Use of Screening Mammography to Detect Occult Malignancy in Autologous Breast Reconstructions: A 15-year Experience.

Purpose To examine how often screening mammography depicts clinically occult malignancy in breast reconstruction with autologous myocutaneous flaps (AMFs). Materials and Methods Between January 1, 2000, and July 15, 2015, the authors retrospectively identified 515 women who had undergone mammography of 618 AMFs and who had at least 1 year of clinical follow-up. Of the 618 AMFs, 485 (78.5%) were performed after mastectomy for cancer and 133 (21.5%) were performed after prophylactic mastectomy. Medical records were used to determine the frequency, histopathologic characteristics, presentation, time to recurrence, and detection modality of malignancy. Cancer detection rate (CDR), sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and false-positive biopsy rate were calculated. Results An average of 6.7 screening mammograms (range, 1-16) were obtained over 15.5 years. The frequency of local-regional recurrence (LRR) was 3.9% (20 of 515 women; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.2%, 5.6%); all LRRs were invasive, and none were detected in the breast mound after prophylactic mastectomy. Of the 20 women with LRR, 13 (65%) were screened annually before the diagnosis. Seven of those 13 women (54%) had clinically occult LRR, and mammography depicted five. Five of the six clinically evident recurrences (83%) were interval cancers. The median time between reconstruction and first recurrence was 4.4 years (range, 0.8-16.2 years). The CDR per AMF was 1.5 per 1000 screening mammograms (five of 3358; 95% CI: 0.18, 2.8) after mastectomy for cancer and 0 of 1000 examinations (0 of 805 mammograms; 95% CI: 0, 5) after prophylactic mastectomy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and false-positive biopsy rate were 42% (five of 12), 99.4% (4125 of 4151), 16% (five of 31), and 0.6% (26 of 4151), respectively. Conclusion The CDR of screening mammography (1.5 per 1000 screening mammograms) of the AMF after mastectomy for cancer is comparable to that for one native breast of an age-matched woman. Screening mammography adds little value after prophylactic mastectomy. © RSNA, 2018.

Pleomorphic Lobular Carcinoma In Situ: Imaging Features, Upgrade Rate, and Clinical Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Pleomorphic lobular carcinoma in situ (PLCIS) is an aggressive subtype of lobular carcinoma in situ treated similarly to ductal carcinoma in situ. The purpose of this study was to determine the imaging findings, upgrade rate of PLCIS at core needle biopsy (CNB), and the treatment and outcomes of these patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective single-institution study included women with PLCIS at CNB or excisional biopsy without concomitant DCIS or invasive carcinoma between January 1, 1999, and July 20, 2016. Imaging findings, detection mode, treatment, and outcomes were reviewed. Retrospective review of the images was performed. Upgrade rate to ductal carcinoma in situ or invasive carcinoma at lumpectomy was calculated. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients had a finding of PLCIS at CNB (n = 16) or excisional biopsy (n = 5). Four of 15 (27%; 95% CI, 4-49%) cases of PLCIS at CNB were upgraded to DCIS (two cases) or invasive lobular cancer (two cases) at lumpectomy (one patient declined excision). No unique mammographic features were predictive of need to upgrade or extent of disease. Among the patients with pure PLCIS (not upgraded), 13 of 16 (81%) presented with fine pleomorphic calcifications on screening mammograms, 1 of 16 (6%) with distortion and calcifications, 1 of 16 (6%) with a mass, and 1 of 16 (6%) with nonmass enhancement at MRI. The median imaging size was 11 mm (mean, 14 mm; range, 3-47 mm). Twelve of 16 (75%) patients were treated with lumpectomy and 4 of 16 (25%) with mastectomy. Eight of 16 (50%) patients received adjuvant hormonal therapy, and 2 of 16 (17%) received radiation. There were no local recurrences. CONCLUSION: PLCIS most commonly presented as fine pleomorphic calcifications on mammograms and had a high upgrade rate after CNB. CNB diagnosis of PLCIS requires surgical excision.

Sonographic diagnosis of partial versus complete molar pregnancy: A reappraisal.

PURPOSE: To assess the prospective sonographic diagnosis of molar pregnancy and compare sonographic features of complete versus partial molar pregnancy. METHODS: This institutional review board--approved retrospective chart review conducted between 2001 and 2011 identified 70 women with a histopathologic diagnosis of molar pregnancy and with available sonograms. Clinical data, images, and reports were reviewed, and features enumerated by radiologists blinded to the final diagnosis. RESULTS: Mean age of patients was 30.5 ± 7.0 (SD) years (range, 16-49 years) with a mean gravidity of 3.2 ± 2.3 (SD) (range 1-11). Mean gestational age was 74.0 ± 19.1 day (range 39-138) and serum ß-human chorionic gonadotropin was 131 ± 156 mIU/ml (range 447-662,000). Pathologic results showed 48 partial and 22 complete molar pregnancies. Sonographically, partial moles more commonly showed a yolk sac (56.3% versus 0%, p < 0.0001), fetal pole (62.5% versus 4.6%, p < 0.0001), fine septa within the sac (25.0% versus 4.6%, p = 0.05), and normal (31.3% versus 0%, p = 0.002) or minimally cystic placenta (27.1% versus 4.6%, p = 0.49), while complete moles had larger gestational sacs (612 versus 44 mm, p = 0.005), were more often avascular on color Doppler imaging (45.5% versus 18.8%, p = 0.02), had more often abnormal tissue in the uterus (82.6% versus 20.8%, p < 0.0001) and placental masses (86.9% versus 16.7%, p < 0.0001), and were more often diagnosed prospectively (86.4% versus 41.7%, p = 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: Complete molar pregnancy is associated with marked cystic changes and mass formation and is often diagnosed sonographically. Partial molar pregnancy often presents with minor cystic changes of the placenta and remains underdiagnosed sonographically. However, correct prospective diagnosis was made more frequently in this study than in older reports, perhaps due to improved spatial resolution of sonographic equipment. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Clin Ultrasound 45:72-78, 2017.