Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Breast Cancer in Previously Augmented Women
2006; Wiley; Volume: 12; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês
10.1111/j.1075-122x.2006.00273.x
ISSN1524-4741
AutoresRichard Tuli, R. A. Flynn, Kristin L. Brill, Jennifer L. Sabol, Kenneth Y. Usuki, Anne Rosenberg,
Tópico(s)Breast Lesions and Carcinomas
ResumoThe Breast JournalVolume 12, Issue 4 p. 343-348 Diagnosis, Treatment, and Management of Breast Cancer in Previously Augmented Women Richard Tuli MD, PhD, Richard Tuli MD, PhD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorRyan A. Flynn, Ryan A. Flynn Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorKristin L. Brill MD, Kristin L. Brill MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorJennifer L. Sabol MD, Jennifer L. Sabol MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorKenneth Y. Usuki MD, Kenneth Y. Usuki MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorAnne L. Rosenberg MD, Anne L. Rosenberg MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this author Richard Tuli MD, PhD, Richard Tuli MD, PhD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorRyan A. Flynn, Ryan A. Flynn Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorKristin L. Brill MD, Kristin L. Brill MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorJennifer L. Sabol MD, Jennifer L. Sabol MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorKenneth Y. Usuki MD, Kenneth Y. Usuki MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this authorAnne L. Rosenberg MD, Anne L. Rosenberg MD Department of Surgery, Thomas Jefferson University Hospital, Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaSearch for more papers by this author First published: 17 July 2006 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00273.xCitations: 35 Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Anne L. Rosenberg, MD, 51 Haddonfield Rd., Suite 145, Cherry Hill, NJ 08002, USA, or e-mail: [email protected]. Read the full textAboutPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Abstract Abstract: Augmentation mammaplasty is rapidly becoming one of the most frequently performed cosmetic surgeries. However, as the augmented patient population ages, major concerns associated with the screening, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer are being realized. Although current evidence convincingly indicates that breast implants do not play a role in inducing localized or systemic disease, particularly breast cancer, recent studies have shown implants not only reduce the sensitivity of mammography, but interfere with mammographic detection, possibly leading to delayed breast cancer diagnosis. In addition, the risk for local recurrence, as well as unfavorable cosmetic results, breast fibrosis, and capsular contracture following radiation therapy as part of breast-conserving therapy in previously augmented patients are of great concern. Given the overall lack of treatment consensus, paucity of literature, and increasing number of augmented breast cancer patients, we provide a retrospective review of the diagnosis, treatment, and follow-up of 12 augmented patients from 1998 to 2004 who developed breast cancer. Eight of 12 augmented patients presented with a palpable mass on physical examination, which prompted further mammographic evaluation. Abnormalities in the remaining four individuals were detected on routine mammographic screening. Pathology staging results were available for all 12 patients. Breast-conserving therapy was used to treat six patients and adequate negative pathologic margins were obtained in all patients. The remaining six patients were treated with mastectomy due to multifocal disease, inadequate margins, or proximity to the implant capsule. Thus far, one patient has had local recurrence and one patient has had distant recurrence after initial surgery. No evidence of local or systemic recurrence, infection, contracture, poor cosmetic outcome, or other complications has been detected in the remaining 10 patients as of the most recent follow-up. Based on this small cohort of augmented women, the presence of implants led to an increased proportion of palpable tumors, in spite of routine screening mammography. Consistent with other studies, although our results suggest a tendency toward delayed diagnosis in augmented women relative to age-matched controls, this did not appear to influence the overall prognosis. REFERENCES 1 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. Cosmetic surgery trends. Available at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/loader.cfm?url=/commonspot/security/getfile.CFM&PageID=2111, 2001. 2 American Society of Plastic Surgeons. National surgery statistics. Available at http://www.plasticsurgery.org/public_education/loader.url=/commonspot/security/getfile.cfm&PageID=17870, 2004. 3 Jemal A, Murray T, Ward E, et al. Cancer statistics, 2005. CA Cancer J Clin 2005; 55: 10– 30. 4 Hoshaw SJ, Klein PJ, Clark BD, Cook RR, Perkins LL. Breast implants and cancer: causation, delayed detection, and survival. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107: 1393– 407. 5 Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Burich MC, Colton T, Brown SL, Hoover RN. Breast cancer following augmentation mammoplasty (United States). Cancer Causes Control 2000; 11: 819– 27. 6 Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P, et al. Breast cancer diagnosis and prognosis in women following augmentation with silicone gel-filled prostheses. Eur J Cancer 1992; 28: 635– 40. 7 Veronesi U, Saccozzi R, Del Vecchio M, et al. Comparing radical mastectomy with quadrantectomy, axillary dissection, and radiotherapy in patients with small cancers of the breast. N Engl J Med 1981; 305: 6– 11. 8 Fisher B, Redmond C, Poisson R, et al. Eight-year results of a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy and lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med 1989; 320: 822– 28. 9 Harris JR, Levene MB, Svensson G, Hellman S. Analysis of cosmetic results following primary radiation therapy for stages I and II carcinoma of the breast. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1979; 5: 257– 61. 10 Clarke D, Martinez A, Cox RS. Analysis of cosmetic results and complications in patients with stage I and II breast cancer treated by biopsy and irradiation. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1983; 9: 1807– 13. 11 Handel N, Lewinsky B, Jensen JA, Silverstein MJ. Breast conservation therapy after augmentation mammaplasty: is it appropriate? Plast Reconstr Surg 1996; 98: 1216– 24. 12 Handel N. Conservation therapy for breast cancer following augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1999; 104: 867– 69; discussion 870–71. 13 Berry DA, Cronin KA, Plevritis SK, et al. Effect of screening and adjuvant therapy on mortality from breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1784– 92. 14 Silverstein MJ, Handel N, Gamagami P. The effect of silicone-gel-filled implants on mammography. Cancer 1991; 68: 1159– 63. 15 Handel N, Silverstein MJ, Gamagami P, Jensen JA, Collins A. Factors affecting mammographic visualization of the breast after augmentation mammaplasty. JAMA 1992; 268: 1913– 17. 16 Skinner KA, Silberman H, Dougherty W, et al. Breast cancer after augmentation mammoplasty. Ann Surg Oncol 2001; 8: 138– 44. 17 Clark CP 3rd, Peters GN, O'Brien KM. Cancer in the augmented breast. Diagnosis and prognosis. Cancer 1993; 72: 2170– 74. 18 Yankaskas BC, Taplin SH, Ichikawa L, et al. Association between mammography timing and measures of screening performance in the United States. Radiology 2005; 234: 363– 73. 19 Mogelvang LC. Oncologic aspects of augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg 1995; 95: 935– 36. 20 Miglioretti DL, Rutter CM, Geller BM, et al. Effect of breast augmentation on the accuracy of mammography and cancer characteristics. JAMA 2004; 291: 442– 50. 21 Hayes H Jr, Vandergrift J, Diner WC. Mammography and breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 1988; 82: 1– 8. 22 Eklund GW, Busby RC, Miller SH, Job JS. Improved imaging of the augmented breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1988; 151: 469– 73. 23 Fajardo LL, Harvey JA, McAleese KA, Roberts CC, Granstrom P. Breast cancer diagnosis in women with subglandular silicone gel-filled augmentation implants. Radiology 1995; 194: 859– 62. 24 Deapen D, Hamilton A, Bernstein L, Brody GS. Breast cancer stage at diagnosis and survival among patients with prior breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 2000; 105: 535– 40. 25 Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 427– 37. 26 Elmore JG, Armstrong K, Lehman CD, Fletcher SW. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 2005; 293: 1245– 56. 27 Leach MO, Boggis CR, Dixon AK, et al. Screening with magnetic resonance imaging and mammography of a UK population at high familial risk of breast cancer: a prospective multicentre cohort study (MARIBS). Lancet 2005; 365: 1769– 78. 28 Warner E, Plewes DB, Hill KA, et al. Surveillance of BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers with magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, mammography, and clinical breast examination. JAMA 2004; 292: 1317– 25. 29 Esserman L, Hylton N, Yassa L, Barclay J, Frankel S, Sickles E. Utility of magnetic resonance imaging in the management of breast cancer: evidence for improved preoperative staging. J Clin Oncol 1999; 17: 110– 19. 30 Esserman L, Hylton N, George T, Weidner N. Contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance imaging to assess tumor histopathology and angiogenesis in breast carcinoma. Breast J 1999; 5: 13– 21. 31 Bedrosian I, Mick R, Orel SG, et al. Changes in the surgical management of patients with breast carcinoma based on preoperative magnetic resonance imaging. Cancer 2003; 98: 468– 73. 32 Bluemke DA, Gatsonis CA, Chen MH, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast prior to biopsy. JAMA 2004; 292: 2735– 42. 33 Tillman GF, Orel SG, Schnall MD, Schultz DJ, Tan JE, Solin LJ. Effect of breast magnetic resonance imaging on the clinical management of women with early-stage breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 3413– 23. 34 Mark RJ, Zimmerman RP, Greif JM. Capsular contracture after lumpectomy and radiation therapy in patients who have undergone uncomplicated bilateral augmentation mammoplasty. Radiology 1996; 200: 621– 25. 35 Karanas YL, Leong DS, Da Lio A, et al. Surgical treatment of breast cancer in previously augmented patients. Plast Reconstr Surg 2003; 111: 1078– 83; discussion 1084–86. 36 Gray RJ, Forstner-Barthell AW, Pockaj BA, Schild SE, Halyard MY. Breast-conserving therapy and sentinel lymph node biopsy are feasible in cancer patients with previous implant breast augmentation. Am J Surg 2004; 188: 122– 25. 37 Carlson GW, Moore B, Thornton JF, Elliott M, Bolitho G. Breast cancer after augmentation mammaplasty treatment by skin-sparing mastectomy and immediate reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg 2001; 107: 687– 92. Citing Literature Volume12, Issue4July 2006Pages 343-348 ReferencesRelatedInformation
Referência(s)