Management of breast lobular carcinoma in situ: radio-pathological correlation, clinical implications, and follow-up.

PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION: To show management of patients with breast lobular carcinoma in situ (LCIS). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study is the retrospective review of 65 patients, between 1996 and 2012, with isolated LCIS of the breast, evaluated through clinical examination, ultrasound, and mammography at the first examination and follow-up. RESULTS: In 53 patients (81.54%), clinical examination was negative. In 14/65 (21.54%) cases, ultrasound was positive and led to biopsy. The clusters of tiny calcifications were the predominant mammographic pattern (45 cases, 69.23%). Forty-six patients (70.77%) underwent surgical biopsy after guided stereotactic placement of metallic marker (hook-wire), 12 (18.46%) by stereotactic vacuum biopsy (SVB), 5 (7.69%) by core needle biopsy (CNB) under ultrasound guidance, two (3.08%) patients CNB with clinically palpable nodules. Fourteen (21.54%) women underwent a quadrantectomy or total mastectomy after the first diagnosis; in this latter group follow-up was negative. Among the 51 patients (78.46%) who did not undergo quadrantectomy or total mastectomy, five relapses occurred, respectively, three LCIS and two infiltrating ductal carcinomas (IDC). Follow-up ranged from 12 to 144 months. CONCLUSION: LCIS is a risk factor for invasive carcinoma and should be managed with careful follow-up, but if there is a discrepancy between pathology and imaging, surgical excision is mandatory.

A case series study on complications after breast augmentation with Macrolane™.

BACKGROUND: The use of Macrolane™ seems to have several advantages compared to the other standard methods for breast augmentation: it is faster, less invasive, and requires only local anesthesia. Nevertheless, various complications associated with the use of Macrolane™ have been described, e.g., encapsulated lumps in breast tissue, infection, and parenchymal fibrosis. We report the results of our case series study on the clinical and imaging evaluations of patients who came to our attention after breast augmentation with Macrolane™ injection and evaluate the effect of this treatment on breast cancer screening procedures. METHODS: Between September 2009 and July 2010, seven patients, treated elsewhere with intramammary Macrolane™ injection for cosmetic purposes, presented to our institution complaining of breast pain. In all patients, Macrolane™ had been injected under local anesthesia in the retromammary space through a surgical cannula. RESULTS: On mammography, nodules appeared as gross lobulated radiopacities with polycyclic contours. On breast ultrasound, the nodules showed hypo-anaechogenic cystlike features. In all cases, image analysis by the radiologist was hindered by the presence of the implanted substance, which did not allow the complete inspection of the whole breast tissue. CONCLUSIONS: From our experience, although safe in other areas, injection of Macrolane™ into breast tissue cannot be recommended at this time. Our study, along with other reports, supports the need to start a clinical trial on the use of injectable fillers in the breast to validate their safety and effectiveness. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE IV: This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .