切换至 "中华医学电子期刊资源库"

中华医学超声杂志(电子版) ›› 2025, Vol. 22 ›› Issue (12) : 1148 -1155. doi: 10.3877/cma.j.issn.1672-6448.2025.12.007

浅表器官超声影像学

乳腺侵袭性纤维瘤病临床特征和影像学表现
丁志颖, 邓晶, 栗翠英, 李沁()   
  1. 210000 南京医科大学第一附属医院超声医学科
  • 收稿日期:2025-09-24 出版日期:2025-12-01
  • 通信作者: 李沁

Clinical and imaging features of breast fibromatosis

Zhiying Ding, Jing Deng, Cuiying Li, Qin Li()   

  1. Department of Ultrasound, the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing 210000, China
  • Received:2025-09-24 Published:2025-12-01
  • Corresponding author: Qin Li
引用本文:

丁志颖, 邓晶, 栗翠英, 李沁. 乳腺侵袭性纤维瘤病临床特征和影像学表现[J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2025, 22(12): 1148-1155.

Zhiying Ding, Jing Deng, Cuiying Li, Qin Li. Clinical and imaging features of breast fibromatosis[J/OL]. Chinese Journal of Medical Ultrasound (Electronic Edition), 2025, 22(12): 1148-1155.

目的

探讨乳腺(侵袭性)纤维瘤病(BF)的临床特征和影像学表现。

方法

收集2015年1月至2025年8月在南京医科大学第一附属医院行超声检查并经病理证实为BF的39例患者(共48个病灶)的临床资料。回顾性分析其临床、超声、钼靶及MRI特征。

结果

BF患者年龄为(30.7±9.4)岁,病灶最大径为(27.6±17.8)mm。10例患者术后随访超声或MRI检查提示复发。超声检查特征:BF病灶多位于腺体层(33/48,68.8%),以非肿块型为主(31/48,64.6%)。病灶多呈不规则低回声(40/48,83.4%),内部回声多均匀(45/48,93.8%),边界清晰(29/48,60.4%),边缘毛刺或成角常见(42/48,87.5%),钙化罕见(1/48,2.1%),后方回声多无改变(44/48,91.7%),Adler血流分级多为1级(24/48,50.0%)或2级(20/48,41.7%),弹性成像评分多为3分(16/35,45.7%)或4分(17/35,48.6%)。超声造影后病灶多呈不均匀增强(5/6,83.3%),内部不增强或低增强,周边增强明显。钼靶检查特征:BF多呈类圆形高密度结节影(12/23,52.2%),少数表现为腺体结构纠集(4/23,17.4%)或不规则肿块伴毛刺(4/23,17.4%)。共27个BF病灶行MRI检查,其中肿块型病灶17个,多呈不规则形态(10/17,58.8%),增强后均匀强化(11/17,64.7%);而非肿块型BF(10个病灶)则表现为边界不清的非肿块样强化(10/10,100%)。MRI动态增强时间-强度曲线以渐增型为主(20/27,74.1%),表观弥散系数值为(1.16±0.22)×10-3 mm2/s。

结论

BF具有一定的临床和影像学特征,超声、MRI和钼靶3种检查手段互补,可为BF临床诊治提供重要的参考信息。

Objective

To explore the clinical and imaging features of breast fibromatosis (BF).

Methods

Clinical data of 39 patients (with a total of 48 lesions) who underwent ultrasound examination and were pathologically confirmed as having BF in the First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University from January 2015 to August 2025 were collected. A retrospective analysis was performed on the clinical, ultrasound, mammographic, and MRI data.

Results

The mean age of BF patients was (30.7±9.4) years, and the mean maximum diameter of the lesions was (27.6±17.8) mm. Among the patients who were followed up, 10 cases showed signs of recurrence after surgery, as indicated by ultrasound or MRI. On conventional ultrasound, BF lesions were mainly located in the glandular layer (33/48, 68.8%), and were predominantly of non-mass type (31/48, 64.6%). Most lesions presented as irregular hypoechoic lesions (40/48, 83.4%), with typically homogeneous internal echoes (45/48, 93.8%), clear boundaries (29/48, 60.4%), frequent spiculated or angular margins (42/48, 87.5%), rare calcifications (1/48, 2.1%), and mostly no change in posterior echoes (44/48, 91.7%). The Adler blood flow grade was typically grade 1 (24/48, 50.0%) or grade 2 (20/48, 41.7%). On elastography, BF lesions commonly scored 3 (16/35, 45.7%) or 4 (17/35, 48.6%). On contrast-enhanced ultrasound (CEUS), most BF lesions presented as heterogeneous enhancement (5/6, 83.3%), with absent or minimal internal enhancement and prominent peripheral rim enhancement. Mammographic examination showed that BF mostly appeared as round-like high-density nodules (12/23, 52.2%), while a minority presented as glandular structure retraction (4/23, 17.4%) or irregular masses with spiculation (4/23, 17.4%). A total of 27 lesions underwent MRI, among which 17 were mass-type lesions, most of which exhibited an irregular shape (10/17, 58.8%) and showed homogeneous contrast enhancement (11/17, 64.7%). In contrast, non-mass-type BF (10 lesions) manifested as ill-defined non-mass-like enhancement (10/10, 100%). The time-intensity curves on dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI were predominantly of the progressive type (20/27, 74.1%), and the apparent diffusion coefficient was (1.16±0.22)×10-3 mm2/s.

Conclusion

BF exhibits certain clinical and imaging characteristics. The three imaging modalities—ultrasound, MRI, and mammography—are complementary to each other, providing important reference information for the diagnosis and treatment of BF.

图1 累及不同解剖层次的乳腺(侵袭性)纤维瘤病超声声像图。图a:病灶累及乳腺浅层;图b:病灶累及乳腺实质内;图c:病灶累及乳腺深层
图2 妊娠期乳腺(侵袭性)纤维瘤病伴术后复发影像图。女性患者26岁,妊娠5个月余常规超声(图a)和彩色多普勒成像(图e)显示乳腺(侵袭性)纤维瘤病灶情况;图b、f为产后40 d(术前)超声声像图和磁共振成像图;图c、g:术后约16个月超声和磁共振检查提示复发,后进行二次手术;图d、h为二次术后1年超声检查和磁共振检查图像,提示少许病灶残余可能
图3 非肿块型乳腺(侵袭性)纤维瘤病患者影像学表现。女性患者24岁,超声检查(图a)示右乳非肿块样低回声,Adler血流分级为1级(图b),弹性质中(图c),造影检查示周边增强为主(图d),MRI示右乳多发非肿块样强化(图e),T2加权成像为低信号(图f)
图4 肿块型乳腺(侵袭性)纤维瘤病患者影像学表现。女性患者21岁,超声检查示边缘毛刺结节(图a),Adler血流分级为1级(图b),弹性评分为4分(图c),MRI示T2加权成像高信号(图d),钼靶示左乳上方高密度结节(图e)
表1 乳腺侵袭性纤维瘤病的超声检查特征(个,共48个病灶)
1
Sbaraglia M, Bellan E, Dei Tos AP. The 2020 WHO classification of soft tissue tumours: news and perspectives [J]. Pathologica, 2021, 113(2): 70-84.
2
Penel N, Coindre JM, Bonvalot S, et al. Management of desmoid tumours: a nationwide survey of labelled reference centre networks in France [J]. Eur J Cancer, 2016, 58: 90-96.
3
Wirth M, Klein A, Baur-Melnyk A, et al. Desmoid tumours of the extremity and trunk, a retrospective study of 44 patients [J]. BMC Musculoskelet Disord, 2018, 19(1): 2.
4
Neuman HB, Brogi E, Ebrahim A, et al. Desmoid tumors (fibromatoses) of the breast: a 25-year experience [J]. Ann Surg Oncol, 2008, 15(1): 274-280.
5
Kangas-Dick A, Ali M, Poss M, et al. Diagnosis and management of desmoid fibromatosis of the breast [J]. World J Oncol, 2024, 15(3): 394-404.
6
Rehnke RD, Groening RM, Van Buskirk ER, et al. Anatomy of the superficial fascia system of the breast: a comprehensive theory of breast fascial anatomy [J]. Plast Reconstr Surg, 2018, 142(5): 1135-1144.
7
Liu H, Zeng H, Zhang H, et al. Breast fibromatosis: Imaging and clinical findings [J]. Breast J, 2020, 26(11): 2217-2222.
8
Skubitz KM. Biology and treatment of aggressive fibromatosis or desmoid tumor [J]. Mayo Clin Proc, 2017, 92(6): 947-964.
9
Lehnhardt M, Weskamp P, Sogorski A, et al. Aggressive fibromatosis: retrospective analysis of 110 patients [J]. Handchir Mikrochir Plast Chir, 2023, 55(2): 106-113.
10
Bektas M, Bell T, Khan S, et al. Desmoid tumors: a comprehensive review [J]. Adv Ther, 2023, 40(9): 3697-3722.
11
Chummun S, McLean NR, Abraham S, et al. Desmoid tumour of the breast [J]. Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg, 2010, 63(2): 339-345.
12
董德福, 周亚芳, 曾琪, 等. 乳腺侵袭性纤维瘤病一例超声表现 [J/OL]. 中华医学超声杂志(电子版), 2020, 17(1): 94-95.
13
Lee AH. Recent developments in the histological diagnosis of spindle cell, carcinoma, fibromatosis and phyllodes tumour of the breast [J]. Histopathology, 2008, 52(1): 45-57.
14
Ng WL, Teoh SY, See MH, et al. Desmoid type fibromatosis of the breast masquerading as breast carcinoma: value of dynamic magnetic resonance imaging and its correlation [J]. Eur J Breast Health, 2021, 17(2): 197-199.
15
Kyoung JH, Eun-Kyung K, Hee KK, et al. Breast fibromatosis showing unusual sonographic features [J]. J Ultrasound Med, 2010, 29(11): 1671-1674.
16
Amourak S, Alaoui FF, Jayi S, et al. Desmoid fibromatosis of the breast: a case report on and a review of the literature [J]. Pan Afr Med, 2015, 21: 88.
17
董叶, 彭晓静, 邓晶, 等. 高频超声诊断侵袭性纤维瘤病的应用价值 [J]. 临床超声医学杂志, 2021, 23(1): 69-72.
18
宗晴晴, 邓晶, 许迪. 乳腺纤维瘤病超声表现与病理结果对照研究及误诊分析 [J]. 肿瘤影像学, 2019, 28(6): 384-389.
19
Deshwal A, Walton T, Varzgalis M, et al. Imaging modalities used in mammary fibromatosis [J]. Radiol Case Rep, 2023, 18(5): 1949-1953.
20
Lorenzen J, Cramer M, Buck N, et al. Desmoid type fibromatosis of the breast: ten-year institutional results of imaging, histopathology, and surgery [J]. Breast Care (Basel), 2021, 16(1): 77-84.
21
Nakazono T, Satoh T, Hamamoto T, et al. Dynamic MRI of fibromatosis of the breast [J]. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 2003, 181(6): 1718-1719.
22
Rosa F, Martinetti C, Piscopo F, et al. Multimodality imaging features of desmoid tumors: a head-to-toe spectrum [J]. Insights Imaging, 2020, 11(1): 103.
23
Kasper B, Baldini EH, Bonvalot S, et al. Current management of desmoid tumors: a review [J]. JAMA Oncol, 2024, 10(8): 1121-1128.
24
Duazo-Cassin L, Le Guellec S, Lusque A, et al. Breast desmoid tumor management in France: toward a new strategy [J]. Breast Cancer ResTreat, 2019, 176(2): 329-335.
25
Boland MR, Nugent T, Nolan J, et al. Fibromatosis of the breast: a 10-year multi-institutional experience and review of the literature [J]. Breast Cancer, 2021, 28(1): 168-174.
26
Mangla A, Agarwal N, Schwartz G. Desmoid tumors: current perspective and treatment [J]. Curr Treat Options Oncol, 2024, 25(2): 161-175.
27
王懋莉, 吴克瑾, 丁昂, 等. 临床病理讨论: 乳腺侵袭性纤维瘤病 [J]. 复旦学报(医学版), 2018, 45(6): 872-876.
[1] 黎钰敏, 朱晓旭, 陈子昂, 谢晓娜, 张金丽, 张志. 高频超声联合剪切波弹性成像在增生性瘢痕厚度与硬度评估中的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2026, 21(02): 90-96.
[2] 杨国涛, 毛华杰, 陈志军, 陈金亮, 车军, 江起庭. 超声辅助定位经皮通道松解对慢性腕管综合征的临床疗效分析[J/OL]. 中华损伤与修复杂志(电子版), 2026, 21(02): 97-101.
[3] 常人元, 雷涛, 王彤, 陈宇, 李志梅, 高欣, 周楠, 曹磊, 董艳芳, 刘静静. rt-PA剂量对中高危急性肺栓塞患者超声辅助置管溶栓期间肺动脉压和出血风险的影响[J/OL]. 中华肺部疾病杂志(电子版), 2026, 19(01): 42-48.
[4] 东小鸽, 樊海宁, 侯立朝, 杜凯豪, 刘海刚, 汪占金, 薛伟伟, 石亚超, 魏六木, 王展. 三维可视化技术、ICG荧光示踪和术中实时超声在肝癌个性化精准诊疗中应用[J/OL]. 中华肝脏外科手术学电子杂志, 2026, 15(02): 181-189.
[5] 殷臣竹, 阴文超, 于天雷, 李曼, 姚富, 熊紫彤. 超声引导下臂丛上干阻滞麻醉对肩关节镜下肩袖修补术患者膈肌活动度与肌力的影响[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2026, 14(01): 6-11.
[6] 陈赛文, 吴青杰, 林昱东, 张思成. 超声引导下闭合复位克氏针固定与切开复位克氏针固定治疗儿童肱骨内上髁骨折的疗效比较[J/OL]. 中华肩肘外科电子杂志, 2026, 14(01): 38-44.
[7] 李亚伟, 潘强强, 张振辉, 周迎超, 王金炉, 王庆德, 梅伟. 蹄形超声骨刀辅助下颈后路单开门治疗多节段脊髓型颈椎病的临床研究[J/OL]. 中华老年骨科与康复电子杂志, 2026, 12(01): 25-30.
[8] 高增霞, 贺云飞, 赵娜. DCE-MRI联合Gd-EOB-DTPA MRI纹理特征对肝细胞癌经导管动脉化疗栓塞术后疗效的评估[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(02): 108-113.
[9] 常莉娜, 刘囡囡. DWI联合DCE-MRI定量参数对局部进展期直肠癌新辅助治疗后病理完全缓解的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(02): 125-129.
[10] 孙钢. 零液氦磁共振成像系统的发展现状和展望[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 1-5.
[11] 王甜, 张勇, 李苗红, 刘佳玥. MRI动态增强扫描联合CT能谱成像对肝细胞癌微血管侵犯的预测价值[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 6-12.
[12] 侯芳红, 贺修宝. 超声介导的雷公藤甲素外泌体靶向给药系统抗结直肠癌的应用评估[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 13-20.
[13] 李广飞, 李振涛, 刘宝, 胥明婧, 年梦雨. 超声剪切波弹性成像在直肠癌诊断及淋巴结转移评估中的应用研究[J/OL]. 中华消化病与影像杂志(电子版), 2026, 16(01): 21-25.
[14] 王璐, 马颖才, 刘芝兰, 李晓林, 逯艳艳. 微探头超声内镜在直肠神经内分泌肿瘤中的价值与未来挑战[J/OL]. 中华胃肠内镜电子杂志, 2026, 13(01): 52-55.
[15] 钱海舟, 张珊珊, 殷琳玲, 吴智强, 汪露, 杨欢. 经颅多普勒超声在急性前循环大血管闭塞性脑梗死机械取栓后的应用价值[J/OL]. 中华脑血管病杂志(电子版), 2026, 20(01): 61-67.
阅读次数
全文


摘要


AI


AI小编
你好!我是《中华医学电子期刊资源库》AI小编,有什么可以帮您的吗?