Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub

Fat necrosis in the Breast: A systematic review of clinical

Lipids in Health and Disease volume 18, Article number: 139 (2019) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 01 August 2019

This article has been updated

Abstract

Breast fat necrosis (FN) originates from aseptic fat saponification, which is a typical lipid cyst or a spiculated lesion called mammographic presentation which mimics malignancy. In order to avoid biopsy, it would be necessary to identify the spectrum of fat necrosis appearances. A systematic research was conducted in October 2018 by using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Google Scholar databases and Google to search for science literature published after 2004. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review, it is that the FN can provide radiologists, surgeons, and oncologists with better insight and help them manage the condition efficiently.

Introduction

Features of Fat necrosis

Known as a benign, non-supportive inflammatory process, breast fat necrosis (FN) occurs due to iatrogenic breast trauma. Fat necrosis is an inflammatory, sterile process which has roots in fat aseptic saponification. In this regard, blood and tissue lipase contribute to this disorder. Some of the common causes of FN are radiotherapy, surgery or trauma, particularly one associated with anticoagulation therapy. It is mostly associated with post-operative or radiation therapy [1]. It is difficult to distinguish the clinical and radiographic appearance of breast fat necrosis from that of malignancy. For this purpose, biopsy is recommended by the research community. Some of the main clinical features of fat necrosis are irregular masses with skin retraction and multiple smooth round nodules [2]. The palpable abnormality is often superficial and periareolar. In some rare cases, they can result in tenderness, bruising, skin tethering, dimpling and nipple retraction. In addition, breast abnormalities may remain unchanged, enlarge, regress, or resolve [1]. Taboada et al., [3] showed that in about 47.4% of cases fat necrosis would be appeared as cystic masses which shown in Table 1 (In accordance with Prasanti et al. [4]).

Table 1 Fat necrosis various Imaging appearances (In accordance with Prasanti et al.[4])
Full size table

Fat necrosis pathology

Fat necrosis may result in firmness and induration on gross pathology. Thin capsules or lipid cysts may emerge in fibrosis. Older lesions may emerge as oil cysts. It should be noted that these ring-like calcifications may also emerge in the wall [5]. Fat necrosis may occasionally be seen as dense masses characterized by skin thickening. It is said that outpouring of blood into the parenchyma may result in swollen trabecular framework in the breast. This is usually associated with disruption of fat cells. This destruction may form intracellular vacuoles which are usually filled with necrotic material (Fig. 1). Fibroblasts, multinucleated giant cells and lipid- laden histiocytes (‘fat-filled macrophages’ or ‘foam cells’) accumulate between cyst-like areas (Fig. 1). [3]

Fig. 1
figure 1

Different levels of fat necrosis (Derived in accordance with Jorge et al. [6]). a Primary level of fat necrosis indicates fragments of adipose tissue. b Primary level of fat necrosis indicates individual adipocytes. c Medium level of fat necrosis indicates infiltration by histiocytes. d Medium level of fat necrosis indicates conglomeration of RBCs referred to as “myospherulosis”. e Late stage of fat necrosis indicates single multinucleated giant cell. f Late stage of fat necrosis indicates calcifications (are common in late stage of fat necrosis). g Late stage of fat necrosis indicates macrophages containing hemosiderin. h Late stage of fat necrosis indicates calcifications

Full size image

Breast oil cysts

Oil cysts which appeared in imaging of the breast may point out the lesions within the breast where a focal fat necrosis scope would be separated via fibrous tissue. Oil cysts of breast are mostly consisting of pure neutral fat. One of the main forms of necrosis is breast fat necrosis which could be specified by the action on fat via digestive enzymes [6, 7]. In fat necrosis, the glycoprotein enzyme lipase frees fatty acids from triglycerides. The released fatty acids then will be combined with calcium and would form soaps which become visible as white pale deposits [8]. During the process of palpation, oil cysts are soft and moving tissues. These cysts are often representing approximately all of fat necrosis and need only a modest aspiration by application of syringe and a hypodermic 18-gauge needle 18 Gauge. The appearance of sticky oil might be white or yellow and commonly cannot be syringed via slim needles. A lipid cyst is an oval mass with a thin bright smooth border. The cyst fibrous rim might be calcifying or not [9, 10]. Anyway, when the fibrous rim of the cyst is calcified, it might be seen in face or profile (Fig. 2). Infrequent known forms of lipid cysts such as cysts which have serous-hemorrhagic contents or fat-fluid levels and/or aspergillums and also cysts which show advanced opacification (Fig. 1) [11].

Fig. 2
figure 2

Craniocaudal mammograms and right breast mediolateral oblique. a and b) show round masses with radiolucent centers at the site of palpable finding. c) Ultrasound of the right breast at site of palpable finding demonstrate two hypoechoic round masses with central echogenicity with associated posterior acoustic shadowing (Derived in accordance with William et al. [19])

Full size image

Fat necrosis etiology

Peri-menopausal women suffer mostly from breast fat necrosis. This disorder is capable of mimicking breast cancer radiologically and clinically. It is usually secondary to trauma but is sometimes idiopathic. Trauma can have accidental or iatrogenic nature. Seatbelt trauma is one example of accidental injury. Some of the main iatrogenic events are breast surgery (lumpectomy, reduction, or augmentation) [12]. Lumps were seen in many patients suffering from trauma. Seatbelts may probably be one of the causes of such lumps. The aetiological factors include lumpectomy, radiotherapy, breast reconstruction, cyst aspiration, reduction mammoplasty, implant removal, biopsy, trauma, anticoagulation. Some of the other causes include Weber-Christian disease, granulomatous angiopanniculitis and polyarteritis nodosa. [13]. The cause remains unknown in some patients.

Fat necrosis pathogenesis

Necrosis and apoptosis are two types of cell death which have different biochemical and morphological features. Necrosis is considered a kind of cell death, while apoptosis is defined as the process of complicated cell death. These two are triggered by numerous stimuli including pathogens, ischemia, irradiation, cytokines and heat. Moreover, mitochondria, kinase cascades and death receptors have a role to play in these processes [14]. Cytosolic components may trigger an inflammatory reaction in necrosis. However, cell membranes isolate these products in apoptosis. Both processes are observed in fat necrosis of the breast [15]. Necrotic components may lead to greater inflammation and worsen the condition. Fibrinogen is secreted in the interstitial area by damaged vessels. Thrombin converts fibrinogen to active fibrin. The oil cyst is characterized by the round lesion and wall calcification. The oil cysts can be reliably diagnosed by ultrasound [16, 17].

Fat necrosis detecting

It is necessary to investigate the reasons why fat necrosis emerges on imaging techniques because it may prevent misinterpretations regarding the imaging findings. Moreover, it is necessary to understand the variable appearances of fat necrosis in order to help radiologists enhance their accuracy, particularly for analyzing and interpreting fat necrosis. Fat necrosis is capable of creating numerous findings. MRI is in in good agreement with fat necrosis histology [18]. Despite the fact that mammography is a specific technique, ultrasound is an efficient tool for the diagnosis of fat necrosis. MRI may indicate unusual peripheral enhancement in fat necrosis. However, fat necrosis appearance may not be distinguished from adverse lesions. Despite the sheer fact that PET-CT is not the sole tool for the diagnosing fat necrosis and breast cancer, it is widely used in for diagnostic purposes [14].

Mammography test

Some of the common fat necrosis findings include coarse calcifications, cysts, micro-calcifications, asymmetries and so on. Within initial stages fibrosis is not much extensive and is attendant with capsules which appear in oval or round shapes [16]. It is while lesions which are older would be seen as calcifications in the wall (Fig. 2). Older lesions may emerge as oil cysts that have ring-shaped calcifications in their wall [5]. Fat necrosis may occasionally be seen as unusual masses characterized by skin thickening. It is said that outpouring of blood into the parenchyma may result in swollen trabecular framework in the breast. This is usually associated with disruption of fat cells [14].

Sonography test

Fat necrosis may be associated with solid or cystic masses. Solid masses are characterized by well-circumscribed margins, and may distort the breast parenchyma [2]. Fat necrosis appearance ranges from complex intra-cystic masses to solid nodules. The oil cyst is associated with round lesion and wall calcification. Sonography can be used to diagnose oil cysts. In some rare cases, hyperechoic masses may represent malignancy. The sonographic appearance of an oil cyst could easily determine that which kind of breast cysts is that. It’s while in some cases when the appearance of oil cyst is worrying a needle aspiration should be done for testing the content of the cyst [2].

MRI test

Fat necrosis is capable of producing various findings. MRI images are in good agreement with fat necrosis histology. Siderophages may trigger a diffuse decrease in signal intensity on images. Fat necrosis is constituted of lipophagic granulomas which are found on T1-weighted images [17]. It is quite difficult to distinguish lipophagic granulomas from malignancy on MRI. Biopsy is needed to confirm the diagnosis of such lesions. MRI may be capable of showing unusual enhancements in fat necrosis. However, fat necrosis appearances may be may not be distinguished from malignant lesions [19]. As mentioned earlier, fat necrosis is often emerges as fat elsewhere in the breast which is necessary for the diagnosis of FN [20]. (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Craniocaudal projections and right breast mediolateral oblique. a and b) show a radiolucent lobular mass at site of palpable mass (arrow). c) Targeted ultrasound at site of palpable mass demonstrates a lobular heterogeneous hypoechoic mass with posterior acoustic shadowing. d) Axial T1-weighted fat saturation after gadolinium. e) T2-weighted nonfat saturation, and f) subtraction images that indicate a mass at 11 o’clock in the right breast anteriorly that follows fat signal on all sequences with thin rim enhancement (Derived in accordance with William et al. [19])

Full size image

CT scan test

CT Scan is capable of showing areas of fat necrosis. It can allow the researchers avoid any misunderstandings of the findings. CT is based upon fibrosis, liquefied fat and inflammation. These components are mainly seen in fat necrosis. Liquefied fat manifests itself on CT Scan as low coefficients of attenuation, while fibrosis is represented as soft tissue coefficients. Fat necrosis mimics the appearance of breast cancer on MRI, appearing as spiculated enhancement or a cystic lesion [14]. F18-FDG PET/CT can somehow help identify local recurrence, although it is not a recommended method [21]. It is essential to consider the histological results along with the imaging and clinical findings. Moreover, a multidisciplinary team needs to be involved in this process. The common imaging features of fat necrosis are summarized in Table 2 [1, 2, 14, 15, 17, 18, 20].

Table 2 Common imaging features of fat necrosis
Full size table

Mammoplasty surgery

It is essential to evaluate the severity and fat necrosis prevalence with each procedure. Moreover, in order to address the defects of breast-conserving therapy, good grafts need to be selected. The oncoplastic surgery provides a better cosmetic outcome and controls local tumor. It is also safe to investigate early-stage breast cancer [22]. After conservative sessions of therapy, breast cancer may occur years after the treatment. Patients may undergo ultrasound (US) and mammographic examinations during the follow-up period [23]. Treated breast is prone to several modifications after surgery and radiation therapy. This can complicate the interpretation of images, particularly when local recurrence is suspected. Despite the fact that MRI is not included in routine follow-up, it is still used in clinical practices. Compared to the conventional imaging examinations which discriminates between postsurgical tissue modifications and tumor recurrence, is it very sensitive [24].

As a combination of BCS, since the early-1970s, BCT has been regarded as a standard therapy for breast cancer in early stage. According to several clinical trials, obvious evidence shows that breast-conserving therapy is associated with long-term survival rate [25, 26]. In spite of the fact that BCT started years later in Japan, some Japanese pioneers used that technique in the mid- 1980s [27]. BCT witnessed a rapid growth. As reported by the registry of the Japan Breast Cancer Society (2015), BCT is now used to treat 50% of breast cancer patients.

The long-term success of BCT is influenced by the rate of local control and the preserved breast’s cosmetic appearance. There are several strategies involved in this field. Tumor burden diagnosis [28] and breast margin pathological diagnosis [12, 29] are among the main strategies. Moreover, primary chemotherapy can be used for conservation of breast, particularly when breast cancer is in advanced stage [30]. There are several types of BCSs that can be used to obtain good cosmetic results, including lateral tissue flap, inframammary adipofascial flap [31], the moving window technique [32]. In this study, various procedures have been applied for replacing defects of partial resections. These categories are mainly known as oncoplastic breast-conserving surgeries. Fat necrosis can negatively affect the quality of life of the patients because of poor cosmetic result and pain. Unfortunately, fat necrosis cannot be efficiently evaluated because there are no standard systems for grading [33]. Breast surgeons need to explain the severity and of frequency fat necrosis to the patients. For this purpose, it is highly recommended that annual mammography and physical examinations be performed, particularly for those who have undergone BCT [34].

It is still challenging to manage fat in practice. It can still be difficult to diagnose female breast fat necrosis, even via advanced diagnostic instruments. Cancer recurrence and fat necrosis need to be differentiated, especially in patients undergone surgery of breast conservation. In certain cases, diagnosis confirmation can be done through the needle core biopsy. There has been an increase in the number of early-stage breast cancer due to the mammographic screening programs [35]. BCS is a standard care in breast cancer patients at early stages [24]. According to research, compared to mastectomy, BCS offers equal rates of survival (over 20 years) [36]. Reducing postoperative deformities and promoting safe breast conservation are possible through BOS [37, 38]. After surgery and radiation therapy, the breast tissue undergoes various changes. This can complicate the interpretation of image during the period of follow-up, particularly when there is suspect of local recurrence [39]. According to the evidence, MRI has not yet been recommend in the following up the patients who have received BCS. According to the current guidelines, MRI is not recommended for follow-up of breast cancer in asymptomatic patients. During the period of follow-up, many mammographic and ultrasound (US) examinations are performed for patients [13, 39]. When there are margins of post-resection positive tumor, Evaluation of the suspicious recurrences emerging on either mammography/US or clinical examinations can be helped by MRI. Moreover, MRI can also be used to screen patients who have a high recurrence risk following treatment of breast cancer [40]. In responding inflammatory postoperative reactions, the strong enhancement of resection margins can affect early postoperative MRI. Once the breast-conserving therapy is completed, MRI cannot exclude possible residual tumor [41]. Compared to conventional imaging investigations, MRI is far better in discriminating tumor relapse from postsurgical tissue modifications [42]. Premenopausal women need to be examined on the 6th to 13th day of the menstruation. This can help minimize the risk of false positives [43]. Diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI) has recently been paid great attention in the clinical settings. DWI-MRI is based upon measuring the random Brownian motion of water molecules within a tissue. Diffusion can be particularly used in tumor characterization [44].

Fat necrosis occurrence after BCS

As a benign inflammatory process of adipose tissue, fat necrosis affects menopausal women to a great extent. Surgery, radiotherapy, or traumas are some of the main causes of FN. The patients can be affected by iatrogenic, penetrating or blunt trauma. Women with breast hypertrophy also suffer from physical symptoms including psychosocial problems and back pain. These problems can lead to activation of lipolytic enzymes and rupture of blood vessel [1]. Adipose tissue consists of triglyceride-containing cells. Fatty acids that release from triglycerides and enter the interstitial space lead to formation of a complex with calcium. This can cause aseptic fat saponification [2]. Results of imaging and biopsy following BOS and breast lumpectomy were compared by Dolan et al. [45]. According to the results, fat necrosis rate following BCS on US and clinical examinations was 15 and 18%, respectively. According to the results of their study, patients who had undergone BOS need more US examinations and following biopsies compared to patients who had undergone lumpectomy. In the majority of cases, this can mainly be attributed to FN developing after BOS. FN is often known as an asymptomatic condition, but patients may suffer from skin thickening, erythema, ecchymosis, and a palpable mass. A radiolucent rounded image was indicated by the clear mammographic image. Accordingly, calcifications may result in the suspicion of disease relapse. It should be pointed out that US image can sometimes be misleading and indicate an apparent hypoechoic area with posterior acoustic shadowing and blurred margins [46,47,48,49] (Fig. 4). Depending on the stage of the process, FN may have different presentations.

Fig. 4
figure 4

A patient who shows a mass in the left breast which follows fat signal on all sequences (arrow). a) Axial T1-weighted nonfat saturation, b) T2-weighted nonfat saturation, c) T1-weighted fat saturation after gadolinium and d) subtraction images (Derived in accordance with William et al. [19])

Full size image

Patients expect a natural shape after BOS [50]. Known as a reconstructive and aesthetic technique, Lipo injection is widely used in breast surgery [51]. According to the Fat Graft Task Force of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) [7], the effectiveness of the procedure was evaluated in patients. Only 37 complications (12.7%) were reported, the most common of which was lipo necrosis in 16 cases (5.7%) [7]. The difficulties in assessing patients undergoing breast Lipo injection following BOS were fundamentally associated with FN [49]. Patients may suffer from palpable and painful mammary swelling. Given fat- post-contrast graphic and suppressed sequences, it is possible to distinguish between breast cancer relapse and lip necrosis [52].

Thickening of skin and breast subcutaneous edema

Given the small vessel damage, skin thickening is often expected to occur, particularly after BOS. Edema can affect the whole breast after radiation therapy. All signs of inflammation can be revealed through clinical examination. Some of the main sign include red skin or tissue stiffness, and soreness [40, 41]. The US image can help diffuse structural dishomogeneity and provide evidence for skin thickening. If the thickness of the skin is more than 4 mm, it is necessary to use MRI with fat suppression for evaluation purposes. During the first 6 months after radiation therapy, the above mentioned alterations become more obvious. In majority of the patients, the alteration may decrease or stabilize within a 2–3- year period [40, 41]. Further research is required to investigate the increase in skin thickening because the patient may likely be prone to inflammatory breast cancer [53].

Reactivation of tumor

During the first 5 years after treatment, breast cancer may be reactivated, particularly following conservative surgery and radiotherapy [38, 54]. Local tumor reactivation can be considered a relapse of tumor cells in the site of tumor, in spite of surgery. However, regional tumor reactivation refers to the extra spread of the initial cancer out of the breast which involves the axillary lymph nodes [55]. Patients who have undergone BOS are more likely to be affected by local tumor relapse, compared to patients after mastectomy [54]. Given the fact that the conventional imaging techniques are inconclusive or in conflict with some clinical indicators, MRI can help detect the suspected reactivation more efficiently. Additionally, MRI is an appropriate tool for evaluating the extent of residual tumor in women following lumpectomy with positive or close resection margins [56]. It is of great importance to distinguish a tumor reactivation from scar tissue after BOS. Compared to mammography, MRI is a very sensitive tool (75–100%) [57]. Based on MRI, some patients need to undergo a follow-up course. It may not be easy to detect ipsilateral recurrent tumors via first-step breast investigations (i.e., US and mammography). Dynamic contrast-enhanced MRI can be used to accurately detect the extent, location, and presence of tumor reactivation [43].

Discussion

The breast fat necrosis is a frequent benignant situation that could induce a broad range of mammographic findings such as tissue lumps, calcifications with various morphology and size, oily cysts and localized skin thickening [58]. A collection of fused macrophages known as foreign-body giant cells, lipid-laden macrophages, occupying interstices penetration via plasma cells are systematically present. Fat saponification leads to vacuoles formation which then would be surrounded via macrophages. Therapeutic management via fibrosis would begin at the edge and finally might be replaced with the whole area or evacuate a persevering cystic cavity [16]. In some cases, the cyst content might do not mantain in its uniform radiopacity, as a consequence of simulating an abscess, simple cyst or solid lesion. Distortion of rim of conglomerate masses would cause the cyst wall edges to become irregular. When the content of the cyst is a combination of both blood and the liquid part of blood (serum), the mixture could layer on horizontal-beam sidelong films. In such a cases based on highly expressive clinical findings, periodic follow up of patients are recommended instead of carrying out a biopsy. In such cases when there is a nodule in a lipid cyst and incidental calcifications may be present, biopsy would be recommended [16, 42].

Fat necrosis has several clinical and imaging features which may not be sometimes easy to distinguish from malignancy [13]. This condition may be asymptomatic. Moreover, sometimes the physician can detect the pathologic condition only through mammography. [59, 60]. The mammographic spectrum of appearances of fat necrosis should be recognized in order to avoid biopsy. Given the growing advances in surgical technique and materials, patients believe that the natural contour, shape, and symmetry should be reconstructed at the culmination of the breast reconstructive process [58]. Unfortunately, secondary contour deformities can still occur and negatively affect the expectations of patients. Despite the fact that fat graft is now a popular technique, it is still associated with some major concerns.

Conclusion

As one of the commonest types of cancer, breast cancer affects women. BOS aims to obtain radical tumor excision. For this purpose, MRI can be used to detect local breast cancer recurrence. The evidence does not yet recommend MRI in the follow-up of patients who have undergone BCS. According to the current guidelines, MRI is not recommended for breast cancer follow-up in asymptomatic patient. In this period, US and mammographic examinations are performed. MRI can be used as an evaluation tool for residual diseases. Despite the fact that fat grafting is an efficient tool, it may develop a significant risk of fat necrosis/oil cyst. Physicians need to adequately inform the patients about the sequelae of fat grafting and the possible need for future ultrasounds and biopsy. Further research is needed to investigate the radiologic features of palpable nodules with ultrasound and development of standards. The characteristic descriptors need to be evaluated in order to efficiently fat necrosis. It is necessary to differentiate fat necrosis from malignancy in patients who have had fat grafting.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Change history

  • 01 August 2019

    .

Abbreviations

ASPS:

American Society of Plastic Surgeons

BCS:

breast-conserving surgery

BCT:

breast-conserving therapy

BOS:

breast oncoplastic surgery

DWI:

Diffusion-weighted imaging

EUSOMA:

European Society of Breast Cancer Specialists

FN:

at necrosis

MRI:

magnetic resonance imaging

US:

ultrasound

References

  1. Hassan HHM, El Abd AM, Abdel Bary A, Naguib NNN. Fat necrosis of the breast Magnetic Resonance Imaging Characteristics and Pathologic Correlation. Acad Radiol. 2018;25(8):985–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Tan PH, Lai LM, Carrington EV, Opaluwa AS, Ravikumar KH, Chetty N, Kaplan V, Kelley CJ, Babu ED. Fat necrosis of the breast: a review. Breast. 2006;15:313–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Taboada JL, Stephens TW, Krishnamurthy S, et al. The many faces of Fat necrosis. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2009;192(3):815–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Prasanti GV, Anjuli S, Kelly F, Susan H. Cysts with masses and masses with cysts: an imaging review of cystic breast masses. Appl Radiol. 2017.

  5. Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osborne CK. Diseases of the breast, 5rd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2014.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Berg WA, Sechtin AG, Marques H, Zhang Z. Cystic breast masses and the ACRIN 6666 experience. Radiol Clin N Am. 2010;48(5):931–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gutowski KA, Fat Graft Task Force ASPS. Current applications and safety of autologous fat grafts: a report of the ASPS fat graft task force. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2009;124:272–80.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Coleman S, Saboeiro AP. Fat grafting to the breast revisited: safety and effcacy. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;119:775–85.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Kato H, Mineda K, Eto H, Doi K, Kuno S, Kinoshita K, et al. Degeneration, regeneration, and cicatrization after fat grafting: dynamic total tissue remodeling during the first 3 months. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:303e–13e.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Mineda K, Kuno S, Kato H, Kinoshita K, Doi K, Hashimoto I, et al. Chronic inflammation and progressive calcifcation as a result of fat necrosis: the worst outcome in fat grafting. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1064–72.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Lin J-Y, Song P, Pu LLQ. Management of Fat Necrosis after autologous Fat transplantation for breast augmentation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018;142(5):665e–73e.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Morrow M, Harris JR, Schnitt SJ. Surgical margins in lumpectomy for breast cancer—bigger is not better. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:79–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Piper M, Peled AW, Price ER, Foster RD, Esserman LJ, Sbitany H. Mammographic changes after oncoplastic reduction mammoplasty. Ann Plast Surg. 2015; Epub ahead of print.

  14. Chala LF, de Barros N, de Camargo Moraes P, Endo E, Kim SJ, Pincerato KM, et al. Fat necrosis of the breast: mammographic, sonographic, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging findings. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2004;33:106–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Adrada B, Wu Y, Yang W. Hyperechoic lesions of the breast: radiologic-histopathologic correlation. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2013: 200;518–530.

  16. Ganau S, Tortajada L, Escribano F, Andreu X, Sentis M. Fat necrosis. Mammography – recent advances. Croatia: InTech. 2012:373–88.

  17. Daly CP, Jaeger B, essay SDS“P. Variable appearances of fat necrosis on breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008;191:1374–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gatta G, Pinto A, Romano S, Ancona A, Scaglione M, Volterrani L. Clinical, mammographic and ultrasonographic features of blunt breast trauma. Eur J Radiol. 2006:59; 327–30.

  19. Kerridge WD, Kryvenko ON, Thompson, A, Shah BA. Fat Necrosis of the Breast: A Pictorial Review of the Mammographic, Ultrasound, CT, and MRI Findings with Histopathologic Correlation Volume 2015, Article ID 613139.

  20. Trimboli RM, Carbonaro LA, Cartia F, Di Leo G, Sardanelli F. MRI of fat necrosis of the breast: the ‘black hole’ sign at short tau inversion recovery. J Radiol. 2012;81(4):e573–9.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Bevers TB, Anderson BO, Bonaccio E, Buys S, Daly MB, Dempsey PJ, et al. NCCN clinical practice guidelines in oncology: breast cancer screening and diagnosis. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2009;7(10):1060–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Pasta V, Monti M, Cialini M, Vergine M, Urciuoli P, Iacovelli A, et al. Primitive sarcoma of the breast: new insight on the proper surgical management. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015a;34:72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Mazouni C, Mesnard C, Cloutier AS, Amabile MI, Bentivegna E, et al. Quilting sutures reduces seroma in mastectomy. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15:289–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Cao JQ, Olson RA, Tyldesley SK. Comparison of recurrence and survival rates after breast-conserving therapy and mastectomy in young women with breast cancer. Curr Oncol. 2013;20:593–601.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Clarke M, Collins R, Darby S, Davies C, Elphinstone P, Evans V, et al. Effects of radiotherapy and of differences in the extent of surgery for early breast cancer on local recurrence and 15-year survival: an overview of the randomised trials. Lancet. 2005;366:2087–106.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  26. Anderson SJ, Wapnir I, Dignam JJ, Fisher B, Mamounas EP, Jeong JH, et al. Prognosis after ipsilateral breast tumor recurrence and locoregional recurrences in patients treated by breastconserving therapy in five National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and bowel project protocols of node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2009;27:2466–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Nose T, Komoike Y, Yoshida K, Koizumi M, Motomura K, Kasugai T, et al. A pilot study of wider use of accelerated partial breast irradiation: intraoperative margin-directed re-excision combined with sole high-dose-rate interstitial brachytherapy. Breast Cancer. 2006;13:289–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Solin LJ, Orel SG, Hwang WT, Harris EE, Schnall MD. Relationship of breast magnetic resonance imaging to outcome after breast-conservation treatment with radiation for women with early-stage invasive breast carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:386–91.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Azu M, Abrahamse P, Katz SJ, Jagsi R, Morrow M. What is an adequate margin for breast-conserving surgery? Surgeon attitudes and correlates. Ann Surg Oncol. 2010;17:558–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Criscitiello C, Curigliano G, Burstein HJ, Wong S, Esposito A, Viale G, et al. Breast conservation following neoadjuvant therapy for breast cancer in the modern era: are we losing the opportunity? Eur J Surg Oncol. 2016;42:1780–6.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Ogawa T, Hanamura N, Yamashita M, Kimura H, Kashikura Y. Long-term results of breast volume replacement using an inframammary adipofascial flap after breast-conserving surgery. Breast Cancer. 2014;21(5):635–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Noguchi M, Inokuchi M. Moving window” operation for breastconserving surgery. Breast Cancer 2010; 17:56–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Russo AL, Taghian AG. Fat necrosis of the breast in the accelerated partial breast irradiation era: the need for a universal grading system. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2013;140:1–11.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Robertson C, Arcot Ragupathy SK, Boachie C, Dixon JM, Fraser C, Hernandez R, et al. The clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different surveillance mammography regimens after the treatment for primary breast cancer: systematic reviews registry database analyses and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2011;15 v–vi, 1–322.

  35. Smith RA, Duffy SW, Tabár L: Breast cancer screening: the evolving evidence. Oncology (Williston Park) 2012; 26: 471–475, 479–481, 485–486.

  36. Martin AM, Meyricke R, O’Neill T, Roberts S. Mastectomy or breast conserving surgery? Factors affecting type of surgical treatment for breast cancer – a classification tree approach. BMC Cancer. 2006;6:98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Follacchio GA, Monteleone F, Anibaldi P, De Vincentis G, Iacobelli S, Merola R, D’Orazi V, Monti M, Pasta V. A modified sentinel node and occult lesion localization (SNOLL) technique in non-palpable breast cancer: a pilot study. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015;34:113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Amabile MI, Mazouni C, Guimond C, Sarfati B, Leymarie N, Cloutier AS, Bentivegna E, Garbay JR, Kolb F, Rimareix F. Factors predictive of re-excision after oncoplastic breast-conserving surgery. Anticancer Res. 2015;35:4229–34.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Khatcheressian JL, Hurley P, Bantug E, Esserman LJ, Grunfeld E, Halberg F, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology: breast cancer follow-up and management after primary treatment: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline update. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:961–5.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Chansakul T, Lai KC, Slanetz PJ. The postconservation breast: part 1, expected imaging findings. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012a;198:321–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Chansakul T, Lai KC, Slanetz PJ. The postconservation breast: part 2, imaging findings of tumor recurrence and other long-term sequelae. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2012b;198:331–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Preda L, Villa G, Rizzo S, Bazzi L, Origgi D, Cassano E, Bellomi M. Magnetic resonance mammography in the evaluation of recurrence at the prior lumpectomy site after conservative surgery and radiotherapy. Breast Cancer Res. 2006;8:R53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46:1296–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Kneeshaw PJ, Lowry M, Manton D, Hubbard A, Drew PJ, Turnbull LW. Differentiation of benign from malignant breast disease associated with screening detected microcalcifications using dynamic contrast enhanced magnetic resonance imaging. Breast. 2006;15:29–38.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  45. Dolan R, Patel M, Weiler-Mithoff E, Mansell J, Stallard S, Doughty JC, et al. Imaging results following oncoplastic and standard breast conserving surgery. Breast Care (Basel). 2015;10:325–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Cho SH, Park SH. Mimickers of breast malignancy on breast sonography. J Ultrasound Med. 2013;32:2029–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Atasoy MM, Oren NC, Ilica AT, Güvenç İ, Günal A, Mossa-Basha M. Sonography of fat necrosis of the breast: correlation with mammography and MR imaging. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013;41:415–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Kerridge WD, Kryvenko ON, Thompson A, Shah BA. Fat necrosis of the breast: a pictorial review of the mammographic, ultrasound, CT, and MRI findings with histopathologic correlation. Radiol Res Pract. 2015;2015:613139.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Ganau S, Tortajada L, Escribano F, Andreu X, Sentís M. The great mimicker: fat necrosis of the breast-magnetic resonance mammography approach. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 2009;38:189–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Amabile MI, Monti M, Merola R, Frusone F, D’Orazi V, Pasta V. Nipple-sparing mastectomy in patients with preoperative diagnosis of non-invasive breast carcinoma. A single-center experience. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:779–83.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Wazir U, El Hage Chehade H, Headon H, Oteifa M, Kasem A, et al. Oncological safety of lipofilling in patients with breast cancer: a meta-analysis and update on clinical practice. Anticancer Res. 2016;36:4521–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Ayyappan AP, Crystal P, Torabi A, Foley BJ, Fornage BD. Imaging of fat-containing lesions of the breast: a pictorial essay. J Clin Ultrasound. 2013;41:424–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Ballesio L, D’Ambrosio I, Ravazzolo N, Angeletti M, Di Pastena F, Tardioli S, et al. Skin thickening as unique pathologic sign of an inflammatory breast cancer: a case report and review of the literature. Clin Ter. 2011;162:351–4.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Bosma SC, van der Leij F, Van Werkhoven E, Bartelink H, Wesseling J, Linn S, et al. Very low local recurrence rates after breast-conserving therapy: analysis of 8485 patients treated over a 28-year period. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;156:391–400.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Lee KA, Jochelson MS. Post breast conservation therapy imaging and local recurrence. Q J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2013;57:332–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Yin J, Yang J, Han L, Guo Q, Zhang W. Quantitative discrimination between invasive ductal carcinomas and benign lesions based on semi-automatic analysis of time intensity curves from breast dynamic contrast enhanced MRI. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2015;34:24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Quinn EM, Coveney AP, Redmond HP. Use of magnetic resonance imaging in detection of breast cancer recurrence: a systematic review. Ann Surg Oncol. 2012;19:3035–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Snell L, McCarthy C, Klassen A, Cano S, Rubin L, Hurley K, et al. Clarifying the expectations of patients undergoing implant breast reconstruction: a qualitative study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(6):1825–30.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Demirdover C, Geyik A, Vayvada H, Menderes A. Is histological evaluation of reduction Mammaplasty specimens worthwhile? Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(6):NP178–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Elfituri O, Sonawane S, Xu H, Warso MA, Wiley E. A recurrence of bilateral diffuse Sclerosing lobular hyperplasia of breast: a case report. Int J Surg Pathol. 2018;26(4):353–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This study did not receive any specific research grant though a private, public or non-profit funding agency.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Surgery, Besat Hospital, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Narges Vasei, Azita Shishegar & Forouzan Ghalkhani

  2. Infectious Diseases and Tropical Medicine Research Center (IDTMRC), Department of Aerospace and Subaquatic Medicine, AJA University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

    Mohammad Darvishi

Authors
  1. Narges Vasei
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Azita Shishegar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Forouzan Ghalkhani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammad Darvishi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NV, ASH, FGH, and MD prepared and edited the draft. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Azita Shishegar.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vasei, N., Shishegar, A., Ghalkhani, F. et al. Fat necrosis in the Breast: A systematic review of clinical. Lipids Health Dis 18, 139 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-019-1078-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12944-019-1078-4

Keywords

Lipids in Health and Disease

ISSN: 1476-511X