Korean J Radiol.  2024 Nov;25(11):992-1002. 10.3348/kjr.2023.1073.

Imaging Surveillance After Breast-Conserving Surgery for Cancer With Acellular Dermal Matrix Reconstruction

• Jung DW
• Chung J
• Kim JM
• Cha ES
• Kim JH

• KMID: 2560696
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2023.1073

Abstract

Objective
The aim of this study was to investigate postoperative imaging findings of patients who underwent breastconserving surgery for cancer and reconstruction with MegaDerm^® (sheet-type and pellet-type), analyzing false positives and recurrences, using multi-modality images.
Materials and Methods
This study included 201 women (age range: 28–81 years, mean age ± standard deviation: 53.2 ± 8.6 years) who underwent breast-conserving surgery and immediate reconstruction with MegaDerm^®. Post-surgery, each patient underwent at least one mammography (MG), ultrasonography (US), and MRI, totaling 713 MG, 1063 US, and 607 MRI examinations. Postoperative images were reviewed separately for the two types of MegaDerm^®, and suspicious imaging findings (false positives and recurrences) were analyzed, with a particular focus on the findings in direct contact with MegaDerm^®.
Results
MegaDerm^® appeared as a circumscribed mass with homogeneous iso- or high density on MG, posterior shadowing on US, and no enhancement on MRI. Calcification was more common and increased in size in sheet-type MegaDerm^®, while pellet-type often exhibited irregular margins. Nine out of 17 false positives had suspicious findings in direct contact with MegaDerm^®, and six out of nine recurrences showed similar findings. Common suspicious findings included calcifications, asymmetries, and MegaDerm^® irregularities on MG; masses and MegaDerm^® irregularities on US; and enhancing masses and MegaDerm^® irregularities with enhancement on MRI. Notably, MegaDerm^® irregularity with calcification was observed on MG and US in only one recurrence case. In 44.4% (4/9) of false-positives in direct contact with MegaDerm^®, suspicious findings showed no change or resolution on follow-up.
Conclusion
Suspicious imaging findings in direct contact with MegaDerm^® may be associated with false positives or recurrences. Therefore, it is essential to recognize these characteristic findings and review the patient’s history of MegaDerm^® insertion when in doubt.

Keyword

Acellular dermal matrix; Breast cancer; Magnetic resonance imaging; Mammography; Ultrasonography