Kyoko Kobe1, Takafumi Chin, Ritsu Aoki, Hiko Hyakusoku. 1. Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Nippon Medical School Hospital, 1-1-5, Sendagi, Bunkyo-ku, Tokyo, 113-8603, Japan. s8038@nms.ac.jp
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Various materials and methods have been used for augmentation mammaplasty since it was first performed in Japan in the late 1940s. Although augmentation mammaplasty is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, a number of studies have reported that breast implants, or subsequent changes around these foreign substances, can affect images made by mammography, CT, or MRI during breast cancer screening. A method that is increasingly being used to detect cancer is positron emission tomography (PET). METHODS: To determine the effect of augmentation mammaplasty on PET imaging, we subjected ten women who had previously undergone augmentation mammaplasty to PET imaging as well as other imaging methods. We also measured tumor markers and performed pathologic studies. RESULTS: The histologic analyses failed to detect any cases of malignancy. We assess the efficacy of PET for detecting breast cancer in women who had undergone augmentation mammaplasty and describe the features of the PET images of these women. Finally, we discuss future research objectives in relation to PET-based screening for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: It is important to identify an imaging methodology that improves the detection of breast cancer in patients with a previous mammaplasty. We show here that FDG-PET may improve breast cancer detection after mammaplasty.
BACKGROUND: Various materials and methods have been used for augmentation mammaplasty since it was first performed in Japan in the late 1940s. Although augmentation mammaplasty is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer, a number of studies have reported that breast implants, or subsequent changes around these foreign substances, can affect images made by mammography, CT, or MRI during breast cancer screening. A method that is increasingly being used to detect cancer is positron emission tomography (PET). METHODS: To determine the effect of augmentation mammaplasty on PET imaging, we subjected ten women who had previously undergone augmentation mammaplasty to PET imaging as well as other imaging methods. We also measured tumor markers and performed pathologic studies. RESULTS: The histologic analyses failed to detect any cases of malignancy. We assess the efficacy of PET for detecting breast cancer in women who had undergone augmentation mammaplasty and describe the features of the PET images of these women. Finally, we discuss future research objectives in relation to PET-based screening for breast cancer. CONCLUSION: It is important to identify an imaging methodology that improves the detection of breast cancer in patients with a previous mammaplasty. We show here that FDG-PET may improve breast cancer detection after mammaplasty.