title: Radiographic Implications of Fat Grafting to the Reconstructed Breast.
abstract: Autologous fat transfer is often used to smooth contour irregularities in the reconstructed breast. A potential concern with this technique is that it results in calcified lesions in the breast that can complicate subsequent cancer surveillance. The purpose of this review was to determine how fat grafting to the reconstructed breast impacts postoperative breast imaging. This is a matched cohort analysis of patients who underwent postmastectomy breast reconstruction with and without fat grafting as a secondary procedure. Nonfat grafted reconstructive patients were matched based on age, year of initial reconstruction, and type of reconstruction. Postoperative imaging at our institution was required for inclusion. The two groups were compared in terms of incidence and distribution of radiographic studies performed in follow-up and the need for biopsies. Fifty-one reconstructed breasts with a history of fat grafting were compared to 51 nonfat grafted, reconstructed breasts. The fat grafted group underwent a total of 204 breast imaging studies over a mean follow-up of 4.2 years, while the nonfat grafted group underwent 167 studies over 4.1 years (p = 0.21). More mammograms, ultrasounds, and magnetic resonance images were performed after fat grafting, but a significant difference was evident only for mammography (34 versus 12, p = 0.05). The incidence of breast biopsy to clarify abnormal imaging was nonsignificantly higher in the fat grafted group (17.6% versus 7.8%, p = 0.14). Fewer than 10 percent of imaging studies in the fat grafted cohort were performed to investigate a clinical or radiographic abnormality occupying the same breast quadrant as prior fat injection. Breast cancer patients treated with fat grafting required more breast imaging and biopsies than their nonfat grafted counterparts, but the areas of suspicion poorly corresponded to the site of prior fat grafting. Multimodal breast reconstruction may drive the additional diagnostic burden and not the fat grafting technique itself.
authors.affiliation: Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: Ximena A
authors.initials: XA
authors.lastname: Pinell-White
authors.affiliation: Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: Joanna
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Etra
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: Mary
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Newell
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: Daymen
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Tuscano
authors.affiliation: Department of Radiology, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: Kyungmin
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Shin
authors.affiliation: Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia.
authors.forename: Albert
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Losken
mesh_terms: D000273:Adipose Tissue / Q000637:transplantation*; D064592:Autografts; D001943:Breast Neoplasms / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery*; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D057910:Implant Capsular Contracture / Q000000981:diagnostic imaging* / Q000601:surgery; D016462:Mammaplasty / Q000379:methods; D008327:Mammography / Q000379:methods*; D014182:Transplantation, Autologous
keywords: autologous fat transfer; breast imaging; breast reconstruction; mammography