Radiology, Vol 183, 201-206, Copyright © 1992 by Radiological Society of North America

ARTICLES

Breast cancer recurrence after lumpectomy and irradiation: role of mammography in detection

SG Orel, RH Troupin, EA Patterson and BL Fowble
Department of Radiology, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104.

Between 1977 and 1989, 102 of 1,145 patients treated with lumpectomy and radiation as an alternative to mastectomy required subsequent biopsy for suspected ipsilateral recurrence. The authors reviewed the mammograms of 58 of those patients for whom at least two sets of mammograms were available, including one set obtained within 3 months of the subsequent repeated biopsy. Of 38 biopsy-proved recurrences, 13 (34%) were detected with mammography alone, 17 (45%) with palpation alone, and eight (21%) with both mammography and palpation. While standard mammographic criteria for biopsy were followed, distortions and calcifications inherent to posttreatment appearances necessitated judicious modifications. As anticipated, sensitivities and positive predictive values showed more impairment within the lumpectomy quadrant. In addition, all cases of purely in situ cancer were detected solely with mammography. Mammography plays an important complementary role to physical examination in posttreatment follow-up. On the basis of these findings, a follow-up algorithm for the ongoing evaluation of these patients was developed.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				I. Gunhan-Bilgen and A. Oktay Management of Microcalcifications Developing at the Lumpectomy Bed After Conservative Surgery and Radiation Therapy Am. J. Roentgenol., February 1, 2007; 188(2): 393 - 398. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. Mintzer, J. Glassburn, B. A. Mason, and D. Sataloff Breast Cancer in the Very Young Patient: A Multidisciplinary Case Presentation Oncologist, December 1, 2002; 7(6): 547 - 554. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Morrow, E. A. Strom, L. W. Bassett, D. D. Dershaw, B. Fowble, J. R. Harris, F. O'Malley, S. J. Schnitt, S. E. Singletary, and D. P. Winchester Standard for the Management of Ductal Carcinoma In Situ of the Breast (DCIS) CA Cancer J Clin, September 1, 2002; 52(5): 256 - 276. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. E. Sohlich, E. A. Sickles, E. S. Burnside, and K. E. Dee Interpreting Data from Audits When Screening and Diagnostic Mammography Outcomes Are Combined Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2002; 178(3): 681 - 686. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				K. E. Dee and E. A. Sickles Medical Audit of Diagnostic Mammography Examinations: Comparison with Screening Outcomes Obtained Concurrently Am. J. Roentgenol., March 1, 2001; 176(3): 729 - 733. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Giess, D. M. Keating, M. P. Osborne, J. Mester, and R. Rosenblatt Comparison of Rate of Development and Rate of Change for Benign and Malignant Breast Calcifications at the Lumpectomy Bed Am. J. Roentgenol., September 1, 2000; 175(3): 789 - 793. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. K.F. Temple, E. E.L. Wang, and R. S. McLeod Preventive health care, 1999 update: 3. Follow-up after breast cancer Can. Med. Assoc. J., October 1, 1999; 161(8): 1001 - 1008. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				C. S. Giess, D. M. Keating, M. P. Osborne, and R. Rosenblatt Local Tumor Recurrence following Breast-Conservation Therapy: Correlation of Histopathologic Findings with Detection Method and Mammographic Findings Radiology, September 1, 1999; 212(3): 829 - 835. [Abstract] [Full Text]