Multimodality Review of Imaging Features Following Breast Reduction Surgery

Current State of Evidence-Based Long-Term Monitoring Protocols for Breast Plastic Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for breast surveillance following breast plastic surgery are frequently changing. Establishing guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols may help identify treatable conditions and prevent untoward sequelae. We sought to evaluate the current state of evidence-based long-term monitoring protocols for patients following breast augmentation, reduction, and breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Official guidelines from various American societies and international societies were analyzed for alignment in evidence-based recommendations regarding breast surveillance.

RESULTS

The most recent US FDA update recommends magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound starting 5-6 years after surgery and every 2-3 years thereafter. Discrepancies exist among professional societies: the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) aligns with the FDA, while the American Society of Breast Surgeons and American College of Radiology (ACR) find no role for imaging for asymptomatic cases. Ultrasound is first-line for any implant concerns, with MRI if necessary. European societies oppose routine breast implant imaging. Breast reduction patients lack unique screening protocols; monitoring aligns with age and cancer risk factors. Following mastectomy and breast reconstruction, most organizations advocate for annual clinical examinations, with more frequent examinations initially. Evidence suggests that physical examination is sufficient to detect local cancer recurrence, with imaging only indicated if there is concern for recurrence. No surveillance imaging is recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or ASPS; however, ACR recommends mammography for autologous reconstruction only.

CONCLUSION

Multispecialty and regulatory body alignment may promote provider and patient adherence. Ongoing studies of long-term outcomes are needed to strengthen the level of evidence for monitoring guidelines.

False-Positive and False-Negative Contrast-enhanced Mammograms: Pitfalls and Strategies to Improve Cancer Detection

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is a relatively new breast imaging modality that uses intravenous contrast material to increase detection of breast cancer. CEM combines the structural information of conventional mammography with the functional information of tumor neovascularity. Initial studies have demonstrated that CEM and MRI perform with similar accuracies, with CEM having a slightly higher specificity (fewer false positives), although larger studies are needed. There are various reasons for false positives and false negatives at CEM. False positives at CEM can be caused by benign lesions with vascularity, including benign tumors, infection or inflammation, benign lesions in the skin, and imaging artifacts. False negatives at CEM can be attributed to incomplete or inadequate visualization of lesions, marked background parenchymal enhancement (BPE) obscuring cancer, lack of lesion contrast enhancement due to technical issues or less-vascular cancers, artifacts, and errors of lesion perception or characterization. When possible, real-time interpretation of CEM studies is ideal. If additional views are necessary, they may be obtained while contrast material is still in the breast parenchyma. Until recently, a limitation of CEM was the lack of CEM-guided biopsy capability. However, in 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared two devices to support CEM-guided biopsy using a stereotactic biopsy technique. The authors review various causes of false-positive and false-negative contrast-enhanced mammograms and discuss strategies to reduce these diagnostic errors to improve cancer detection while mitigating unnecessary additional imaging and procedures. ©RSNA, 2023 Quiz questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Fat necrosis in the breast: a multimodality imaging review of its natural course with different aetiologies

Fat necrosis of the breast is a commonly encountered condition in daily practice. It is a benign pathology, but it can have variable manifestations and patterns that may sometimes mimic malignancy, depending on its stage of evolution and its underlying cause. This review demonstrates the wide spectrum of appearances of fat necrosis on mammography, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), ultrasound, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), computed tomography (CT), and positron-emission tomography (PET). Sequential follow-up images are included in some cases to illustrate the temporal change of the findings. The typical location and distribution of fat necrosis from a comprehensive list of aetiologies are discussed. Improved knowledge of the multimodality imaging features of fat necrosis could enhance diagnostic accuracy and clinical management, thus avoiding unnecessary invasive investigations.

Prediction of local breast cancer recurrence after surgery: the added value of diffusion tensor imaging

Background

There is considerable overlap between benign postoperative changes and recurrent breast cancer imaging features in patients surgically treated for breast cancer. This study aims to evaluate the value of adding multiple diffusion tensor imaging (DTI) parameters, including mean diffusivity (MD), fractional anisotropy (FA), radial diffusivity (RD), axial diffusivity, (AD), and relative anisotropy (RA) in differentiating breast cancer recurrence from postoperative changes in patients who were surgically treated for breast cancer and to also evaluate the role of these parameters in characterizing the different pathologies seen in the postoperative breast.

Results

This is a prospective study that was performed on female patients who were surgically treated for breast cancer. The study was done on 60 cases having 77 breast lesions. (Sixty-two of them were described as mass lesions and 15 of them were described as non-mass enhancement on MRI.) Among analyzed DTI parameters, MD showed the highest sensitivity (97.1%), specificity (88.1%), and accuracy (92.2%) in predicting recurrent breast cancer. FA, AD, and RD showed sensitivity (77.1%, 85.7%, and 88.6%) and specificity (83.3%, 83.3%, and 73.8%) in predicting recurrent breast cancer, respectively. The median MD values were lower in grade III recurrent breast cancers when compared to its values in recurrent grade II breast cancers and recurrent DCIS (0.6 × 10–3 mm2/s vs. 0.8 × 10–3 mm2/s and 0.9 × 10–3 mm2/s), respectively. FA also showed median values in grade III recurrent breast cancer higher than its values in grade II recurrent breast cancer and recurrent DCIS (0.6 vs. 0.5 and 0.39), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, F1 score, and MCC of DCE-MRI alone versus DCE-MRI plus combined DTI parameters were 88.6% versus 100%, 88.1% versus 90.5%, 86.1% versus 89.7%, 90.2% versus 100%, 88.3% versus 94.6%, 87.3% versus 94.6%, and 76.5% versus 90.1%, respectively.

Conclusions

DTI may play an important role as a complementary method to discriminate recurrent breast cancer from postoperative changes in patients surgically treated for previous breast cancer.