BACKGROUND: Currently, no standard guidelines exist regarding routine screening imaging in breast cancer patients following autologous reconstruction. Concern over nonpalpable chest wall recurrence has prompted many to pursue screening imaging. We analyzed the pattern of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and yield of screening imaging and exam in these patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who had mastectomy with autologous reconstruction between 2000 and 2009. Presentation of LRR and utility of imaging and breast exam were analyzed. Screening mammography was performed at the discretion of the treating physicians. RESULTS: A total of 615 patients were identified and follow-up data were available for 541. Median follow-up from time of reconstruction was 7 years. Twenty-seven patients developed a LRR (5.0 %). Among patients screened with mammography (n = 397), an abnormality led to 25 biopsies in 25 patients, and 2 were malignant (8 %). Among patients receiving routine clinical exam (n = 537), an abnormality led to 77 biopsies in 66 patients, and 30 were malignant (39 %). The median time from cancer surgery to LRR was 2.6 years. LRR was detected on clinical exam in 24 of 27 patients (88.9 %). Screening mammography detected two recurrences that were palpable on follow-up exam. One patient had an incidental chest wall recurrence found on PET/CT. In summary, 26 of 27 (96.3 %) patients had a clinically detectable LRR. CONCLUSIONS: Diligent surveillance with clinical breast exam is a reliable method of detecting LRR after autologous reconstruction, identifying 96.3 % of recurrences in our study. Our results do not support routine mammographic screening in this population.
BACKGROUND: Currently, no standard guidelines exist regarding routine screening imaging in breast cancerpatients following autologous reconstruction. Concern over nonpalpable chest wall recurrence has prompted many to pursue screening imaging. We analyzed the pattern of locoregional recurrence (LRR) and yield of screening imaging and exam in these patients. METHODS: We performed a retrospective chart review of all patients who had mastectomy with autologous reconstruction between 2000 and 2009. Presentation of LRR and utility of imaging and breast exam were analyzed. Screening mammography was performed at the discretion of the treating physicians. RESULTS: A total of 615 patients were identified and follow-up data were available for 541. Median follow-up from time of reconstruction was 7 years. Twenty-seven patients developed a LRR (5.0 %). Among patients screened with mammography (n = 397), an abnormality led to 25 biopsies in 25 patients, and 2 were malignant (8 %). Among patients receiving routine clinical exam (n = 537), an abnormality led to 77 biopsies in 66 patients, and 30 were malignant (39 %). The median time from cancer surgery to LRR was 2.6 years. LRR was detected on clinical exam in 24 of 27 patients (88.9 %). Screening mammography detected two recurrences that were palpable on follow-up exam. One patient had an incidental chest wall recurrence found on PET/CT. In summary, 26 of 27 (96.3 %) patients had a clinically detectable LRR. CONCLUSIONS: Diligent surveillance with clinical breast exam is a reliable method of detecting LRR after autologous reconstruction, identifying 96.3 % of recurrences in our study. Our results do not support routine mammographic screening in this population.