Ipsilateral breast cancer recurrence after Deep Inferior Epigastric Perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction: Incidence and radiological presentation.

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence and presentation of ipsilateral cancer recurrences (ICR) after deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap reconstruction for breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 247 consecutive women with DIEP flap reconstruction after breast cancer in our institution between 1997 and 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: Mean follow-up time was 4.1years±3.2 (SD) (median: 3years; range: 1month - 14years). Thirty-one patients (12.5%, 95%CI: =8.7-17.3) presented 34 relapses, in average 4.1years±2.6 after mastectomy: 14 (41%) were ipsilateral, 6 (18%) contralateral and 14 (41%) metastatic. ICRs occurred earlier (3.9 vs. 5.8years; P<0.05) than non-ICRs. Most ICRs (10/14, 71%) involved the periphery of the flap and presented as palpable nodules. The remaining (4/14, 29%) involved the axilla and 3/4 (75%) were palpable. Imaging procedures detected infra-clinical ICRs in 3 of 10 imaged patients (30%). CONCLUSION: ICRs after DIEP flap reconstruction are more frequent than contralateral recurrences suggesting the need for imaging follow-up of the reconstructed breast.

Breast tomosynthesis: Dosimetry and image quality assessment on phantom.

PURPOSE: To evaluate using phantom study the average glandular dose (AGD) and image quality in breast tomosynthesis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was performed with a full-field digital mammography system (Mammomat Inspiration(®), Siemens, Erlangen, Germany) combined with tomosynthesis equipment (3D). For AGD evaluation, polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) plates and a dosimeter were used to directly measure the absorbed doses in 2D and in 3D. The doses were then compared to the doses displayed on the equipment using the Mann-Whitney test. Three phantoms, accredited for 2D digital mammography (MTM 100, ACR RMI 156, BR3D), were imaged three times in 2D then in 3D. For each acquisition, the AGD was recorded. For image quality assessment, scores, defined by the rate of visible inserts, obtained for each acquisition both in 2D and in 3D, and for each phantom, were compared (Kruskall-Wallis and post-hoc Dunn tests). RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the measured and displayed AGD, both in 2D and in 3D imaging (P>0.05). With identical acquisition parameters, AGD were significantly greater in 3D than in 2D P<0.01). For phantoms MTM 100 and ACR RMI 156, there was no significant difference between the rate of visible inserts in 2D and in 3D (P=0.06 and P=0.36, respectively). However for phantom BR3D, the rate was significantly higher in 3D than in 2D (P<0.0001). CONCLUSION: Doses are significantly greater in 3D than in 2D. With tomosynthesis, out of the three phantoms tested, only phantom BR3D showed a higher rate of visible inserts.