Postoperative Imaging Appearance of an Implantable Three-dimensional Bioabsorbable Tissue Marker After Breast Surgery: Initial Experience at a Single Institution. Issue 6 (25th September 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Chen, Christine; Dodelzon, Katerina; Ginter, Paula S; Drotman, Michele B; Arleo, Elizabeth K
• Is Part Of: Journal of breast imaging. Volume 2:Issue 6(2020)
• Page Start: 561
• Page End: 568
• Publication Date: 2020-09-25
• Subjects: mammography -- sonography -- implantable -- bioaborbable -- lumpectomy; Breast -- Imaging -- Periodicals; Breast -- Cancer -- Diagnosis -- Periodicals; 616.994490
• DOI: 10.1093/jbi/wbaa081
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2631-6110

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: Three-dimensional bioabsorbable tissue marker (BTM) placement during breast surgery is performed for the purpose of improved surgical cavity delineation for radiotherapy and improved cosmetic outcome. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the postsurgical imaging findings of BTM. Methods: This Institutional Review Board-approved retrospective review included all patients implanted with BTM at breast surgery from January 2017 to September 2018. Demographics, tumor characteristics, imaging, and histologic findings were evaluated. Medical records were reviewed during a three-year period to evaluate for tumor recurrence. Results: Ninety-seven patients had BTM implanted, of which 76 patients had imaging follow-up of at least 1 year. Of the 76 patients who had mammographic follow-up, 3 (3.9%) developed suspicious microcalcifications requiring biopsy, yielding ductal carcinoma in-situ in 2 patients and benign calcifications in 1 patient. Of 61 patients who had sonographic follow-up, 44 (72.1%) patients had complex fluid collections containing avascular, heterogeneously hyperechoic solid components, which remained stable or decreased in size over time; no recurrent tumors were found in this group. One patient (1.6%) had a vascular solid mass, which yielded recurrent papilloma. Four (6.6%) patients developed irregular hypoechoic masses at the surgical site, one of which corresponded with a developing asymmetry mammographically; biopsy yielded fibromatosis. Tissue sampling of the remaining three cases yielded invasive ductal carcinoma, fat necrosis, and radiation changes, respectively. Conclusion: Accurate identification of the expected postoperative imaging appearance of BTM may prevent unnecessary biopsy. Suspicious findings necessitating biopsy are pleomorphic calcifications, developing asymmetry and vascular and irregular hypoechoic masses.