Literature DB >> 26688680

Imaging Results Following Oncoplastic and Standard Breast Conserving Surgery.

Ross Dolan1, Meera Patel1, Eva Weiler-Mithoff2, James Mansell1, Sheila Stallard3, Julie C Doughty3, Laszlo Romics1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery (OBCS) requires more complex surgical techniques than standard wide local excision (WLE) and the postoperative complication rate may be higher. Since these can have an impact on postoperative imaging, we compared imaging and biopsy results after OBCS and WLE.
METHODS: Findings for patients undergoing OBCS (n = 83) or standard WLE (n = 128) were compared. Numbers, indications and outcomes of mammograms, breast ultrasounds, magnetic resonance imaging scans and biopsies done within 2 years after surgery were analysed.
RESULTS: OBCS was applied for more advanced malignancy. Significantly more patients required breast ultrasound after OBCS than WLE (20/71 vs. 17/116; p = 0.024). Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 3 or 4 ultrasound results were found only in patients with OBCS (6/29 vs. 0/19; p = 0.034). Significantly more biopsies were required after OBCS (9/71 vs. 3/116; p = 0.006). New lumps or lumpiness were the commonest indications, and pathology confirmed fat necrosis in the majority (7/12). The rate of fat necrosis after OBCS was 18% on clinical examination (13/71), 15% with ultrasound (11/71) and 7% confirmed on pathology (5/71).
CONCLUSION: Patients treated with OBCS require significantly more ultrasound scans and consequent biopsies than patients who underwent WLE. This is mainly due to fat necrosis developing after OBCS in the majority of cases.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Biopsy; Breast conserving; Breast ultrasound; Mammogram; Oncoplastic

Year:  2015        PMID: 26688680      PMCID: PMC4677719          DOI: 10.1159/000437105

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)        ISSN: 1661-3791            Impact factor:   2.860


  18 in total

1.  How to compare the oncological safety of oncoplastic breast conservation surgery - To wide local excision or mastectomy?

Authors:  J Mansell; E Weiler-Mithoff; J Martin; A Khan; S Stallard; J C Doughty; L Romics
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2015-05-23       Impact factor: 4.380

2.  Therapeutic mammaplasty--analysis of 50 consecutive cases.

Authors:  S J McCulley; R D Macmillan
Journal:  Br J Plast Surg       Date:  2005-10

3.  Long-term oncological results of breast conservative treatment with oncoplastic surgery.

Authors:  M Rietjens; C A Urban; P C Rey; G Mazzarol; P Maisonneuve; C Garusi; M Intra; S Yamaguchi; N Kaur; F De Lorenzi; A G Z Matthes; S Zurrida; J Y Petit
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2007-03-26       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Improving breast cancer surgery: a classification and quadrant per quadrant atlas for oncoplastic surgery.

Authors:  Krishna B Clough; Gabriel J Kaufman; Claude Nos; Ines Buccimazza; Isabelle M Sarfati
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2010-02-06       Impact factor: 5.344

5.  Oncoplastic and reconstructive surgery of the breast.

Authors:  Moustapha Hamdi
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2013-08       Impact factor: 4.380

6.  Oncoplastic breast conservation does not lead to a delay in the commencement of adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  J Khan; J Kahn; S Barrett; C Forte; S Stallard; E Weiler-Mithoff; J C Doughty; L Romics
Journal:  Eur J Surg Oncol       Date:  2013-06-05       Impact factor: 4.424

7.  Surgical, oncologic, and cosmetic differences between oncoplastic and nononcoplastic breast conserving surgery in breast cancer patients.

Authors:  Patty L Tenofsky; Phaedra Dowell; Terri Topalovski; Stephen D Helmer
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2013-12-25       Impact factor: 2.565

8.  Qualitative mammographic findings and outcomes of surveillance mammography after partial breast reconstruction with an autologous flap.

Authors:  V K Tan; E J Cornford; S J McCulley; R D Macmillan
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-12-09       Impact factor: 3.454

9.  Bilateral reduction mammoplasty in combination with lumpectomy for treatment of breast cancer in patients with macromastia.

Authors:  Eugene Chang; Nathalie Johnson; Bruce Webber; James Booth; Dina Rahhal; David Gannett; William Johnson; Daisy Franzini; Henry Zegzula
Journal:  Am J Surg       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 2.565

Review 10.  Therapeutic mammaplasty.

Authors:  R D Macmillan; R James; K L Gale; S J McCulley
Journal:  J Surg Oncol       Date:  2014-05-29       Impact factor: 3.454

View more
  6 in total

Review 1.  Oncoplastic partial breast reconstruction: concepts and techniques.

Authors:  Carrie K Chu; Summer E Hanson; Rosa F Hwang; Liza C Wu
Journal:  Gland Surg       Date:  2021-01

Review 2.  Innovative Standards in Oncoplastic Breast Conserving Surgery: From Radical Mastectomy to Extreme Oncoplasty.

Authors:  Guldeniz Karadeniz Cakmak
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2021-09-16       Impact factor: 2.860

Review 3.  Oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery for women with primary breast cancer.

Authors:  Akriti Nanda; Jesse Hu; Sarah Hodgkinson; Sanah Ali; Richard Rainsbury; Pankaj G Roy
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2021-10-29

Review 4.  Magnetic Resonance Imaging after Breast Oncoplastic Surgery: An Update.

Authors:  Silvia Gigli; Maria I Amabile; Francesca Di Pastena; Lucia Manganaro; Emanuele David; Massimo Monti; Valerio DʼOrazi; Carlo Catalano; Laura Ballesio
Journal:  Breast Care (Basel)       Date:  2017-08-10       Impact factor: 2.860

5.  Fat necrosis in the Breast: A systematic review of clinical.

Authors:  Narges Vasei; Azita Shishegar; Forouzan Ghalkhani; Mohammad Darvishi
Journal:  Lipids Health Dis       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 3.876

6.  Dual-Layer Rotation: A Versatile Therapeutic Mammoplasty Technique.

Authors:  Sarianna Joukainen; Elina Laaksonen; Ritva Vanninen; Outi Kaarela; Mazen Sudah
Journal:  Ann Surg Oncol       Date:  2022-06-16       Impact factor: 4.339

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.