Fat necrosis: A consultant's conundrum
Majithia J., Haria P., Popat P., Katdare A., Chouhan S., Gala KB.
Narrative Review, published in Front Oncol (2022) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
- Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
- Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
- Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
- Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
- Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.
- Study type
- Narrative Review
- Journal
- Front Oncol (2022)
- Reported sample size
- —
- Source database
- Europe PMC
- PMID
- 36873302
- PMCID
- PMC9978799
- DOI
- 10.3389/fonc.2022.926396
- Citations
- 7
Abstract (original English)
Fat necrosis of the breast is a benign non-suppurative inflammation of the adipose tissue and often mimics breast cancers, posing a diagnostic challenge for the clinician and radiologist. It has a myriad of appearances on different imaging techniques, ranging from the pathognomic oil cyst and benign dystrophic calcifications to indeterminate focal asymmetries, architectural distortions, and masses. A combination of different modalities can assist a radiologist in reaching a logical conclusion to avoid unnecessary interventions. The aim of this review article was to provide a comprehensive literature on the various imaging appearances of fat necrosis in the breast. Although a purely benign entity, the imaging appearances on mammography, contrast-enhanced mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging can be quite misleading, especially in post-therapy breasts. The purpose is to provide a comprehensive and all-inclusive review on fat necrosis with a proposed algorithm allowing a systematic approach to diagnosis.
What this study does not prove
- • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
- • This is a narrative review: it collects no new patient data and does not systematically appraise evidence quality.
Evidence level
Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.
How we grade evidenceBrowse all related research
Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.