Importance of Incidental Findings in Preoperative Computed Tomography Angiography for Abdominally Based Free Flap Breast Reconstruction: A Multi-Institutional Study.
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 09 2022
01 09 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
25
6
2022
medline:
3
9
2022
entrez:
24
6
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
In addition to its intended purpose of perforator mapping, computed tomography angiography can also identify incidental findings that may require further evaluation. In this multi-institutional study, the authors evaluated the frequency of incidental findings and their significance and effects on treatment course and aimed to identify risk factors for detecting such findings. A retrospective review of patients who underwent perforator mapping with computed tomography angiography was performed over a 5-year period from three academic institutions. Relevant sociodemographic and clinicopathologic information, computed tomography angiography reports, follow-up visits, and treatment outcomes were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between risk factors and incidental findings. From January of 2015 to July of 2020, a total of 656 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria. Overall, 342 incidental findings were found, 76 of which required additional imaging or consultation. Ultimately, 10 patients (1.5 percent) had findings that altered reconstructive management, including five patients (0.8 percent) having severe disease that resulted in the cancellation of their reconstruction. Advanced age and immediate reconstruction timing were independent risk factors for incidental findings. Incidental findings are commonly identified on preoperative computed tomography angiography for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Suspicious findings should be investigated thoroughly because they can alter the reconstructive course. Understanding of high-risk groups for incidental findings can further advance patient education during initial consultation. Risk, III.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
In addition to its intended purpose of perforator mapping, computed tomography angiography can also identify incidental findings that may require further evaluation. In this multi-institutional study, the authors evaluated the frequency of incidental findings and their significance and effects on treatment course and aimed to identify risk factors for detecting such findings.
METHODS
A retrospective review of patients who underwent perforator mapping with computed tomography angiography was performed over a 5-year period from three academic institutions. Relevant sociodemographic and clinicopathologic information, computed tomography angiography reports, follow-up visits, and treatment outcomes were reviewed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the relationship between risk factors and incidental findings.
RESULTS
From January of 2015 to July of 2020, a total of 656 patients were identified who met inclusion criteria. Overall, 342 incidental findings were found, 76 of which required additional imaging or consultation. Ultimately, 10 patients (1.5 percent) had findings that altered reconstructive management, including five patients (0.8 percent) having severe disease that resulted in the cancellation of their reconstruction. Advanced age and immediate reconstruction timing were independent risk factors for incidental findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Incidental findings are commonly identified on preoperative computed tomography angiography for deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Suspicious findings should be investigated thoroughly because they can alter the reconstructive course. Understanding of high-risk groups for incidental findings can further advance patient education during initial consultation.
CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE
Risk, III.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35748758
doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000009388
pii: 00006534-202209000-00009
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
527-535Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2022 by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
Références
Malhotra A, Chhaya N, Nsiah-Sarbeng P, Mosahebi A. CT-guided deep inferior epigastric perforator (DIEP) flap localization: Better for the patient, the surgeon, and the hospital. Clin Radiol. 2013;68:131–138.
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.
Casey WJ 3rd, Chew RT, Rebecca AM, Smith AA, Collins JM, Pockaj BA. Advantages of preoperative computed tomography in deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;123:1148–1155.
Masia J, Larrañaga J, Clavero JA, Vives L, Pons G, Pons JM. The value of the multidetector row computed tomography for the preoperative planning of deep inferior epigastric artery perforator flap: Our experience in 162 cases. Ann Plast Surg. 2008;60:29–36.
Smit JM, Klein S, Werker PM. An overview of methods for vascular mapping in the planning of free flaps. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:e674–e682.
Hughes JM, Smith JR, 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.
Gradishar WJ, Anderson BO, Balassanian R, et al. Invasive breast cancer version 1.2016, NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016;14:324–354.
Bursac Z, Gauss CH, Williams DK, Hosmer DW. Purposeful selection of variables in logistic regression. Source Code Biol Med. 2008;3:17.
See MS, Pacifico MD, Harley OJ, Francis I, Smith RW, Jones ME. Incidence of ‘incidentalomas’ in over 100 consecutive CT angiograms for preoperative DIEP flap planning. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2010;63:106–110.
Tong WM, 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.
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.
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.
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.
Gorbunova V, Seluanov A, Mao Z, Hine C. Changes in DNA repair during aging. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007;35:7466–7474.
Campisi J. Aging, cellular senescence, and cancer. Annu Rev Physiol. 2013;75:685–705.
Hoeijmakers JH. DNA damage, aging, and cancer. N Engl J Med. 2009;361:1475–1485.
Islami F, Goding Sauer A, Miller KD, et al. Proportion and number of cancer cases and deaths attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors in the United States. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68:31–54.
Renehan AG, Tyson M, Egger M, Heller RF, Zwahlen M. Body-mass index and incidence of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective observational studies. Lancet. 2008;371:569–578.
Berland LL. Overview of white papers of the ACR incidental findings committee ii on adnexal, vascular, splenic, nodal, gallbladder, and biliary findings. J Am Coll Radiol. 2013;10:672–674.
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.
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.
Canizares O, Mayo J, Soto E, Allen RJ, Sadeghi A. Optimizing efficiency in deep inferior epigastric perforator flap breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2015;75:186–192.
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.
Mathes DW, Neligan PC. Preoperative imaging techniques for perforator selection in abdomen-based microsurgical breast reconstruction. Clin Plast Surg. 2010;37:581–591, xi.
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.
Uppal RS, Casaer B, Van Landuyt K, Blondeel P. The efficacy of preoperative mapping of perforators in reducing operative times and complications in perforator flap breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2009;62:859–864.
Mathes DW, Neligan PC. Current techniques in preoperative imaging for abdomen-based perforator flap microsurgical breast reconstruction. J Reconstr Microsurg. 2010;26:3–10.
Fitzgerald O’Connor E, Rozen WM, Chowdhry M, Band B, Ramakrishnan VV, Griffiths M. Preoperative computed tomography angiography for planning DIEP flap breast reconstruction reduces operative time and overall complications. Gland Surg. 2016;5:93–98.