Table 2. Comparison of clinicopathologic characteristics between using acellular dermal matrix group and latissimus dorsi muscle onlay patch group.
| Characteristics | ADM* (n=28) | LD† muscle onlay patch (n=32) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mean tumor size (cm, SD) | 2.0±1.43 | 3.8±2.27 | 0.483 |
| Tumor type, n (%) | 0.095 | ||
| Atypical ductal hyperplasia | 4 (14.3) | 0 | |
| Carcinoma in situ | 6 (21.4) | 7 (21.9) | |
| Invasive carcinoma | 18 (64.3) | 25 (78.1) | |
| Multicentricity, n (%) | 3 (10.7) | 1 (3.1) | 0.331 |
| Stage, n (%) | 0.673 | ||
| 0 | 6 (21.4) | 7 (21.9) | |
| I | 3 (10.7) | 0 | |
| IIA | 7 (25.0) | 9 (28.1) | |
| IIB | 6 (21.4) | 10 (31.3) | |
| IIIA | 2 (7.1) | 2 (6.3) | |
| IIIB | 0 | 4 (12.5) | |
| Microcalcification on mammography, n (%) | 2 (7.1) | 3 (9.4) | 0.982 |
| Differentiation, n (%) | 0.378 | ||
| Well | 7 (25.0) | 3 (9.4) | |
| Moderately | 9 (32.1) | 16 (50.0) | |
| Poorly | 2 (7.1) | 6 (18.8) | |
| Perineural invasion, n (%) | 0.736 | ||
| Positive | 1 (3.6) | 1 (3.1) | |
| Negative | 17 (60.7) | 24 (75.0) | |
| Lymphovascular invasion, n (%) | 0.637 | ||
| Positive | 1 (3.6) | 3 (9.4) | |
| Negative | 17 (60.7) | 22 (68.8) | |
| Estrogen receptor, n (%) | 0.754 | ||
| Positive | 15 (53.6) | 21 (65.6) | |
| Negative | 9 (32.1) | 11 (34.4) | |
| Progesterone receptor, n (%) | 0.126 | ||
| Positive | 13 (46.4) | 15 (46.9) | |
| Negative | 11 (39.3) | 17 (53.1) | |
| c-erbB2 protein, n (%) | 0.446 | ||
| Positive | 5 (17.9) | 7 (21.9) | |
| Negative | 19 (67.9) | 25 (78.1) | |
| Triple negative, n (%) | 1 (3.6) | 3 (9.4) | 0.387 |
*, acellular dermal matrix; †, latissumus dorsi.