Spectrum of Multimodality Findings in Post-surgical Breast Cancer Imaging

Author(s): Marlina Tanty Ramli Hamid, Kartini Rahmat*, Shamsiah Abdul Hamid, Shaleen Kaur Kirat Singh, Tan Gie Hooi.

Journal Name: Current Medical Imaging
Formerly: Current Medical Imaging Reviews

Volume 15 , Issue 9 , 2019

Become EABM
Become Reviewer

Graphical Abstract:


Abstract:

Background: Breast cancer is the commonest cancer affecting Malaysian women, accounting for an estimated 30% of all new cancer diagnosed annually. Improvements in breast cancer management have increased the breast cancer survival rate in Malaysia. Clinical and radiological surveillance of the treated breast is vital, as early detection of recurrence improves patient’s survival rate.

Discussion: As surgery and radiotherapy alter the appearance of the breasts, distinguishing between recurrence and benign post-surgical changes can be challenging radiologically due to overlapping features. Despite this, differentiation between these two entities is usually possible by recognizing characteristic features of post-treatment sequelae and the evolution of the appearance of the conservatively treated breast by comparing interval findings on serial studies.

Conclusion: This pictorial review aims to describe the typical and unusual features of post-treated breasts in the multimodality imaging workup of an established breast care centre in a teaching hospital in Malaysia.

Keywords: Breast cancer, post-surgical changes, Breast Conservative Therapy (BCT), imaging follow-up, recurrence, radiotherapy.

[1]
Torre LA, Bray F, Siegel RL, Ferlay J, Lortet-Tieulent J, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2015; 65(2): 87-108.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3322/caac.21262] [PMID: 25651787]
[2]
Teh YC, Tan GH, Taib NA, et al. Opportunistic mammography screening provides effective detection rates in a limited resource healthcare system. BMC Cancer 2015; 15: 405.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12885-015-1419-2] [PMID: 25972043]
[3]
Fisher B. Twenty-year follow-up of a randomized trial com-paring total for the treatment of invasive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2002; 347(16): 1233-41.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa022152] [PMID: 12393820]
[4]
Cao JQ, Olson RA, Tyldesley SK. Comparison of recurrence and survival rates after breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy in young women with breast cancer. Curr Oncol 2013; 20(6): e593-601.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3747/co.20.1543] [PMID: 24311961]
[5]
Ojeda-Fournier H, Olson LK, Rochelle M, Hodgens BD, Tong E, Yashar CM. Accelerated partial breast irradiation and posttreatment imaging evaluation. Radiographics 2011; 31(6): 1701-16.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.316115517] [PMID: 21997990]
[6]
Ibrahim NB, Anandan S, Hartman AL, et al. Radiographic findings after treatment with balloon brachytherapy accelerated partial breast irradiation. Radiographics 2015; 35(1): 6-13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.351140131] [PMID: 25590384]
[7]
Chansakul T, Lai KC, Slanetz PJ. The postconservation breast: part 1, Expected imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198(2): 321-30.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.7298] [PMID: 22268174]
[8]
Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(7): 961-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.9859] [PMID: 23129741]
[9]
Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Gillan MGC, et al. Accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis for depicting breast cancer subgroups in a UK retrospective reading study. Radiology 2015; 277(3): 697-706.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015142566] [PMID: 26176654]
[10]
Hakim CM, Chough DM, Ganott MA, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis in the diagnostic environment : indications and clinical applications. Radiographics 2015; 35: 172-6.
[11]
Bernardi D, Caumo F, Macaskill P, et al. Effect of integrating 3D-mammography (digital breast tomosynthesis) with 2D-mammography on radiologists’ true-positive and false-positive detection in a population breast screening trial. Eur J Cancer 2014; 50(7): 1232-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2014.02.004] [PMID: 24582915]
[12]
Skaane P, Bandos A, Eben E. Jebsen in. Two-view digital breast tomosynthesis screening with synthetically recon-structed projection images: comparison with digital breast tomosynthesis with full-field digital. Radiology 2014; 271(3): 655-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131391] [PMID: 24484063]
[13]
Zuley ML, Guo B, Catullo VJ, et al. Comparison of two-dimensional synthesized mammograms versus original digital mammograms alone and in combination with tomosynthesis images. Radiology 2014; 271(3): 664-71.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13131530] [PMID: 24475859]
[14]
Rafferty EA, Park JM, Philpotts LE, et al. Assessing radiologist performance using combined digital mammography and breast tomosynthesis compared with digital mammography alone: results of a multicenter, multireader trial. Radiology 2013; 266(1): 104-13.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiol.12120674] [PMID: 23169790]
[15]
Sumkin JH, Ganott MA, Chough DM, et al. Recall rate reduc-tion with tomosynthesis during baseline screening examina-tions. Acad Radiol 2015; 22(12): 1477-82.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2015.08.015] [PMID: 26391857]
[16]
Yang SK, Cho N, Moon WK. The role of PET/CT for evaluating breast cancer. Korean J Radiol 2007; 8(5): 429-37.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2007.8.5.429] [PMID: 17923786]
[17]
Saif MW, Tzannou I, Makrilia N, Syrigos K. Role and cost effectiveness of PET/CT in management of patients with cancer. Yale J Biol Med 2010; 83(2): 53-65.
[PMID: 20589185]
[18]
Lim HS, Yoon W, Chung TW, et al. FDG PET/CT for the detection and evaluation of breast diseases: usefulness and limitations. Radiographics 2007; 27(Suppl. 1): S197-213.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.27si075507] [PMID: 18180227]
[19]
Grahek D, Montravers F, Kerrou K, Aide N, Lotz J-P, Talbot J-N. [18F]FDG in recurrent breast cancer: diagnostic performances, clinical impact and relevance of induced changes in management. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 2004; 31(2): 179-88.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00259-003-1348-1] [PMID: 15129699]
[20]
Chansakul T, Lai KC, Slanetz PJ. The postconservation breast: part 2, Imaging findings of tumor recurrence and other long-term sequelae. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012; 198(2): 331-43.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.6881] [PMID: 22268175]
[21]
Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am 1992; 30(1): 107-38.
[PMID: 1732922]
[22]
Vitug AF, Newman LA. Complications in breast surgery. Surg Clin North Am 2007; 87(2): 431-51.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.suc.2007.01.005] [PMID: 17498536]
[23]
Yeh ED, Jacene HA, Bellon JR, et al. What radiologists need to know about diagnosis and treatment of inflammatory breast cancer: a multidisciplinary approach. Radiographics 2013; 33(7): 2003-17.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.337135503] [PMID: 24224593]
[24]
Uematsu T. The emerging role of breast tomosynthesis. Breast Cancer 2013; 20(3): 204-12.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12282-013-0456-4] [PMID: 23456738]
[25]
Burrell HC, Sibbering DM, Wilson AR, et al. Screening interval breast cancers: mammographic features and prognosis factors. Radiology 1996; 199(3): 811-7.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiology.199.3.8638010] [PMID: 8638010]
[26]
Chala LF, de Barros N, de Camargo Moraes P, et al. Fat necrosis of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol 2004; 33(3): 106-26.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/j.cpradiol.2004.01.001] [PMID: 15215818]
[27]
Bilgen IG, Ustun EE, Memis A. Fat necrosis of the breast: clinical, mammographic and sonographic features. Eur J Radiol 2001; 39(2): 92-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0720-048X(00)00303-X] [PMID: 11522417]
[28]
Krishnamurthy R, Whitman GJ, Stelling CB, Kushwaha AC. Mammographic findings after breast conservation therapy. Radiographics 1999; 19: S53-62.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/radiographics.19.suppl_1.g99oc16s53] [PMID: 10517443]
[29]
Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, et al. Breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol 2013; 31(7): 961-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.45.9859] [PMID: 23129741]
[30]
Pinel-Giroux FM, El Khoury MM, Trop I, Bernier C, David J, Lalonde L. Breast reconstruction: review of surgical methods and spectrum of imaging findings. Radiographics 2013; 33(2): 435-53.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.332125108] [PMID: 23479706]
[31]
Margolis NE, Morley C, Lotfi P, et al. Update on imaging of the postsurgical breast. Radiographics 2014; 34(3): 642-60.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.343135059] [PMID: 24819786]
[32]
Goscin CP, Berman CG, Clark RA. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast. Cancer Contr 2001; 8(5): 399-406.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107327480100800502] [PMID: 11579335]
[33]
Roberts JM, Clark CJ, Campbell MJ, Paige KT. Incidence of abnormal mammograms after reduction mammoplasty: implications for oncoplastic closure. Am J Surg 2011; 201(5): 611-4.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2011.01.019] [PMID: 21545908]


Rights & PermissionsPrintExport Cite as

Article Details

VOLUME: 15
ISSUE: 9
Year: 2019
Page: [866 - 872]
Pages: 7
DOI: 10.2174/1573405614666180627101520
Price: $58

Article Metrics

PDF: 19
HTML: 1