Skip to main content
NCBI home page
British Journal of Cancer logoLink to British Journal of Cancer
. 1998 Aug;78(4):542–545. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1998.529

Effect of radiotherapy on the interpretation of routine follow-up mammography after conservative breast surgery: a randomized study.

K Holli 1, R Saaristo 1, J Isola 1, M Hyöty 1, M Hakama 1
PMCID: PMC2063090  PMID: 9716041

Abstract

Radiotherapy after conservative surgery causes fat necrosis, fibrosis, skin thickening and other parenchymal distortion of the breast. The interpretation of a mammogram of the irradiated breast may therefore be difficult. We studied the effect of radiotherapy on the interpretation of the routine mammography used in the follow-up of breast cancer patients. A total of 144 low-risk breast cancer patients were randomized to radiotherapy or to no further treatment after conservative surgery. The first routine follow-up mammography was performed 18 months after surgery and every 18 months after that. The number of mammography examinations was estimated per patient and per follow-up year. The number of extra diagnostic tests and the occurrence of positive findings were assessed per mammography session and per follow-up year. Further diagnostic tests prompted by difficulties in interpreting the mammogram were performed to an extent of 0.19 per mammography examination in the radiotherapy group and of 0.15 in the non-radiotherapy group, i.e. 1.3 times more often. Findings that turned out to be negative at confirmation were 2.0 times (P< 0.05) more common in the radiotherapy group. These false-positive findings were more common in the radiotherapy group than in the surgery group and only shortly after treatment. Mammography is more difficult to interpret after radiotherapy than after conservative surgery alone, especially shortly after treatment, and more often involves extra diagnostic tests and findings that will be negative at confirmation.

Full text

PDF
542

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.

  1. Brenner H., Engelsmann B., Stegmaier C., Ziegler H. Clinical epidemiology of bilateral breast cancer. Cancer. 1993 Dec 15;72(12):3629–3635. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19931215)72:12<3629::aid-cncr2820721213>3.0.co;2-t. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Fisher B., Anderson S., Redmond C. K., Wolmark N., Wickerham D. L., Cronin W. M. Reanalysis and results after 12 years of follow-up in a randomized clinical trial comparing total mastectomy with lumpectomy with or without irradiation in the treatment of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1995 Nov 30;333(22):1456–1461. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199511303332203. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Jager J. J., Langendijk J. A., Dohmen J. P., Schreutelkamp I. L., Volovics L., van Engelshoven J. M., de Jong J. M., Schouten L. J., Hupperets P. S., Blijham G. H. Mammography in the follow-up after breast-conserving treatment in cancer of the breast: suitability for mammographic interpretation, validity and interobserver variation. Br J Radiol. 1995 Jul;68(811):754–760. doi: 10.1259/0007-1285-68-811-754. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Marteau T. M. Psychological costs of screening. BMJ. 1989 Aug 26;299(6698):527–527. doi: 10.1136/bmj.299.6698.527. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Marteau T. M. Screening in practice: Reducing the psychological costs. BMJ. 1990 Jul 7;301(6742):26–28. doi: 10.1136/bmj.301.6742.26. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Mellink W. A., Holland R., Hendriks J. H., Peeters P. H., Rutgers E. J., van Daal W. A. The contribution of routine follow-up mammography to an early detection of asynchronous contralateral breast cancer. Cancer. 1991 Apr 1;67(7):1844–1848. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19910401)67:7<1844::aid-cncr2820670705>3.0.co;2-w. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Recht A., Schnitt S. J., Connolly J. L., Rose M. A., Silver B., Come S., Henderson I. C., Slavin S., Harris J. R. Prognosis following local or regional recurrence after conservative surgery and radiotherapy for early stage breast carcinoma. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 1989 Jan;16(1):3–9. doi: 10.1016/0360-3016(89)90003-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Rosselli Del Turco M., Palli D., Cariddi A., Ciatto S., Pacini P., Distante V. Intensive diagnostic follow-up after treatment of primary breast cancer. A randomized trial. National Research Council Project on Breast Cancer follow-up. JAMA. 1994 May 25;271(20):1593–1597. doi: 10.1001/jama.271.20.1593. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Sadowsky N. L., Semine A., Harris J. R. Breast imaging. A critical aspect of breast conserving treatment. Cancer. 1990 May 1;65(9 Suppl):2113–2118. doi: 10.1002/1097-0142(19900501)65:9+<2113::aid-cncr2820651406>3.0.co;2-n. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Wald N., Frost C., Cuckle H. Breast cancer screening: the current position. BMJ. 1991 Apr 6;302(6780):845–846. doi: 10.1136/bmj.302.6780.845. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Welch J. S. The postirradiated breast. Mayo Clin Proc. 1986 May;61(5):392–395. doi: 10.1016/s0025-6196(12)61960-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. de Koning H. J., van Ineveld B. M., de Haes J. C., van Oortmarssen G. J., Klijn J. G., van der Maas P. J. Advanced breast cancer and its prevention by screening. Br J Cancer. 1992 Jun;65(6):950–955. doi: 10.1038/bjc.1992.199. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from British Journal of Cancer are provided here courtesy of Cancer Research UK

RESOURCES