Fat necrosis and parenchymal scarring after breast-conserving surgery and radiotherapy with an intraoperative electron or fractionated, percutaneous boost: a retrospective comparison

Digital Mammographic Features of Breast Cancer Recurrences and Benign Lesions Mimicking Malignancy Following Breast-Conserving Surgery and Radiation Therapy

Mammography after breast-conserving surgery and radiation therapy is an important tool for followup. Early diagnosis of local recurrence enables prompt treatment decisions, which may affect patient prognosis. For complicated post-treatment changes, radiologists sometimes have difficulties in interpreting follow-up mammography. Fat necrosis, dystrophic calcifications, suture calcification features, breast edema, seroma and distorted breast are benign changes related to treatment. These findings may mimic or hide tumor recurrence making it difficult to diagnose recurrences or prevent inappropriate biopsies. Recurrent tumors in follow-up mammography show several typical findings such as increasing asymmetric density, enlarging mass, reappearance of breast edema, and micro-calcifications. The purpose of this pictorial review is to demonstrate and discuss mammographic findings of recurrent tumors and important post-treatment changes that may mimic benign or malignant lesions, also using breast ultrasound images or breast magnetic resonance images. Recognizing post-treatment changes may help radiologists to more effectively identify candidates for suspected local recurrences.

Fat necrosis after breast-conserving oncoplastic surgery

BACKGROUND

Fat necrosis is a subjective early as well as delayed complication, which sometimes mimics local recurrence and ruins the quality of life by pain and poor cosmetic result. While, the frequency and severity of fat necrosis are important issues that breast surgeons should explain to the patient, these data are not revealed well.

METHODS

A total of 1476 patients who underwent breast surgery from January 2000 to December 2012 were enrolled in the present study. We assessed fat necrosis by mammographic and physical findings and created grading criteria: Grade (G) 0, no fat necrosis; G1, no symptomatic fat necrosis (mammographic dystrophic calcification); G2, mild symptomatic necrosis (mammographic dystrophic necrosis with tumor); G3, severe symptomatic necrosis (mammographic dystrophic necrosis with pain or skin change); and G4, symptomatic necrosis requiring surgical intervention.

RESULTS

Of the 1476 patients enrolled, 393 (27%) underwent mastectomy, and 1083 (73%) underwent breast-conserving surgery. We achieved a high rate of breast-conserving surgery at a total rate of 73% over the study period and maximum rate of 88% in 2010, using oncoplastic procedures. We mainly adopted a pedicled fat flap (417/1083; 39%) and a free dermal fat flap (40/1083; 3.7%). Among the 626 patients who underwent partial resection with no replacement for the defect, G1-G2 fat necrosis was seen in 29/626 (4.6%). While, the incidence of fat necrosis with pedicled fat flap and free dermal fat graft was 68/417 (16%) and 40/40 (100%), respectively, showing a significant difference (p < 0.01). Furthermore, the incidence of G3-G4 fat necrosis was significantly higher with free dermal fat grafts (25%; 10/40) than with pedicled flap (2.9%; 12/417) (p < 0.01). Among pedicled flaps, the incidence of fat necrosis with inframammary adipofascial flaps was 56% (14/25) which was higher than that with lateral epidermal fat flaps (12%; 33/276) (p < 0.01), and rotation of surrounding breast tissues (8%; 21/116) (p < 0.01). The incidence of G3 fat necrosis was also high at 20% (5/25) in inframammary adipofascial flaps.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast-conserving oncoplastic surgery carries a risk of fat necrosis as a delayed complication. The incidence rate and severity of fat necrosis with each procedure should be assessed. We should select fat grafts with a good blood supply to replace defects of breast-conserving therapy.

Errors in Mammography Cannot be Solved Through Technology Alone

Mammography has been the frontline screening tool for breast cancer for decades. However, high error rates in the form of false negatives (FNs) and false positives (FPs) have persisted despite technological improvements. Radiologists still miss between 10% and 30% of cancers while 80% of woman recalled for additional views have normal outcomes, with 40% of biopsied lesions being benign. Research show that the majority of cancers missed is actually visible and looked at, but either go unnoticed or are deemed to be benign. Causal agents for these errors include human related characteristics resulting in contributory search, perception and decision-making behaviours. Technical, patient and lesion factors are also important relating to positioning, compression, patient size, breast density and presence of breast implants as well as the nature and subtype of the cancer itself, where features such as architectural distortion and triple-negative cancers remain challenging to detect on screening. A better understanding of these causal agents as well as the adoption of technological and educational interventions, which audits reader performance and provide immediate perceptual feedback, should help. This paper reviews the current status of our knowledge around error rates in mammography and explores the factors impacting it. It also presents potential solutions for maximizing diagnostic efficacy thus benefiting the millions of women who undergo this procedure each year.

Intraoperative radiotherapy: Patient selection, management, and follow-up

Intraoperative partial breast radiotherapy is an alternative or an adjunct to fractionated whole breast irradiation for the administration of adjuvant radiotherapy in breast cancer following breast conserving surgery. Establishing intraoperative radiotherapy as a therapeutic modality requires a multidisciplinary approach to patient selection, workup, surgery, radiation protocols, chemotherapy, and patient follow up. In this article, we review the published evidence for best clinical practice, as a guide to the introduction of intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer treatment.

Intraoperative radiotherapy for breast cancer: the lasting effects of a fleeting treatment

In well-selected patients who choose to pursue breast conservation therapy (BCT) for early-stage breast cancer, partial breast irradiation (PBI) delivered externally or intraoperatively, may be a viable alternative to conventional whole breast irradiation. Two large, contemporary randomized trials have demonstrated breast intraoperative radiotherapy (IORT) to be noninferior to whole breast external beam radiotherapy (EBRT) when assessing for ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence in select patients. Additionally, IORT and other PBI techniques are likely to be more widely adopted in the future because they improve patient convenience by offering an accelerated course of treatment. Coupled with these novel techniques for breast radiotherapy (RT) are distinct toxicity profiles and unique cosmetic alterations that differ from conventional breast EBRT and have the potential to impact disease surveillance and patient satisfaction. This paper will review the level-one evidence for treatment efficacy as well as important secondary endpoints like RT toxicity, breast cosmesis, quality of life, patient satisfaction, and surveillance mammography following BCT with IORT.

Muscle-sparing TRAM flap does not protect breast reconstruction from postmastectomy radiation damage compared with the DIEP flap

BACKGROUND

Irradiation to free flaps following immediate breast reconstruction has been shown to compromise outcomes. The authors hypothesized that irradiated muscle-sparing free transverse rectus abdominis musculocutaneous (TRAM) flaps experience less fat necrosis than irradiated deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flaps.

METHODS

The authors performed a retrospective study of all consecutive patients undergoing immediate, autologous, abdomen-based free flap breast reconstruction with muscle-sparing free TRAM or DIEP flaps over a 10-year period at their institution. Irradiated flaps (external-beam radiation therapy) after immediate breast reconstruction were compared with nonirradiated flaps. Logistic regression analysis identified potential associations between patient, tumor, and reconstructive characteristics and surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The analysis included 625 flaps: 40 (6.4 percent) irradiated versus 585 (93.6 percent) nonirradiated. Mean follow-up for the irradiated and nonirradiated flaps was 60.0 and 48.5 months, respectively (p = 0.02). Overall complication rates were similar for both the irradiated and nonirradiated flaps. Irradiated flaps (i.e., both DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps) developed fat necrosis at a significantly higher rate (22.5 percent) than the nonirradiated flaps (9.2 percent; p = 0.009). There were no differences in fat necrosis rates between the DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flaps in both the irradiated and nonirradiated groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Both DIEP and muscle-sparing free TRAM flap reconstructions had much higher rates of fat necrosis when irradiated. Contrary to our hypothesis, the authors found that immediate breast reconstruction with a muscle-sparing free TRAM flap does not result in a lower rate of fat necrosis than reconstruction with a DIEP flap.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.