Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: The role of preoperative imaging and the usability of different imaging modalities is highly variable and controversial in reduction mammaplasty patients. Our study describes the imaging process in a single center in regard to modality selection, age and timing, and of the association between imaging and histopathological findings in reduction mammaplasty specimens. METHODS: Nine hundred eighteen women, who underwent reduction mammaplasty during 1.1.2007-31.12.2011, were retrospectively reviewed for demographics, preoperative imaging, further preoperative examinations, and pathology reports. RESULTS: Preoperative imaging had been conducted for 89.2% (n = 819) of the patients. In 49 (6.0%) patients, suspicious preoperative imaging led to further examinations revealing 2 high-risk lesions (atypical ductal hyperplasia (ADH), lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS)), and 2 cancers preoperatively. Postoperatively abnormal histopathology specimens were revealed in 88 (10.4%) patients. The incidence of high-risk lesions was 5.5% (n = 47), and the incidence of cancer was 1.2% (n = 10). Preoperative imaging was normal (BI-RADS 1 and BI-RADS 2) in 80.8% of these patients. The sensitivity of the preoperative imaging for cancer detection was 20.0%, and the specificity was 100.0%. CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative imaging and further examinations do not sufficiently detect malignant or cancer risk-increasing findings. Therefore, histopathological analysis of reduction mammaplasty specimens seems mandatory.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Schantz et al. (2017) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: