12%)

 

 pN1

15(28.30%)

18(31.58%)

 

 pN2

4(7.55%)

7(12.28%)

 

 pN3

1(1.89%)

4(7.02%)

 

Tumor stage

  

0.180

 I

29(54.72%)

26(45.61%)

 

 II

19(35.85%)

19(33.33%)

 

 III

5(9.43%)

12(21.05%)

 

Histology type

  

0.194

 Invasive ductal

49(92.45%)

56(98.25%)

 

 Other

4(7.55%)

1(1.75%)

 

Estrogen receptors status

  

0.473

 ER(+)

32(60.38%)

30(53.57%)

 

 ER(−)

21(39.62%)

26(46.43%)

 

Progesterone receptors status

  

0.776

 PR(+)

26(49.06%)

29(51.79%)

 

 PR(−)

27(50.94%)

27(48.21%)

 

HER-2 status

  

0.216

 HER-2(−)

27(50.94%)

36(64.29%)

 

 HER-2(+)

8(15.09%)

7(12.50%)

 

 HER-2(++)

11(20.75%)

5(8.93%)

 

 HER-2(+++)

7(13.21%)

8(14.29%)

 

Surgery duration, min

220(146–479)

125 (66–384)

<0.001

Bleeding volume, mL

100(30–800)

100(30–400)

0.766

Represented as “median (range)” or “frequency (percentage)”

Comparison between the two surgery groups was analyzed by Mann-Whitney test for continuous variable and ordinal variables, by Chi-square test or Fisher exact test for binomial variables

Detection of CTCs

A total of 220 peripheral blood samples obtained from 110 patients were analyzed. Among the 110 samples collected before surgery, there were 26 (23.64%) which had detectable CTCs and the CTC number ranged from 0.91 to 26.49 (median: 1.76). For the endoscopic group and the open group, there were 13 (24.53%) and 13 (22.81%) samples which had detectable CTC, respectively. The median CTC number was 0.27 (range: 0 to 26.49) in the endoscopic group and 0.21 (range: 0 to 15.16) in the open group. After surgery, 34 (30.91%) out of the 110 patients had detectable CTCs with a median of CTC number as 1.75 (range: 0.98 to 10.56). Of these 34 patients, 15 (15/53, 28.30%) patients underwent endoscopic surgery and 19 (19/57, 33.33%) underwent open surgery. The median CTC number was 0.36 (range: 0 to 10.56) after surgery in the endoscopic group and 0.43 (range: 0 to 9.00) in the open group, respectively. As can be seen in Tables 2 and 3, there was a suggestive increased trend for the CTCs positive rate and the CTC number after operation, although the difference was not statistically significant.
Table 2

Comparison for the positive rate of CTCs before and after surgery in the endoscopic and the open group

Study period

Endoscopic group (n = 53)

Open group (n = 57)

P value a

Before surgery

13(24.53)

13(22.81)

0.832

After surgery

15(28.30)

19(33.33)

0.568

P value b

0.804

0.327

 

aComparison between endoscopic group and open group by Chi-square test

bComparison between preoperation and postoperation period by McNemar test

Table 3

Comparison for number of CTCs before and after surgery in the endoscopic and the open group

Study period

Endoscopic group (n = 53)

Open group (n = 57)

P value a

Before surgery

0.27(0.004–0.93)

0.21(0.0001–0.75)

0.361

After surgery

0.36(0.002–1.10)

0.43(0.02–1.43)

0.515

P value b

0.717

0.122

 

The number of CTCs was represented as “median (25th and 75th percentiles)”

aComparison between endoscopic group and open group by Mann-Whitney test

bComparison between preoperation and postoperation period by Wilcoxon signed rank test

Micrometastatic risk of CTCs in different breast cancer surgeries

Using our detecting limit as a cut-off, surgery is considered to implement an increased micrometastatic risk if the number of CTCs is increased beyond this cut-off after operation. In the open surgical group, 17 out of 57 patients (29.82%) showed an increased risk, compared to 8 out of 53 patients (15.09%) in the endoscopic group (χ2 = 3.393, P = 0.065). Stratified analysis by tumor size, lymph node status and tumor stage also showed that the risk in the open surgical group is higher (OR = 2.5, 2.2 and 2.3, respectively; see Additional file 1: Table S2). Furthermore, propensity score matching was done and 32 pairs of patients were selected. Within the 32 pairs, the open surgical group had a higher proportion of metastasis (OR = 8, PMc Nemar = 0.039; see Additional file 1: Table S3). After adjustment for the potential confounders, the conventional open surgery was associated with a significantly higher micrometastatic risk compared to the endoscopic approach (OR = 2.60, 95%CI: 0.99–6.80; P = 0.05; see Table 4). Among the adjusted co-variates, the menopausal status and age also remained in the binary logistic regression model of backward likelihood method. Postmenopausal was associated with higher micrometastatic risk while elder age was associated with lower risk. When the interaction of surgery type and pre-operation CTC status was further considered, the higher risk for the open surgery remained (OR = 3.19, 95%CI: 1.05–9.65; P = 0.04), but the interaction was not statistically significant (P = 0.191). The uni-variate analysis result and the full-model result were also respectively represented in Table 4 and Additional file 1: Table S4, and the results were similar with the results of the backward-method results.
Table 4

The association between surgery type and micrometastatic risk: multi-variate analysis

Variable

Model 0 a

Model 1 b

Model 2 c

 

OR (95% CI)

P value

OR (95% CI)

P value

OR (95% CI)

P value

Surgery type

2.39 (0.93, 6.13)

0.070

2.60 (0.99, 6.80)

0.052

3.19 (1.05, 9.65)

0.040

Menopausal status

0.64 (0.25, 1.65)

0.355

2.16 (0.79, 5.87)

0.131

0.15 (0.02, 1.12)

0.064

Age

1.07 (0.68, 1.67)

0.769

0.18 (0.03, 1.21)

0.077

2.23 (0.79, 6.28)

0.130

Pre-surgery CTC status

0.37 (0.10, 1.35)

0.131

6.31 (0.10, 418.40)

0.389

Tumor size

1.15 (0.46, 2.87)

0.761

Lymph node

1.42 (0.86, 2.33)

0.173

Tumor stage

1.41 (0.78, 2.55)

0.261

Histology type

- e

0.999

 

ER

1.84 (0.72, 4.73)

0.205

PR

1.33 (0.54, 3.28)

0.529

HER-2

0.91 (0.61, 1.38)

0.669

Interaction d

0.15 (0.01, 2.56)

0.191

Final model

0.057

0.025

OR indicates odds ratio

aUni-variate logistic analysis

bAnalyzed variables included: surgery type, menopausal status, age, tumor size, lymph node, tumor stage, histology type, estrogen receptors status, progesterone receptors status and HER-2 status. Analyzed by binary logistic regression (backward likelihood method). Only the variables remained in the final model were listed in the table

cAdditionally included pre-surgery CTC status and its interaction with surgery type based on model 1. Surgery type, pre-surgery CTC status and their interaction were enforcedly remained in the model

dThe interaction of surgery type and pre-surgery CTC status

eThe range was too large to be appropriately represented

Discussion

Our study shows that a suggestive increased trend for the CTC positive rate (23.64% V.S. 30.91%), either in the open surgery group (22.81% V.S. 33.33%) or in the endoscopic surgery group (24.53% V.S. 28.30%). There is also a suggestive increase in the number of CTCs in each group after surgery (open surgery: 0.21 V.S. 0.43; endoscopic surgery: 0.27 V.S. 0.36). Furthermore, higher micrometastatic risk related to CTC was found in the open surgery group compared to the endoscopical group (OR = 3.19, 95%CI: 1.05–9.65), which indicates that patients who underwent open surgery will take more surgery-related potential metastatic risk.

Previous clinical investigations have suggested that CTC is a prognostic indicator in primary and metastatic breast cancer patients [3, 4]. Monitoring the emergence and dynamics of CTC may provide a more precise assessment for a further personalized cancer treatment. It has long been thought that manipulation of malignant tumors encourages tumor cell dissemination. Animal studies has shown that malignant cells are shed into the blood stream during surgical manipulation of a primary tumor, even leading to an increased incidence of distant metastases [13]. A higher detection rate of CTC has been demonstrated in the blood of patients with colorectal, prostatic cancers or other malignant tumors after surgical procedures [9, 10, 11, 12]. However, it seems that there are less studies on the CTC status throughout surgery of breast cancer. In a previous meta-analysis of 194 breast cancer cases, our research group reported an suggestive but not significant increase of CTC-positive rate after surgery [5]. Furthermore, here we reviewed a total of 16 studies with 1553 cases published since 1990 comparing incidence of CTC before and after breast cancer surgery (Table 5, Fig. 1), and found that post-operation CTC-positive rate was higher than the pre-operation condition (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06–1.39; P = 0.006). All these results were in coincidence with the present study suggesting that surgery for breast cancer may induce increase of CTC. There is substantial variation of preoperative and postoperative CTC positivity rate separately among the different publications recruited in our meta-analysis. This may be attributed to the difference of CTC-detection techniques and case-recruitment criteria adopted by different research groups. Especially, since a golden standard of CTC detection method is not available by now, this may introduce a systemic error to the attempt for integrating the numerous publications, and consequently lead to an underestimation of the association between the surgical type and the micrometastatic risk in BC patients in the present study. Unification of the CTC detection method in the future would help to quantitatively and precisely estimate the effect of surgery on the micrometastatic risk.
Table 5

Review of 16 published studies of CTC before and after surgery therapy

Author

Year

N

Detection rate preoperatively

Time interval after surgery

Detection rate postoperatively

Zhang Y et al. [2]

2017

286

62/286(22%)

3d

81/286(28%)

Maltoni R et al. [18]

2015

48

13/48(27%)

Immediately

9/43(21%)

Pierga JY et al. [19]

2015

42

3/42(7%)

3-4w

5/38(13%)

van Dalum G et al. [4]

2015

403

75/403(19%)

1w

66/367(18%)

Banys M et al. [20]

2012

209

26/209(12%)

2-3d

34/209(16%)

Daskalakis M et al. [7]

2011

104

2/104(2%)

Immediately

4/104(4%)

Sandri MT et al. [21]

2010

56

16/56(29%)

5d

14/47(30%)

Biggers B et al. [22]

2009

41

10/41(24%)

14d

9/30(30%)

Thepjatri N et al. [23]

2008

30

10/30(33%)

14d

8/22(36%)

Krawczyk N et al. [24]

2008

130

17/130(13%)

Immediately

22/130(17%)

Ismail MS et al. [25]

2004

41

20/41(49%)

Immediately

24/41(59%)

Hu XC et al. [6]

2003

49

4/49(8%)

1d

10/49(20%)

Galan M et al. [26]

2002

59

4/59(7%)

1d

10/59(17%)

Krag DN et al. [8]

1999

21

18/19(95%)

2 h

15/18(83%)

Choy A et al. [27]

1996

18

1/18(5%)

Immediately

6/18(33%)

McCulloch P et al. [28]

1995

16

1/16(6%)

Immediately

6/16(38%)

Fig. 1

Comparison of CTC positive rate before and after breast cancer surgery: meta-analysis. The heterogeneity of the recruited studies was estimated by the Cochran’s Q test (P = 0.147) and the I2 (27.5%). P value < 0.10 or I2 over 50% was defined as substantial heterogeneity. Hence, no substantial heterogeneity was observed among the studies and fixed model was used to analyze the overall difference of CTC positive rate before and after breast cancer surgery therapy (OR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.06–1.39; P = 0.006). OR over 1 indicates increased CTC positive rate after surgery compared to preoperation

The operative treatment of breast cancer has made substantial directional changes. From Halsted’s radical operation to classical modified radical mastectomy, to widely accepted breast conservation, a shift from “maximum tolerable” to “minimum effective” treatment strategy has been evident [29, 30]. Conventional mastectomy is often associated with complications such as an obvious scar, physical defect, upper extremity edema and dysfunction. Mastectomy patients tend to suffer from ongoing anxiety and depression over the disfigurement of their bodies and the loss of a feminine figure. The endoscopic approach emerges as a response to the need for new “minimally invasive” surgical techniques that assure a local tumor control while decreasing surgery-related morbidity [31, 32]. Under endoscopic vision, meticulous dissection and hemostasis can be achieved with the harmonic scalpel, and the average blood loss is less than the conventional method [33]. Endoscopic breast surgery plays an important role in the treatment of patients with early breast cancer. It is suitable for patients with small-to-moderate-sized breasts and reconstruction can be performed immediately or at a second stage, especially for Asian women. Endoscopic nipple and/or skin sparing subcutaneous mastectomy with immediate breast reconstruction restore the patient’s body image and improve cosmesis over open surgery. For instance, in our institution, we performed endoscopic harvesting of latissimus dorsi flap with prosthesis implantation for immediate breast reconstruction after nipple-sparing mastectomy in 2 patients with breast cancer who wished to avoid a long scar on the back. Both patients were satisfied with the esthetic results of the procedure using only 3 small trocar ports instead of a long visible scar on the back [34].

However, evidence for the safety in support of this technique is lacing. Whether the minimization of invasion by endoscopic surgery leads to a less or more induction of CTCs release is unknown by now. To the best of our knowledge, the present study is the first clinical study evaluating the effect of endoscopic surgery on CTCs in breast cancer patients underwent surgery. When increased micrometastatic risk is defined as the CTC number increased beyond the detection cut-off after operation, less micrometastatic risk was found in the endoscopic operated group, which indicates that patients underwent open surgery will take more surgery-related potential metastatic risk. Although the surgical principles are the same for both surgical approaches, the surgical sequence is different from each other. This difference may partially block cancer cell dissemination enhanced by surgical manipulation. However, a study with long-term follow-up in a larger population is required to confirm the clinical indication of our results. Our study found no significant difference of surgery duration or bleeding volume between the micrometastatic patients and the non-micrometastatic patients. It may indicate that these characteristics are not the main contributor for the higher micrometastatic risk in the open surgery group. The present study has several major limitations. First, the study is of observational design. Bias introduced by potential confounder, such as the subjective decision of therapy strategy affected by the disease status, could not be completed ruled out. Randomized clinical trial would be needed in the future to validate our findings. Second, some specific types of breast cancer such as ductal carcinoma was not recruited with adequate sample size for subgroup analysis. Hence the increase of micrometastatic risk observed in the present study may not be generalized to all cases of breast cancer. Third, although the increase of CTC in peripheral blood was widely accepted to be a promising biomarker of poorer prognosis, the clinical outcome of the patients, such as disease free survival and metastasis rate was not investigated in the present study due to the limited follow-up period and sample size. Whether the long-term risk of endoscopic breast cancer surgery is comparable with open surgery for breast cancer still acquires further study.

Conclusions

The present study found a suggestive increase of CTCs in breast cancer patients after surgery, and the endoscopic surgery was associated with less risk of metastasis related to CTCs compared to open radical mastectomy. The results may indicate that monitoring of CTC status is necessary for the breast cancer patients after surgery, especially for those who underwent open surgery. Future studies are needed to confirm our finding.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Authors’ contributions

JJ, YZ, SL, WY designed the study. SL, WY, XY, LC, LF, HL, KL, YZ, JJ collected the data, designed and developed the database, carried out data analyses and produced the initial draft of the manuscript. SL, WY contributed to drafting the manuscript. All authors participated in the revised manuscript and have read and approved the final submitted manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by Fund of Army Medical University (Third Military Medical University) (grant number 2010XLC03, 2018YFC1707503). The sponsor had no role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, and interpretation of data and in writing the manuscript.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Written informed consent was obtained from all participating patients and the protocol of this study was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Southwest Hospital (KY201003).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Supplementary material

12885_2019_6158_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
Additional file 1: Table S1. Comparison of surgery duration and bleeding volume between the micrometastatic patients and the non-micrometastatic patients. Table S2. Stratified analysis of surgery-specific micrometastatic risk by tumor size, lymph node and tumor stage. Table S3. Propensity score matching analysis of micrometastasis between different surgery groups. Table S4. The association between surgery type and micrometastatic risk: full model of multi-variate analysis.

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:394–424.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zhang Y, Lv Y, Niu Y, Su H, Feng A. Role of circulating tumor cell (CTC) monitoring in evaluating prognosis of triple-negative breast Cancer patients in China. Med Sci Monit. 2017;23:3071–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Magbanua MJ, Carey LA, DeLuca A, Hwang J, Scott JH, Rimawi MF, et al. Translational breast Cancer research consortium. Circulating tumor cell analysis in metastatic triple-negative breast cancers. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:1098–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    van Dalum G, van der Stam GJ, Tibbe AG, Franken B, Mastboom WJ, Vermes I, et al. Circulating tumor cells before and during follow-up after breast cancer surgery. Int J Oncol. 2014;46:407–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yan WT, Cui X, Chen Q, Li YF, Cui YH, Wang Y, et al. Circulating tumor cell status monitors the treatment responses in breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis. Sci Rep. 2017;7:43464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hu XC, Loo WT, Chow LW. Surgery-related shedding of breast cancer cells as determined by RT-PCR assay. J Surg Oncol. 2003;82:228–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Daskalakis M, Mavroudis D, Sanidas E, Apostolaki S, Askoxylakis I, de Bree E, et al. Assessment of the effect of surgery on the kinetics of circulating tumour cells in patients with operable breast cancer based on cytokeratin-19 mRNA detection. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2011;37:404–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Krag DN, Ashikaga T, Moss TJ, Kusminsky RE, Feldman S, Carpet NZ, et al. Breast Cancer cells in the blood: a pilot study. Breast J. 1999;5:354–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Yu JJ, Xiao W, Dong SL, Liang HF, Zhang ZW, Zhang BX, et al. Effect of surgical liver resection on circulating tumor cells in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma. BMC cancer. 2018;18:835.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weitz J, Kienle P, Lacroix J, Willeke F, Benner A, Lehnert T, et al. Dissemination of tumor cells in patients undergoing surgery for colorectal cancer. Clin Cancer Res. 1998;4:343–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wei XQ, Ma Y, Chen Y, Liu X, Zhao M, Zhou LW. Laparoscopic surgery for early cervical squamous cell carcinoma and its effect on the micrometastasis of cancer cells. Medicine. 2018;97:e11921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Eschwège P, Dumas F, Blanchet P, Le Maire V, Benoit G, Jardin A, et al. Haematogenous dissemination of prostatic epithelial cells during radical prostatectomy. Lancet. 1995;346:1528–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nishizaki T, Matsumata T, Kanematsu T, Yasunaga C, Sugimachi K. Surgical manipulation of VX2 carcinoma in the rabbit liver evokes enhancement of metastasis. J Surg Res. 1990;49:92–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Leff DR, Vashisht R, Yongue G, Keshtgar M, Yang GZ, Darzi A. Endoscopic breast surgery: where are we now and what might the future hold for video-assisted breast surgery? Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;125:607–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Reinholz MM, Kitzmann KA, Tenner K, Hillman D, Dueck AC, Hobday TJ, Reinholz MM, Kitzmann KA, Tenner K, et al. Cytokeratin-19 and mammaglobin gene expression in circulating tumor cells from metastatic breast cancer patients enrolled in north central Cancer treatment group trials, N0234/336/436/437. J Surg Res. 2011;17:7183–93.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang L, Wang Y, Liu Y, Cheng M, Wu X, Wei H. Flow cytometric analysis of CK19 expression in the peripheral blood of breast carcinoma patients: relevance for circulating tumor cell detection. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009;28:57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stathopoulou A, Gizi A, Perraki M, Apostolaki S, Malamos N, Mavroudis D, et al. Real-time quantification of CK-19 mRNA-positive cells in peripheral blood of breast cancer patients using the lightcycler system. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:5145–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maltoni R, Fici P, Amadori D, Gallerani G, Cocchi C, Zoli M, et al. Circulating tumor cells in early breast cancer: a connection with vascular invasion. Cancer Lett. 2015;367:43–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Pierga JY, Petit T, Lévy C, Ferrero JM, Campone M, Gligorov J, et al. Pathological response and circulating tumor cell count identifies treated HER2+ inflammatory breast cancer patients with excellent prognosis: BEVERLY-2 survival data. Clin Cancer Res. 2015;21:1298–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Banys M, Krawczyk N, Becker S, Jakubowska J, Staebler A, Wallwiener D, et al. The influence of removal of primary tumor on incidence and phenotype of circulating tumor cells in primary breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2012;132:121–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sandri MT, Zorzino L, Cassatella MC, Bassi F, Luini A, Casadio C, et al. Changes in circulating tumor cell detection in patients with localized breast cancer before and after surgery. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:1539–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biggers B, Knox S, Grant M, Kuhn J, Nemunatitis J, Fisher T, et al. Circulating tumor cells in patients undergoing surgery for primary breast cancer: preliminary results of a pilot study. Ann Surg Oncol. 2009;16:969–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thepjatri N, Kuhn JA, Knox SM, Grant MD, Nemunaitis JJ, Fisher TL, et al. Preliminary results of a pilot study of circulating tumor cells in patients undergoing surgery for primary breast cancer. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15:41.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Krawczyk N, Fehm T, Banys M, Duerr-Stoerzer S, Wallwiener D, Solomayer EF. Comparison between circulating and disseminated tumor cells in breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 2008; Supplements 6(7): 140.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ismail MS, Wynendaele W, Aerts JL, Paridaens R, Gaafar R, Shakankiry N, et al. Detection of micrometastatic disease and monitoring of perioperative tumor cell dissemination in primary operable breast cancer patients using real-time quantitative reverse transcription-PCR. Clin Cancer Res. 2004;10(1 Pt 1):196–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Galán M, Viñolas N, Colomer D, Soler G, Muñoz M, Longarón R, et al. Detection of occult breast cancer cells by amplification of CK19 mRNA by reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction: role of surgical manipulation. Anticancer Res. 2002;22(5):2877–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Choy A, McCulloch P. Induction of tumour cell shedding into effluent venous blood breast cancer surgery. Br J Cancer. 1996;73:79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    McCulloch P, Choy A, Martin L. Association between tumour angiogenesis and tumour cell shedding into effluent venous blood during breast cancer surgery. Lancet. 1995;346:1334–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Plesca M, Bordea C, El Houcheimi B, et al. Evolution of radical mastectomy for breast cancer. J Med Life. 2016;9:183–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sakorafas GH, Safioleas M. Breast cancer surgery: an historical narrative. Part III. From the sunset of the 19th to the dawn of the 21st century. Eur J Cancer Care. 2010;19:145–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Takahashi H, Fujii T, Nakagawa S, Inoue Y, Akashi M, Toh U, et al. Usefulness of endoscopic breast-conserving surgery for breast cancer. Surg Today. 2014;44:2037–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Lai HW, Chen ST, Chen DR, Chen SL, Chang TW, Kuo SJ, et al. Current trends in and indications for endoscopy-assisted breast surgery for breast Cancer: results from a six-year study conducted by the Taiwan endoscopic breast surgery cooperative group. PLoS One. 2016;11:e0150310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Jiang J, Yang XH, Fan LJ, Zhang Y, Zhang F, Zhou Y. Application of endoscopy-assistant operation in surgical treatment of breast diseases. Zhonghua Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2005;85:181–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Xu S, Tang P, Chen X, Yang X, Pan Q, Gui Y, et al. Novel technique for laparoscopic harvesting of latissimus dorsi flap with prosthesis implantation for breast reconstruction: a preliminary study with 2 case reports. Medicine (Baltimore). 2016;95(46):e5428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Breast and Thyroid Surgery, Southwest HospitalArmy Medical University (Third Military Medical University)ChongqingChina
  2. 2.Breast and Thyroid Disease CenterThird Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical UniversityChongqingChina
  3. 3.Department of Epidemiology, College of Preventive MedicineArmy Medical University (Third Military Medical University)ChongqingChina

Personalised recommendations