Korean Journal of Radiology

The Korean Society of Radiology (대한영상의학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Imaging Surveillance After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Cancer With Acellular Dermal Matrix Reconstruction

  • Da Won Jung (Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Jin Chung (Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Ji Min Kim (Department of Pathology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Eun Suk Cha (Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital) ;
  • Jeoung Hyun Kim (Department of Radiology, Ewha Womans University Mokdong Hospital)
  • Received : 2023.06.24
  • Accepted : 2024.08.17
  • Published : 2024.11.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breast-conserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images. Materials and Methods: This study included 201 women (age range: 28-81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®. Results: MegaDerm® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up. Conclusion: Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient's history of MegaDerm® insertion when in doubt.

Keywords

References

  1. Kim MK, Kim T, Moon HG, Jin US, Kim K, Kim J, et al. Effect of cosmetic outcome on quality of life after breast cancer surgery. Eur J Surg Oncol 2015;41:426-432  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejso.2014.12.002
  2. Citgez B, Yigit B, Bas S. Oncoplastic and reconstructive breast surgery: a comprehensive review. Cureus 2022;14:e21763 
  3. Macadam SA, Lennox PA. Acellular dermal matrices: use in reconstructive and aesthetic breast surgery. Can J Plast Surg 2012;20:75-89  https://doi.org/10.1177/229255031202000201
  4. Franceschini G, Masetti R. Acellular dermal matrix as filler in breast-conserving surgery: warnings for a careful use. World J Surg Oncol 2021;19:1 
  5. An J, Kwon H, Lim W, Moon BI, Paik NS. The comparison of breast reconstruction using two types of acellular dermal matrix after breast-conserving surgery. J Clin Med 2021;10:3430 
  6. Kim YS, Lee WS, Park BY, Choi M, Lee JH, Bae YK, et al. Abnormal ultrasonographic findings of acellular dermal matrix in implant-based breast reconstruction: correlations with histopathology. J Clin Med 2022;11:1057 
  7. Yoon JH, Kim MJ, Kim EK, Moon HJ. Imaging surveillance of patients with breast cancer after primary treatment: current recommendations. Korean J Radiol 2015;16:219-228  https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2015.16.2.219
  8. Nguyen DL, Oluyemi E, Myers KS, Panigrahi B, Mullen LA, Ambinder EB. Disparities associated with patient adherence of post-breast-conserving surgery surveillance imaging protocols. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:1540-1546  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2021.07.009
  9. An YY, Hwang H, Suh YJ. What should we know in postoperative surveillance imaging after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery with pellet-type acellular dermal matrix? Acad Radiol 2023;30(Suppl 2):S16-S24  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2023.04.010
  10. Lee CB, Kim YS, Lee SE. Imaging features of volume replacement using an acellular dermal matrix in oncoplastic breast conserving surgery: a case report. Radiol Case Rep 2022;17:2146-2149  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radcr.2022.03.003
  11. Lee HS, Kim KS. [Follow-up after volume replacement using acellular dermal matrix in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery]. Clin Ultrasound 2022;7:54-57. Korean  https://doi.org/10.18525/cu.2022.7.1.54
  12. Demetri-Lewis A, Slanetz PJ, Eisenberg RL. Breast calcifications: the focal group. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2012;198:W325-W343  https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.5732
  13. Aleem J, Rehman S, Shafqat M, Zahra H, Ashraf J, Niazi IK. Recurrence yield of stereotactic biopsy of suspicious calcifications after breast conservation therapy. Cureus 2022;14:e24318 
  14. Heaney RM, Sweeney L, Flanagan F, O'Brien A, Smith C. Ipsilateral microcalcifications after breast-conserving surgery: is it possible to differentiate benign from malignant calcifications? Clin Radiol 2022;77:216-223  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2021.12.005
  15. Gwak H, Jeon YW, Lim ST, Park SY, Suh YJ. Volume replacement with diced acellular dermal matrix in oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery: a prospective single-center experience. World J Surg Oncol 2020;18:60