Incidence, Impact, and Management of Incidentalomas on Preoperative Computed Tomographic Angiograms for Breast Cancer Patients with and without Genetic Mutations.
Journal
Plastic and reconstructive surgery
ISSN: 1529-4242
Titre abrégé: Plast Reconstr Surg
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 1306050
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 Jun 2021
01 Jun 2021
Historique:
pubmed:
12
5
2021
medline:
20
1
2022
entrez:
11
5
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Preoperative abdominal computed tomographic angiograms for free flap breast reconstruction improve operative safety and efficiency, but incidental findings are common and potentially affect management. In addition, the authors hypothesized that patients with genetic mutations might have a higher rate of significant findings. The authors present the largest series of computed tomographic angiogram "incidentalomas" in these two populations and an evidence-based algorithm for managing common findings. All patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction at Northwell Health between 2009 and 2017 were eligible. Medical history, perioperative details, and radiology reports were examined with abnormal findings recorded. Published literature was reviewed with radiologists to develop standardized guidelines for incidentaloma management. Of 805 patients included, 733 patients had abdominal imaging. One hundred ninety-five (27 percent) had a completely negative examination. In the remaining 538 patients, benign hepatic (22 percent) and renal (17 percent) findings were most common. Sixteen patients (2.2 percent) required additional imaging (n = 15) or procedures (n = 5). One finding was concerning for malignancy-renal cell carcinoma-which interventional radiology ablated postoperatively. Seventy-nine patients (10.8 percent) had a genetic mutation but were not found to have a statistically significant higher rate of incidentalomas. The authors' rate of computed tomographic angiography incidental findings (73 percent) is consistent with previous studies, but the rate requiring further intervention (2.2 percent) is lower. Incidental findings were no more common or pathologic among genetic mutation carriers. The authors also introduce an evidence-based algorithm for the management of common incidentalomas. Using these guidelines, plastic surgeons can reassure patients, regardless of mutation status, that incidentalomas are most commonly benign and have minimal impact on their surgical plan.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Preoperative abdominal computed tomographic angiograms for free flap breast reconstruction improve operative safety and efficiency, but incidental findings are common and potentially affect management. In addition, the authors hypothesized that patients with genetic mutations might have a higher rate of significant findings. The authors present the largest series of computed tomographic angiogram "incidentalomas" in these two populations and an evidence-based algorithm for managing common findings.
METHODS
METHODS
All patients undergoing free flap breast reconstruction at Northwell Health between 2009 and 2017 were eligible. Medical history, perioperative details, and radiology reports were examined with abnormal findings recorded. Published literature was reviewed with radiologists to develop standardized guidelines for incidentaloma management.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 805 patients included, 733 patients had abdominal imaging. One hundred ninety-five (27 percent) had a completely negative examination. In the remaining 538 patients, benign hepatic (22 percent) and renal (17 percent) findings were most common. Sixteen patients (2.2 percent) required additional imaging (n = 15) or procedures (n = 5). One finding was concerning for malignancy-renal cell carcinoma-which interventional radiology ablated postoperatively. Seventy-nine patients (10.8 percent) had a genetic mutation but were not found to have a statistically significant higher rate of incidentalomas.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The authors' rate of computed tomographic angiography incidental findings (73 percent) is consistent with previous studies, but the rate requiring further intervention (2.2 percent) is lower. Incidental findings were no more common or pathologic among genetic mutation carriers. The authors also introduce an evidence-based algorithm for the management of common incidentalomas. Using these guidelines, plastic surgeons can reassure patients, regardless of mutation status, that incidentalomas are most commonly benign and have minimal impact on their surgical plan.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33974589
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000007941
pii: 00006534-202106000-00001
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1259-1269Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2021 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Alonso-Burgos A, García-Tutor E, Bastarrika G, Cano D, Martínez-Cuesta A, Pina LJ. Preoperative planning of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap reconstruction with multislice-CT angiography: Imaging findings and initial experience. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:585–593.
Masia J, Clavero JA, Larrañaga JR, Alomar X, Pons G, Serret P. Multidetector-row computed tomography in the planning of abdominal perforator flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2006;59:594–599.
Smit JM, Dimopoulou A, Liss AG, et al. Preoperative CT angiography reduces surgery time in perforator flap reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:1112–1117.
Masia J, Kosutic D, Clavero JA, Larranaga J, Vives L, Pons G. Preoperative computed tomographic angiogram for deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2010;26:21–28.
Tong WMY, Dixon R, Ekis H, Halvorson EG. The impact of preoperative CT angiography on breast reconstruction with abdominal perforator flaps. Ann Plast Surg. 2012;68:525–530.
Teunis T, Heerma van Voss MR, Kon M, van Maurik JF. CT-angiography prior to DIEP flap breast reconstruction: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Microsurgery 2013;33:496–502.
Mossa-Basha M, Lee C. Impact of preoperative computed tomography angiogram on abdominal flap breast reconstruction outcomes: A systematic review. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2017;33:528–535.
O’Malley RB, Robinson TJ, Kozlow JH, Liu PS. Computed tomography angiography for preoperative thoracoabdominal flap planning. Radiol Clin North Am. 2016;54:131–145.
Ohkuma R, Mohan R, Baltodano PA, et al. Abdominally based free flap planning in breast reconstruction with computed tomographic angiography: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:483–494.
Yu SC, Kleiber GM, Song DH. An algorithmic approach to total breast reconstruction with free tissue transfer. Arch Plast Surg. 2013;40:173–180.
See MS, Pacifico MD, Harley OJH, Francis I, Smith RW, Jones ME. Incidence of “incidentalomas” in over 100 consecutive CT angiograms for preoperative DIEP flap planning. J Plast Reconstr Aesthetic Surg. 2010;63:106–110.
Ho OA, Bagher S, Jaskolka J, et al. Incidentalomas associated with abdominal and pelvic CT angiograms for abdominal-based breast free flap reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2016;69:e97–e102.
Hughes JMF, Smith JRO, Jones L, Wilson S. Incidental findings in CT angiograms for free DIEP flap breast reconstruction: Do they change our management? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:59–63.
Gabrick KS, Godier-Furnemont A, Chouairi F, Avraham T, Alperovich M. Impact of incidental findings in preoperative CTA imaging for autologous breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72:789–794.
O’Sullivan JW, Muntinga T, Grigg S, Ioannidis JPA. Prevalence and outcomes of incidental imaging findings: Umbrella review. BMJ 2018;361:k2387.
Behbahani S, Mittal S, Patlas MN, Moshiri M, Menias CO, Katz DS. “Incidentalomas” on abdominal and pelvic CT in emergency radiology: Literature review and current management recommendations. Abdom Radiol (NY) 2017;42:1046–1061.
Paluska TR, Sise MJ, Sack DI, Sise CB, Egan MC, Biondi M. Incidental CT findings in trauma patients: Incidence and implications for care of the injured. J Trauma 2007;62:157–161.
Beatty JS, Williams HT, Aldridge BA, et al. Incidental PET/CT findings in the cancer patient: How should they be managed? Surgery 2009;146:274–281.
Tevlin R, Borrelli MR, Nguyen D, Momeni A. Preoperative computed tomography angiography in autologous breast reconstruction: Incidence and impact of incidentalomas. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2018;6:e2019.
Tan N, Charoensak A, Ajwichai K, et al. Prevalence of incidental findings on abdominal computed tomography angiograms on prospective renal donors. Transplantation 2015;99:1203–1207.
Sebastian S, Araujo C, Neitlich JD, Berland LL. Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 4: White paper of the ACR incidental Findings Committee II on gallbladder and biliary findings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:953–956.
Heller MT, Harisinghani M, Neitlich JD, Yeghiayan P, Berland LL. Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 3: White paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on splenic and nodal findings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:833–839.
Khosa F, Krinsky G, Macari M, Yucel EK, Berland LL. Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 2: White paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on vascular findings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:789–794.
Patel MD, Ascher SM, Horrow MM, et al. Management of incidental adnexal findings on CT and MRI: A white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2020;17:248–254.
Berland LL, Silverman SG, Gore RM, et al. Managing incidental findings on abdominal CT: White paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2010;7:754–773.
Patel MD, Ascher SM, Paspulati RM, et al. Managing incidental findings on abdominal and pelvic CT and MRI, part 1: White paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee II on adnexal findings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:675–681.
Gore RM, Pickhardt PJ, Mortele KJ, et al. Management of incidental liver lesions on CT: A white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:1429–1437.
Megibow AJ, Baker ME, Morgan DE, et al. Management of incidental pancreatic cysts: A white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:911–923.
Herts BR, Silverman SG, Hindman NM, et al. Management of the incidental renal mass on CT: A white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15:264–273.
Mayo-Smith WW, Song JH, Boland GL, et al. Management of incidental adrenal masses: A white paper of the ACR Incidental Findings Committee. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14:1038–1044.
Easton DF, Bishop DT, Ford D, et al. Genetic linkage analysis in familial breast and ovarian cancer: Results from 214 families. Am J Hum Genet. 1993;52:678–701.
Welcsh PL, King M. BRCA1 and BRCA2 and the genetics of breast and ovarian cancer. Hum Mol Genet. 2001;10:705–713.
Brose MS, Rebbeck TR, Calzone KA, Stopfer JE, Nathanson KL, Weber BL. Cancer risk estimates for BRCA1 mutation carriers identified in a risk evaluation program. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1365–1372.
Finch A, Beiner M, Lubinski J, et al.; Hereditary Ovarian Cancer Clinical Study Group. Salpingo-oophorectomy and the risk of ovarian, fallopian tube, and peritoneal cancers in women with a BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. JAMA 2006;296:185–192.
Kim DH, Crawford B, Ziegler J, Beattie MS. Prevalence and characteristics of pancreatic cancer in families with BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations. Fam Cancer 2009;8:153–158.