Abstract
Breast cancer treatment has evolved since William Halsted, MD, an American surgeon, introduced the radical mastectomy in 1882 (Halsted, Ann Surg 20:497, 1894). The modified radical mastectomy gained popularity in the 1970s (www.cancer.org/cancer/cancerbasics/thehistoryofcancer/the-history-of-cancer-cancer-treatment-surgery. Accessed 11/23/2015) and in 1985. Fisher et al. established lumpectomy, or breast conservation therapy (BCT), and radiation as treatment for early stage breast cancers (Fisher et al., N Engl J Med 312(11):665–673, 1985). The National Institutes of Health soon endorsed and thus popularized this less invasive treatment (Consensus statement: treatment of early-stage breast cancer. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Panel. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1992;11:1–5. Review). Today, while BCT and radiation remain the standard of care for stage I and II cancers, mastectomy and reconstruction procedures have been updated and rising ipsilateral and contralateral prophylactic mastectomy rates have been documented (Jones et al., Ann Surg Oncol 16(10):2691–2696, 2009; Tuttle et al., J Clin Oncol 25(33):5203–5209, 2007; McGuire et al., Ann Surg Oncol 16(10):2682–2690, 2009; Dragun et al., Am J Clin Oncol 36(4):375–380, 2013).
As women survive their breast cancers and continue screening with mammogram, ultrasound and often MRI, differentiating multi-modality post-operative and post-radiation changes from signs of malignancy is key both for the avoidance of unnecessary biopsies and for the early detection of subsequent cancers in this elevated risk population. In this chapter, we will cover normal post-lumpectomy and post-radiation findings on mammogram, ultrasound, and MRI and contrast these post-treatment changes with imaging features of recurrent cancers. We will also discuss mastectomy techniques, including the modified radical mastectomy and skin- and nipple-sparing mastectomies together with autologous and implant reconstructions, along with tips for avoiding common pitfalls.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Morrow M, Strom EA, Bassett LW, et al. Standard for breast conservation therapy in the management of invasive breast carcinoma. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52:277–300.
Tatter PI, Kaplan J, Bleiweiss I, et al. Lumpectomy margins, reexcision, and local recurrence of breast cancer. Am J Surg. 2000;179:81–5.
Moran MS, Schnitt SJ, Giuliano AE, et al. Society of Surgical Oncology-American Society for Radiation Oncology consensus guideline on margins for breast-conserving surgery with whole-breast irradiation in stages I and II invasive breast cancer. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2014;88(3):553–64.
Merrill AL, Coopey SB, Tang R, et al. Implications of new lumpectomy margin guidelines for breast conservation surgery: changes in reexcision rates and predicted rates of residual tumor. Ann Surg Oncol. 2015;23(3):729–34 [Epub ahead of print].
Mendelson EB. Evaluation of the postoperative breast. Radiol Clin North Am. 1992;30:107–38.
Dershaw DD. Mammography in patients with breast cancer treated with breast conservation (lumpectomy with or without radiation). AJR. 1995;164:309–16.
Gutierrez R, Horst KC, Dirbas FM, Ikeda DM. Breast imaging following breast conservation therapy. Breast surgical techniques and interdisciplinary management. F.M. Dirbas and C.E.H. Scott-Conner (eds.) Springer 2011 Edition. DOI 10.1007/978-1-4419-6076-4_81
Rahbar H, Partridge SC, DeMartini WB, Thursten B, Lehman CD. Clinical and technical considerations for high quality breast MRI at 3 Tesla. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2013;37(4):778–90. doi:10.1002/jmri.23834.
Bedair R, Graves MJ, Patterson AJ, McLean MA, Manavaki R, Wallace T, Reid S, Mendichovszky I, Griffiths J, Gilbert FJ. Effect of radiofrequency transmit field correction on quantitative dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast at 3.0 T. Radiology. 2015;279(2):368–77, 150920.
Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrence in patients treated by breast-conservation therapy in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27(15):2466–73.
Ingham SL, Sperrin M, Baildam A, Ross GL, Clayton R, Lalloo F, et al. Risk-reducing surgery increases survival in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers unaffected at time of family referral. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;142:611–8.
Loukas M, Tubbs RS, Mirzayan N, Shirak M, Steinberg A, Shoja MM. The history of mastectomy. Am Surg. 2011;77(5):566–71.
Toth BA, Lappert P. Modified skin incisions for mastectomy: the need for plastic surgical input in preoperative planning. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1991;87(6):1048–53.
Voltura AM, Tsangaris TN, Rosson GD, Jacobs LK, Flores JI, Singh NK, Argani P, Balch CM. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: critical assessment of 51 procedures and implications for selection criteria. Ann Surg Oncol. 2008;15(12):3396–401.
Torresan RZ, dos Santos CC, Okamura H, Alvarenga M. Evaluation of residual glandular tissue after skin-sparing mastectomies. Ann Surg Oncol. 2005;12(12):1037–44.
Chung AP, Sacchini V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy: where are we now? Surg Oncol. 2008 Dec;17(4):261–6.
Benediktsson KP, Perbeck L. Survival in breast cancer after nipple-sparing subcutaneous mastectomy and immediate reconstruction with implants: a prospective trial with 13 years median follow-up in 216 patients. Eur J Surg Oncol. 2008;34:143–8.
Jatoi I, Kaufmann M, Petit JY. Atlas of breast surgery. Heidelberg: Springer; 2006.
Sternberg EG, Perdikis G, McLaughlin SA, Terkonda SP, Waldorf JC. Latissimus dorsi flap remains an excellent choice for breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2006;56(1):31–5.
Garvey PB, Buchel EW, Pockaj BA, et al. DIEP and pedicled TRAM flaps: a comparison of outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(6):1711–9 ; discussion 1720–1721.
Tachi M, Yamada A. Choice of flaps for breast reconstruction. Int J Clin Oncol. 2005;10(5):289–97.
Surgeons ASoP. 2014 Reconstructive Plastic Surgery Statistics 2014.
Albornoz CR, Bach PB, Mehrara BJ, et al. A paradigm shift in U.S. Breast reconstruction: increasing implant rates. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;131(1):15–23.
Serletti JM, Fosnot J, Nelson JA, Disa JJ, Bucky LP. Breast reconstruction after breast cancer. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(6):124e–35e; Colwell AS. Current strategies with 1-stage prosthetic breast reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2015;4(2):111–5.
Stevens WG, Hirsch EM, Tenenbaum MJ, Acevedo M. A prospective study of 708 form-stable silicone gel breast implants. Aesthet Surg J. 2010;30(5):693–701.
Walker PS, Walls B, DK M. Silicone implants Natrelle saline-filled breast implants: a prospective 10-year study. Aesthet Surg J. 2009;29(1):19–25.
Hölmich LR, Friis S, Fryzek JP, et al. Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture. Arch Surg. 2003;138(7):801–6.
Cunningham B, McCue J. Safety and effectiveness of Mentor’s MemoryGel implants at 6 years. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2009;33(3):440–4.
Juanpere S, Perez E, Huc O, et al. Imaging of breast implants—a pictorial review. Insights Imaging. 2011;2(6):653–70.
Nimboriboonporn A, Chuthapisith S. Nipple-areola complex reconstruction. Gland Surg. 2014;3(1):35–42.
Honegger MM, Hesseltine SM, Gross JD, Singer C, Cohen JM. Tattoo pigment mimicking axillary lymph node calcifications on mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2004;183(3):831–2.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Melsaether, A., Gao, Y. (2017). Post-operative Findings/Recurrent Disease. In: Heller, S., Moy, L. (eds) Breast Oncology: Techniques, Indications, and Interpretation. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42563-4_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42563-4_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-42561-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-42563-4
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)