Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Breast Imaging in Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery

  • 1458 Accesses

Abstract

The incidence of breast cancer has increased all over the world, which can be a result of social-demographic changes and access to health-care services. Despite the increase in the incidence of breast cancer, an increase in mortality rate in developed countries has not been observed. Mammography is, currently, the most important method in breast evaluation. Other diagnostic methods, such as ultrasound, magnetic resonance, scintigraphy, tomosynthesis, and PET-CT, are used as auxiliary methods in the diagnosis of breast cancer, and they are chosen according to the characteristics of the lesion that will be evaluated. There are two different levels of approach for breast evaluation, which have an influence on the choice of imaging methods: Asymptomatic patient evaluation for breast cancer screening and symptomatic patient to diagnose either a benign or a malignant tumor. Indications and limits were described here in order to help the surgeon in their decisions and surgical planning.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 189.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Veronesi U et al (2005) Breast cancer. Lancet 365:1727–1741

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Jemal A et al (2005) Cancer statistic, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 55:10–30

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Myers ER, Moorman P, Gierisch JM et al (2015) Benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a systematic review. JAMA 314:1615–1634

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Feig SA (2014) Screening mammography benefit controversies: sorting the evidence. Radiol Clin North Am 52:455–480

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Tabar L, Chen TH, Hsu CY et al (2017) Evaluation issues in the Swedish Two-County trial of breast cancer screening: an historical review. J Med Screen 24:27–33

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. D’Orsi CJ, Sickles EA, Mendelson EB, Morris EA et al (2013) ACR BI-RADS atlas, breast imaging reporting and data system. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA

    Google Scholar 

  7. Chu KC, Smart CR, Taronev RE (1998) Analysis of breast cancer mortality and stage distribution by age for the health Insurance Plan Clinical Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 80:1125–1132

    Google Scholar 

  8. Andersson I, Janzon L (1997) Reduced breast cancer mortality in women under age 50: update results from the Malmo Mammographic Screening Program. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997(22):63–67

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bjurstam N et al (1997) The Gothenburg breast screening trial: first results on mortality, incidence, and mode of detection for women ages 39–49 years at randomization. Cancer 80:2091–2099

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Brown D (2000) Death rates from breast cancer fall by a third. BMJ 321:849

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Frisell J et al (1997) Follow-up after 11 years: update of mortality results in the Stockholm Mammographic Screening Trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat 45:263–270

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Jackman VP (2002) Screening mammography: controversies and headlines. Radiology 225:323–326

    Google Scholar 

  13. Miller AB et al (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study I: breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 40-49 years. Can Med Assoc J 147:1459–1476

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Miller AB et al (1992) Canadian National Breast Screening Study II: breast cancer detection and death rates among women aged 50-59 years. Can Med Assoc J 147:1447–1488

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tabar L et al (1995) Efficacy of breast cancer screening by age: new results from the Swedish two-county trial. Cancer 75:2507–2517

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Liberman L (2004) Breast cancer screening with MRI: what are the data for patients at high risk? N Engl J Med 351:497–500

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shapiro S (1977) Evidence on screening for breast cancer from a randomized trial. Cancer 39:2772

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shapiro S, Strax P, Venet L et al (1982) Ten- to fourteen-year effect of screening on breast cancer mortality. J Natl Cancer Inst 69:349–355

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Crystal P et al (2003) Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breast. AJR 181:177–182

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (2002) Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination and breast US, and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patients’ evaluations. Radiology 225:165–175

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Kriege R et al (2004) Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:425–437

    Google Scholar 

  22. Warner E et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA2 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 292:1713–1725

    Google Scholar 

  23. Kuhl CK et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familiar risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Riedl CC, Luft N, Bernhart C et al (2015) Triple-modality screening trial for familial breast cancer underlines the importance of magnetic resonance imaging and questions the role of mammography and ultrasound regardless of patient mutation status, age, and breast density. J Clin Oncol 33:1128–1135

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Urban LABD, Schaefer MB, Duarte DL et al (2012) Recommendations of Colégio Brasileiro de Radiologia e Diagnóstico por Imagem, Sociedade Brasileira de Mastologia, and Federação Brasileira das Associações de Ginecologia e Obstetrícia for imaging screening for breast cancer. Radiol Bras 45:334–339

    Google Scholar 

  26. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R et al (2002) Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 225:176–181

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Stravos TM et al (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196:123–134

    Google Scholar 

  28. Rahbar H et al (1999) Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 213:889–894

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Hylton N (2005) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: opportunities to improve breast cancer management. J Clin Oncol 23:1678–1684

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kuhl CK et al (1997) Healthy premenopausal breast parenchyma in dynamic contrast-enhanced MR imaging of the breast: normal contrast medium enhancement and cyclical-phase dependency. Radiology 203:137–144

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Muller-Schimpfle M et al (1997) Menstrual cycle and age: influence on parenchymal contrast medium enhancement in mr imaging of the breast. Radiology 203:145–149

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Orel SG et al (1997) Breast MR imaging interpretation model. Radiology 202:833–841

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Fischer U, Kopka L, Grabbe E (1999) Breast carcinoma: effect of preoperative contrast-enhanced MR imaging on the therapeutic approach. Radiology 213:881–888

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Kuhl CK et al (1999) Dynamic breast MR imaging: are signal intensity time course data useful for differential diagnosis of enhancing lesions? Radiology 211:101–110

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Warner E et al (2001) Comparison of breast magnetic resonance imaging, mammography, and ultrasound for surveillance of women at high risk for hereditary breast cancer. J Clinl Oncol 19:3524–3531

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C et al (2004) Magnetic Resonance Imaging Screening Study Group. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 351:427–437

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Leutner CC et al (2005) Mammography, breast ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging for surveillance of women at high familial risk for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:8469–8476

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK et al (2005) Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 365:1769–1778

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA et al (2004) Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. J Am Med Assoc 292:1317–1325

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Sardanelli F, Podo F, D’Agnolo G et al (2007) High breast cancer risk Italian trial. Multicenter comparative multimodality surveillance of women at genetic-familial high risk for breast cancer (HIBCRIT study): interim results. Radiology 242:698–715

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Lehman CD, Isaacs C, Schnall MD et al (2007) Cancer yield of mammography, MR, and US in high-risk women: prospective multi-institution breast cancer screening study. Radiology 244:381–388

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Kuhl C, Weigel S, Schrading S et al (2010) Prospective multicenter cohort study to refine management recommendations for women at elevated familial risk of breast cancer: the EVA trial. J Clin Oncol 20:1450–1457

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lee CH, Dershaw D, Kopens D et al (2010) Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer. J Am Coll Radiol 7:18–27

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Warner E, Yaffe M, Andrews KS et al (2007) American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography. CA Cancer J Clin 57:75–89

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Stomper PC et al (1999) Breast MRI in the evaluation of patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Breast J 5:230–234

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Schorn C et al (1999) MRI of the breast in patients with metastatic disease of unknown primary. Eur Radiol 9:470–473

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Morris E et al (1997) MR imaging of the breast in patients with occult primary breast carcinoma. Radiology 205:437–440

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Orel S et al (1999) Breast MR imaging in patients with axillary node metastases and unknown primary malignancy. Radiology 212:543–549

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Fischer U et al (2004) The influence of preoperative MRI of the breasts on recurrence rate in patients with breast cancer. Eur Radiol 14(10):1725–1731

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Kuhl CK, Schmiedel A, Morakkabati N et al (2002) Breast MR imaging of the asymptomatic contralateral breast in the work up or follow-up of patients with unilateral breast cancer. (abstr) Radiology 217[P]:268

    Google Scholar 

  51. Liberman L, Moris EA, Kim CM et al (2003) MR imaging findings in the contralateral breast in women with recently diagnosed breast cancer. AJR 180:333–341

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Turnbull L, Brown S, Harvey I et al (2010) Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet 375:563–571

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tan MP (2009) An algorithm for the integration of breast magnetic resonance imaging into clinical practice. Am J Surg 197:691–694

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Sardanelli F et al (2010) Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer 46:1296–1316

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Pickles M et al (2005) Role of dynamic contrast enhanced MRI in monitoring early response of locally advanced breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Breast Cancer Res Treat 91:01–10

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Rieber A, Brambs HJ, Gabelmann A et al (2002) Breast MRI for monitoring response of primary breast cancer to neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Eur Radiol 12:1711–1719

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Martincich L et al (2004) Monitoring response to primary chemotherapy in breast cancer using dynamic contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast Cancer Res Treat 83:67–76

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Morrogh M, Morris EA, Liberman L et al (2007) The predictive value of ductography and magnetic resonance imaging in the management of nipple discharge. Ann Surg Oncol 14:3369–3378

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Dershaw D (2002) Breast imaging and the conservative treatment of breast cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 40:501–516

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Berg WA, Nguyen TK, Middleton MS, Soo MS et al (2002) MR imaging of extra-capsular silicon from breast implant: diagnostic pitfalls. AJR 178:465–472

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Kuhl C, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Cher DJ, Conwell JA, Mandel JS (2001) MRI for detecting silicone breast implant rupture: meta-analysis and implications. Ann Plast Surg 47:367–380

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Hölmich LH et al (2005) The diagnosis of breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 54:583–589

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Mc Carthy MC, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL (2008) Silicone breast implants and magnetic resonance imaging screening for rupture: do US Food and Drug Administration recommendations reflect an evidence-based practice approach to patient care? Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1127–1134

    CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Radiology, DAPI Clinic, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil

    Linei Urban

  2. Breast Unit, Our Lady of Grace Hospital and Positivo University Medical School, Curitiba, Brazil

    Cicero Urban

Authors
  1. Linei Urban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Cicero Urban
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Our Lady of Grace Hospital, Positivo University, Curitiba, Brazil

    Cicero Urban

  2. Plastic and Reconstructive Division, European Institute of Oncology, Milan, Italy

    Mario Rietjens

  3. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA

    Mahmoud El-Tamer

  4. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, USA

    Virgilio S. Sacchini

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Urban, L., Urban, C. (2019). Breast Imaging in Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. In: Urban, C., Rietjens, M., El-Tamer, M., Sacchini, V.S. (eds) Oncoplastic and Reconstructive Breast Surgery. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62927-8_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-62927-8_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-62925-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-62927-8

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation