Should We Be Analysing Breast Reduction Specimens? A Systematic Analysis of Over 1,000 Consecutive Cases

Abstract

Background Reduction mammoplasty (RM) continues to be popular. The reported incidence of occult breast carcinoma in these specimens varies between 0.05 and 1.8 %. Literature review reveals a wide discrepancy in study methodology, outcome measures, and even what is constituted as a “significant” result. We set out to identify RM patients at increased risk of occult significant pathological findings to engender a systematic improvement in efficiency of those specimens sent for histopathological examination. Methods A single-centre retrospective study of the pathology results for 1,388 consecutive RM patients was undertaken. Patients were divided into three groups according to indication for surgery: group 1, macromastia; group 2, developmental asymmetry; and group 3, symmetrising surgery after breast cancer reconstructive surgery. Results Nine cases of occult carcinoma were found among the 1,388 women (0.65 %), all in patients over 35 years of age. Forty percent of all patients were under 35 years old. Histopathological analysis of 59 % of patients revealed nonsignificant findings. Patients with a breast cancer history were 4.3 times more likely to have occult breast cancer. Patients under 30 years of age had a significantly higher chance of nonsignificant findings than those over 30 (relative risk = 2.5). Conclusions Although the overall incidence of occult breast cancer in reduction mammaplasty patients remains low, specific subgroups with a higher risk are identified. It is recommended that histological analysis of specimens should be restricted to high-risk patients and those over 30 years of age as significant pathology is uncommon in younger patients. These results will promote health-care-related economic benefits and a reduction of the burden placed on histopathology departments. 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.