ACR Appropriateness Criteria ® Breast Implant Evaluation

Non-contrast MRI and post-mastectomy silicone breast implant rupture: preventing false positive diagnoses

BACKGROUND

Breast implants are not lifelong, with implant rupture being the third leading cause of revisional surgery in augmented women. Noncontrast MRI is a reliable tool to assess implant integrity; however, false positive and false negative diagnoses have been reported due to an incorrect interpretation of MRI signs. This study aims to investigate the incidence of these misleading results, comparing MRI findings with intraoperative surgical observations and exploring signs of nonunivocal interpretation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Between March 2019 and October 2022, our hospital, a referral center for breast cancer care, conducted 139 breast MRI examinations to evaluate implant integrity. Surgical intervention was deemed necessary for patients diagnosed with suspected or confirmed implant rupture at MRI. Those patients who did not undergo any surgical procedure (63 cases) or had surgery at different institutes (11 cases) were excluded.

RESULTS

Among the 65 patients who underwent preoperative MRI and subsequent surgery at our institute, surgical findings confirmed the preoperative MRI diagnosis in 48 women. Notably, 17 women exhibited a discordance between MRI and surgical findings: three false negatives, 11 false positives and three possible ruptures not confirmed. Signs of nonunivocal or misleading interpretation were assessed on a patient-by-patient basis. The importance of obtaining detailed information about a patient's breast implant, including fill materials, number of lumens, manufacturer and shape, proved immensely beneficial for interpreting MRI signs accurately.

CONCLUSION

Pre-MRI knowledge of implant details and a meticulous evaluation of non-univocal signs can aid radiologists in accurately assessing implant integrity, reducing the risk of unnecessary revisional surgeries, and potentially averting allegations of medical malpractice.

Current State of Evidence-Based Long-Term Monitoring Protocols for Breast Plastic Surgery Patients

BACKGROUND

Recommendations for breast surveillance following breast plastic surgery are frequently changing. Establishing guidelines for long-term monitoring protocols may help identify treatable conditions and prevent untoward sequelae. We sought to evaluate the current state of evidence-based long-term monitoring protocols for patients following breast augmentation, reduction, and breast reconstruction.

METHODS

Official guidelines from various American societies and international societies were analyzed for alignment in evidence-based recommendations regarding breast surveillance.

RESULTS

The most recent US FDA update recommends magnetic resonance imaging or ultrasound starting 5-6 years after surgery and every 2-3 years thereafter. Discrepancies exist among professional societies: the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) aligns with the FDA, while the American Society of Breast Surgeons and American College of Radiology (ACR) find no role for imaging for asymptomatic cases. Ultrasound is first-line for any implant concerns, with MRI if necessary. European societies oppose routine breast implant imaging. Breast reduction patients lack unique screening protocols; monitoring aligns with age and cancer risk factors. Following mastectomy and breast reconstruction, most organizations advocate for annual clinical examinations, with more frequent examinations initially. Evidence suggests that physical examination is sufficient to detect local cancer recurrence, with imaging only indicated if there is concern for recurrence. No surveillance imaging is recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, or ASPS; however, ACR recommends mammography for autologous reconstruction only.

CONCLUSION

Multispecialty and regulatory body alignment may promote provider and patient adherence. Ongoing studies of long-term outcomes are needed to strengthen the level of evidence for monitoring guidelines.

Breast Implant Imaging Surveillance Practice: Survey of Breast Imaging Radiologists in the Society of Breast Imaging

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this Society of Breast Imaging (SBI)-member survey study were to assess the current imaging patterns for evaluation of symptomatic and asymptomatic breast implant integrity, including modalities used and imaging intervals.

METHODS

A 12-question survey assessing the frequency of imaging modalities used to evaluate implant integrity, approximate number of breast implant integrity studies requested per month, intervals of integrity studies, and referring provider and radiology practice characteristics was distributed to members of the SBI.

RESULTS

The survey response rate was 7.6% (143/1890). Of responding radiologists, 54.2% (77/142) were in private, 29.6% (42/142) in academic, and 16.2% (23/142) in hybrid practice. Among respondents, the most common initial examination for evaluating implant integrity was MRI without contrast at 53.1% (76/143), followed by handheld US at 46.9% (67/143). Of respondents using US, 67.4% (91/135) also evaluated the breast tissue for abnormalities. Among respondents, 34.1% (46/135) reported being very confident or confident in US for diagnosing implant rupture. There was a range of reported intervals for performing implant integrity studies: 39.1% (43/110) every 2-3 years, 26.4% (29/110) every 4-5 years, 15.5% (17/110) every 6-10 years, and 19.1% (21/110) every 10 years.

CONCLUSION

For assessment of implant integrity, the majority of respondents (53.2%, 76/143) reported MRI as initial imaging test. US is less costly, but the minority of respondents (34.1%, 46/135) had confidence in US performance. Also, the minority of respondents (39.1%, 43/110) performed implant integrity evaluations every 2-3 years per the FDA recommendations for asymptomatic surveillance.

Canadian Association of Radiologists Breast Disease Imaging Referral Guideline

The Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) Breast Disease Expert Panel consists of breast imaging radiologists, a high-risk breast clinician, a patient advisor, and an epidemiologist/guideline methodologist. After developing a list of 20 clinical/diagnostic scenarios, a systematic rapid scoping review was undertaken to identify systematically produced referral guidelines that provide recommendations for one or more of these clinical/diagnostic scenarios. Recommendations from 30 guidelines and contextualization criteria in the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) for guidelines framework were used to develop 69 recommendation statements across the 20 scenarios. This guideline presents the methods of development and the recommendations for referring asymptomatic individuals, symptomatic patients, and other scenarios requiring imaging of the breast.

Multimodality Imaging of Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction Techniques, Complications, and Tumor Recurrence

For women undergoing mastectomy, breast reconstruction can be performed by using implants or autologous tissue flaps. Mastectomy options include skin- and nipple-sparing techniques. Implant-based reconstruction can be performed with saline or silicone implants. Various autologous pedicled or free tissue flap reconstruction methods based on different tissue donor sites are available. The aesthetic outcomes of implant- and flap-based reconstructions can be improved with oncoplastic surgery, including autologous fat graft placement and nipple-areolar complex reconstruction. The authors provide an update on recent advances in implant reconstruction techniques and contemporary expanded options for autologous tissue flap reconstruction as it relates to imaging modalities. As breast cancer screening is not routinely performed in this clinical setting, tumor recurrence after mastectomy and reconstruction is often detected by palpation at physical examination. Most local recurrences occur within the skin and subcutaneous tissue. Diagnostic breast imaging continues to have a critical role in confirmation of disease recurrence. Knowledge of the spectrum of benign and abnormal imaging appearances in the reconstructed breast is important for postoperative evaluation of patients, including recognition of early and late postsurgical complications and breast cancer recurrence. The authors provide an overview of multimodality imaging of the postmastectomy reconstructed breast, as well as an update on screening guidelines and recommendations for this unique patient population. ©RSNA, 2024 Test Your Knowledge questions for this article are available in the supplemental material.

Society of skeletal radiology position paper - recommendations for contrast use in musculoskeletal MRI: when is non-contrast imaging enough?

The following White Paper will discuss the appropriateness of gadolinium administration in MRI for musculoskeletal indications. Musculoskeletal radiologists should consider the potential risks involved and practice the judicious use of intravenous contrast, restricting administration to cases where there is demonstrable added value. Specific nuances of when contrast is or is not recommended are discussed in detail and listed in table format. Briefly, contrast is recommended for bone and soft tissue lesions. For infection, contrast is reserved for chronic or complex cases. In rheumatology, contrast is recommended for early detection but not for advanced arthritis. Contrast is not recommended for sports injuries, routine MRI neurography, implants/hardware, or spine imaging, but is helpful in complex and post-operative cases.

Breast filler granuloma mistaken for implant rupture: A case report

RATIONALE

Breast augmentation is usually performed by inserting implants into the breasts. However, injectable fillers are sometimes used for the convenience of both patients and surgeons. If foreign substances, such as biomaterials, are injected into the body, complications such as inflammation, granuloma, and tissue necrosis can occur owing to foreign body reactions.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 39-year-old female patient visited our hospital complaining of tenderness, redness, and swelling in both breasts. The patient had undergone bilateral breast augmentation using implants 4 years prior to current consult.

DIAGNOSES

On magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), cystic lesions and fluid collections were observed, with findings suggesting implant rupture; hence, surgery was planned to remove both implants.

INTERVENTIONS

Intraoperatively, the implant was malpositioned in the upper lateral portion without rupture. Capsular contracture findings were also not prominent. A large amount of inflammatory granuloma was observed and removed in the prepectoral plane, and the implants were immediately inserted into a new subpectoral plane.

OUTCOMES

The volume of the new implant was 175 mL, which was smaller than the previous one, as per the patient preference. Cytology of the fluid from the previous implant pocket showed no evidence of malignancy, and the granuloma was identified as inflammatory tissue caused by a foreign body reaction on biopsy. The excessive protrusion of both breasts was corrected after surgery, and the patient was satisfied with the aesthetic outcomes without any complications up to 3 months after surgery.

LESSONS

The use of injectable fillers for breast augmentation carries the risk of misdiagnosis, and, therefore, surgeons should always exercise caution.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging Surveillance Study of Silicone Implant-based Breast Reconstruction: A Retrospective Observational Study

This study aimed to evaluate the results of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance of implant-based breast reconstruction in patients with breast cancer.

Methods

This retrospective observational study analyzed patients who underwent implant-based breast reconstruction and MRI surveillance by a single surgeon from March 2011 to December 2018, in a single center. All patients were informed about the recommendation of the Food and Drug Administration for MRI surveillance, and they choose to undergo MRI 3 years after surgery.

Results

The compliance rate for MRI surveillance was 56.5% (169/299). MRI surveillance was performed at a mean of 45.8 (4.04 years) ± 11.5 months after surgery. One patient (0.6%) showed an abnormal finding of an intracapsular rupture of the silicone implant.

Conclusions

MRI surveillance for implant rupture in implant-based breast reconstruction showed a low incidence of silent implant rupture (0.6%), whereas the compliance of MRI was relatively high (56.5%). These results raise questions about whether taking an MRI in 3-4 years is suitable for imaging surveillance of breast silicone implants. Screening recommendations should be more evidence-based, and more studies are needed to prevent unnecessary screening and patient burden.

Assessment, Complications, and Surveillance of Breast Implants: Making Sense of 2022 FDA Breast Implant Guidance

As more information about the potential risks and complications related to breast implants has become available, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded by implementing changes to improve patient education, recalling certain devices and updating the recommendations for screening for silicone implant rupture. In addition to staying up-to-date with FDA actions and guidance, radiologists need to maintain awareness about the types of implants they may see, breast reconstruction techniques including the use of acellular dermal matrix, and the multimodality imaging of implants and their complications. Radiologists should also be familiar with some key differences between the updated FDA guidelines for implant screening and the imaging recommendations from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. The addition of US as an acceptable screening exam for silicone implant rupture by the FDA is one of the most notable changes that has potentially significant implications.

Medical Imaging of Inflammations and Infections of Breast Implants

Breast implants are widely used for reconstructive and/or cosmetic purposes. Inflammations and infections of breast implants represent important complications in clinical practice. The proper management of complications is necessary: diagnostic imaging plays a key role in detecting sites of inflammation and/or infection. The present review aims to illustrate the radiological findings of these conditions with different imaging techniques, such as mammography (MX), ultrasound (US), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and nuclear medicine imaging. A knowledge of these findings is essential for radiologists and nuclear medicine physicians to provide helpful information for the clinical management of these complications.

Magnetic resonance imaging of breast implants: Optimizing tissue contrast

INTRODUCTION

Patients with breast implants need to undergo regular screening MRI procedures. One of the key requirements of this screening scan is the ability to suppress one or more tissues (water, fat, or silicone) simultaneously. However, the presence of "foreign" implants within the breast biological space affects the MRI scanner's normal operating mode. Often, this requires operator's supervision to make sure the correct image contrast is achieved.

METHODS

We built a phantom that represents the commonly encountered tissues (water, fat, and silicone) in breast implant imaging. The phantom was used to optimise imaging parameters and highlight common challenges encountered while imaging breast implants. We scanned the phantom on seven different MRI scanners (including 1.5T and 3T) and produced vendor-specific cheat-sheets on how to image breast implants. Ethical approval was not required for this article type.

CONCLUSION

Performing a breast MRI procedure with implants in-situ can be challenging. Employing a purpose-built phantom, we provide easy-to-use cheat sheets, with examples, outlining steps that can be taken to ensure appropriate tissue suppression and image contrast in breast implant MRI. We hope these cheat-sheets will help MRI practitioners to confidently and efficiently achieve accurate image contrasts across a number of implant scenarios which will aid in improving diagnostic accuracy, treatment plans, and thus prognosis for the patient.

Appropriate screening mammography method for patients with breast implants

In this study, we aimed to evaluate the benefits and losses of mammography with and without implant displacement (ID) and propose an appropriate imaging protocol for the screening of breasts with implants. We evaluated mammograms of 162 breasts in 96 patients including 71 breasts with biopsy-proven cancers. Mammography of each breast included standard MLO and ID MLO images. We reviewed the mammograms using clinical image quality criteria, which consist of parameters that evaluate the proper positioning of the breast and the image resolution. Standard MLO images showed significantly higher scores for proper positioning but showed significantly lower scores for image resolution than the ID MLO images. Moreover, standard MLO images showed significantly higher kVp, mAs, and compressed breast thickness than the ID MLO images. The organ dose was also higher in the standard MLO images than in the ID MLO images, but the difference was not statistically significant. In mammography with proven cancer, ID MLO images showed significantly higher degree of cancer visibility than standard MLO images. For screening mammography in patients with breast implants, ID MLO view alone is sufficient for MLO projection with reducing the patient's radiation dose without compromising the breast cancer detection capability, especially in dense breasts with subpectoral implants.

MRI for Evaluation of Complications of Breast Augmentation

Breast augmentation is one of the most common aesthetic procedures performed in the United States. Several techniques of breast augmentation have been developed, including the implantation of breast prostheses and the injection of autologous fat and other materials. The most common method of breast augmentation is to implant a prosthesis. There are different types of breast implants that vary in shape, composition, and the number of lumina. The rupture of breast implants is the leading cause of implant removal. The rupture rate increases substantially with the increasing age of the implant. Most implant ruptures are asymptomatic. Implant complications can be grouped into two categories: local complications in the breast and adjacent soft tissue, and systemic complications associated with rheumatologic or neurologic symptoms. The onset of local complications may be early (infection and periprosthetic collections including seromas, hematomas, or abscesses) or late (capsular contraction, implant rupture, gel bleed, or breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma). Although mammography is the imaging modality for breast cancer screening, noncontrast breast MRI is the imaging modality of choice for evaluation of the integrity of breast implants and the complications of breast augmentation, for equivocal findings at conventional imaging, and as a supplement to mammography in patients with free injectable materials. The fifth edition of the Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) provides a systematic outline for MRI evaluation of patients with breast implants. Silicone- and water-selective sequences provide useful supplemental information to confirm intracapsular and extracapsular rupture. Breast MRI for evaluation of implant integrity does not require intravenous contrast material. The use of MRI contrast material in patients with breast augmentation is indicated when infection or malignancy is suspected. Radiologists should have a thorough understanding of the different techniques for breast augmentation, normal imaging features, and complications specific to breast augmentation. An invited commentary by Ojeda-Fournier is available online. ^©RSNA, 2022.

MRI Screening after Silicone Implant Breast Surgery: Patient Survey of Adherence to FDA Recommendations

BACKGROUND

The FDA recommends women with silicone breast implants undergo MRI surveillance to detect asymptomatic rupture. Screening is costly and often not covered by insurance. We assessed awareness of and adherence to FDA recommendations among patients with silicone breast implants.

METHODS

We searched electronic medical records for patients ≥18 years old with silicone breast implants placed between 2011 and 2016. Consenting patients were surveyed by telephone using a standardized script to assess awareness of FDA recommendations, whether they had undergone MRI screening, and barriers to testing. Patients who declined to participate or could not be contacted were excluded. Demographics and operative data were collected. Odds ratios were calculated with one-sample 95% confidence intervals and Fisher's exact tests of independence were conducted under assumptions of normality. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to test for confounding.

RESULTS

Of 370 patients meeting inclusion criteria, 109 consented to participate. Adherence to FDA recommendations was 5.9% (95%CI [0.15%-28.7%]). There was no difference in adherence between patients undergoing cosmetic versus reconstructive surgery (p = 1.00, OR 0.80, 95% CI 1.17-2.93), having health insurance (p = 0.58) or residing in a county with median annual household income greater than that of the state of residence (p = 0.33).

CONCLUSIONS

A small proportion of respondents had undergone MRI in accordance with FDA recommendations. Low adherence highlights a potential limitation of current Federal surveillance recommendations. Additional research is needed to better characterize adherence to MRI surveillance recommendations, identify barriers to implementation, and determine whether this recommendation remains valid.

Management of Contralateral Breast and Axillary Nodes Silicone Migration after Implant Rupture

Background:

Silicone implants were developed in 1962 for breast augmentation and became essential in reconstruction after mastectomy. Silicone “bleeding” has been described from both ruptured and intact implants and can induce disseminated granulomatosis due to the component's high fat solubility. If not adequately treated, they can lead to disastrous cosmetic and functional consequences. Because they may mimic malignancy, prompt and reliable diagnosis should be made as early as possible.

Methods:

We present a clinical case description of multiple intraparenchymal and ipsi/contralateral intraganglionic siliconomas in a woman who had undergone breast reconstruction, and a literature review of the pathophysiology of siliconomas and their diagnosis and management.

Results:

Silicone migration to the contralateral breast and lymph node is rare and has seldom been described. The mechanism is still debated. Excluding malignancy is a priority, and systematic management must be respected to avoid misdiagnosis or unnecessary investigations.

Conclusions:

A multidisciplinary approach is essential for siliconoma management. Silicone-related lymphadenopathies do not require follow-up or special treatment unless they interfere with the diagnosis of tumor recurrence. Careful observation is sufficient for asymptomatic siliconomas; however, symptomatic ones should be treated depending on skin involvement and the patient's eligibility for intervention.

Current Progress in Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is an uncommon type of T-cell lymphoma. Although with a low incidence, the epidemiological data raised the biosafety and health concerns of breast reconstruction and breast augmentation for BIA-ALCL. Emerging evidence confirms that genetic features, bacterial contamination, chronic inflammation, and textured breast implant are the relevant factors leading to the development of BIA-ALCL. Almost all reported cases with a medical history involve breast implants with a textured surface, which reflects the role of implant surface characteristics in BIA-ALCL. With this review, we expect to highlight the most significant features on etiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis, and therapy of BIA-ALCL, as well as we review the physical characteristics of breast implants and their potential pathogenic effect and hopefully provide a foundation for optimal choice of type of implant with minimal morbidity.

Breast imaging in transgender women: a review

Transgender women are increasingly evaluated in breast imaging centers. Radiologists should be familiar with a range of imaging findings related to feminizing hormone therapy and breast augmentations as well as benign and malignant lesions seen in this population. A growing body of literature has suggested that feminizing hormone therapy may increase the risk of breast cancer, prompting professional organizations to develop screening guidelines. The aim of this paper is to review common breast imaging findings in transgender women, recent data on the association between feminizing hormone therapy and breast cancer, and guidelines for breast cancer screening. Knowing these unique imaging features in transgender women is essential for providing competent care and reducing health care disparities.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Transgender Breast Cancer Screening

Breast cancer screening recommendations for transgender and gender nonconforming individuals are based on the sex assigned at birth, risk factors, and use of exogenous hormones. Insufficient evidence exists to determine whether transgender people undergoing hormone therapy have an overall lower, average, or higher risk of developing breast cancer compared to birth-sex controls. Furthermore, there are no longitudinal studies evaluating the efficacy of breast cancer screening in the transgender population. In the absence of definitive data, current evidence is based on data extrapolated from cisgender studies and a limited number of cohort studies and case reports published on the transgender community. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Accuracy of Ultrasonography in Breast Implant Rupture Diagnosis: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation is the most common aesthetic operation performed in the United States and worldwide; 1,862,506 breast augmentation procedures were performed in 2018, an increase of 27.6 percent compared to 2014 data.

METHODS

In the present study, the authors performed a systematic review to identify the accuracy of ultrasonography for diagnosing breast prosthesis rupture. Studies in which the ultrasound diagnostic test was compared to a surgical finding as a reference standard were reviewed.

RESULTS

As a result, 20 primary studies were included in the analyses, with a total of 1987 patients and 3297 prostheses. The use of ultrasound for diagnosis of breast prosthesis rupture presented the following results: pooled sensitivity, 73.7 percent (95 percent CI, 70.2 to 77.1 percent); pooled specificity, 87.8 percent (95 percent CI, 86.5 to 89.0); area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, 0.7762; diagnostic odds ratio, 11.04 (95 percent CI, 5.79 to 21.08).

CONCLUSION

This study supports that ultrasound of breast prostheses is an adequate tool in the diagnosis of rupture.

MRI features of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a rare and newly recognized subtype of T cell Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHLs) associated with breast implants.The mechanism involved in the development of this kind of lymphoma is still uncertain.BIA-ALCL is generally an indolent disease localized to the breast implant and its capsule and effectively treated with capsulectomy alone without chemotherapy.Clinically, BIA-ALCL may typically present a sudden-onset breast-swelling secondary to periimplant effusion. The minority of BIA-ALCL patients present a more aggressive mass-forming subtype, for which systemic therapy is mandatory.Despite the number of cases has recently increased, BIA-ALCL remains a rare disease described mainly in several case reports and small case series.Breast imaging, including mammography, ultrasound and breast MRI are routinely used in the screening of breast cancer; however, guidelines for the imaging and pathological diagnosis of this disease have only recently been proposed and included in the 2019 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) consensus guidelines for BIA-ALCL.The main purpose of this pictorial is to illustrate the MRI signs of BIA-ALCL and correlate them with the corresponding pathology features in order to improve the knowledge of the principals MRI features of this type of lymphoma.

The Value of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of the Integrity of Silicone Breast Implants

Background and Objective: Breast implant surgery for cosmetic purposes is the most popular plastic surgery and it has been performed for over 100 years. Rupture of silicone gel-filled breast implants usually is asymptomatic and is one of the more dangerous complications due to free silicone migration. The aim of our study was to evaluate the diagnostic value of ultrasound (US) in the evaluation of the integrity of silicone breast implants and identify the main sign of intact and ruptured breast implants. Patients and Methods: In this retrospective study, the medical documentation of women who underwent breast implant surgery and US checkups at Tautrimas Aštrauskas Clinic in Kaunas, Lithuania, during 2015–2020 was analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups: patients with intact and ruptured breast implants. The accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) as well as the signs of implant integrity of US examination were evaluated. Results: In this study, 76 women with bilateral breast implants (n = 152) were reviewed. On a US examination, ruptured implants were found in 41.1% (n = 61) of the cases; of them, 78.7% (n = 48) of the cases had ≥2 US signs of a ruptured implant, and in all these cases, implant rupture was confirmed at surgery. Overall, one US sign of a ruptured implant was found in 21.3% (n = 13) of the cases. Of them, inhomogeneous content in all cases (n = 3) was found in the intact implant group, and an abnormal implant shell was documented more often in the ruptured implant group, not intact one (n = 9, 90% vs. n = 1, 10%). US had a diagnostic accuracy of 94.7%, sensitivity of 98.3%, specificity of 89.2%, PPV of 93.4%, and NPV of 97.1% in the evaluation of implant integrity. Conclusions: Our results show that US is a very reliable alternative in evaluating breast implant integrity and could be the investigation of choice for implant rupture, while MRI could be advocated only in inconclusive cases. Uneven implant shell was found to be the most important US sign of breast implant rupture. Based on the findings, we recommend performing US examination after breast augmentation surgery with silicone gel-filled implants annually.

Multidisciplinary approach to imaging for gender-affirming surgery: engaging surgeons, radiologists, and patients to ensure a positive imaging experience

Medical imaging plays an integral role in the preoperative evaluation and postoperative management of transgender and gender diverse (TGD) patients who pursue gender-affirming surgery. Radiology department encounters can be a source of anxiety for patients of any demographic, including TGD patients. Although most imaging modalities are considered "non-invasive", certain imaging procedures and other aspects of the radiology encounter could be considered quite invasive to the TGD patient. The TGD patient may be worried that the imaging examination will have to address anatomy that they feel does not align with their gender identity, or reveal some abnormality or disheartening complication of their surgery. Simultaneously, the patient must also navigate potentially uncomfortable interactions with other patients in department waiting rooms, restrooms, and changing facilities as well as with radiology staff. As the referral source to imaging facilities, providers should advocate on behalf of their TGD patients. Referring providers should work with imaging facilities to ensure their patients will receive inclusive and affirming care and not be subject to discomfort on the part of gender identity or expression. Proactive and regular communication among radiology facilities, patients, and referring providers will ensure appropriate and sensitive care for this vulnerable population. A positive imaging experience can improve patient outcomes and the relationship between healthcare providers and the TGD community they serve.

Breast Implants Follow-up: Results of a Cross-Sectional Study on Patients Submitted to MRI Breast Examinations

INTRODUCTION

Breast implants follow-up with any type of examination is often neglected; this may cause an error or delay in the diagnosis of complications prosthesis-related such as BIA-ALCL. This study aims to better understand adequate follow-up criteria.

METHOD

All female patients undergoing aesthetic breast augmentation and breast MRI in its follow-up conducted from April 2006 to December 2019 were included in this study. The variables analyzed were age, breast implant surgery date, time with the implant, reason for the examination, and the final examination report. A logistic regression analysis was conducted to search for the predictors of positive findings in MRI. A Cox Regression analysis and cumulative risk curves, controlled by age, was performed to investigate the relationship between time with implants and the risk of positive findings in MRI.

RESULTS

The patients submitted to MRI had complaints in 29.6% of cases, with pain being the most common, 13.9% of cases. In logistic regression analysis, time with the implant was associated with a higher risk of positive findings in univariate analysis (OR = 1.07, p = 0.036), but not in multivariate analysis. Both pain and breast form changes were independent predictors for positive findings in MRI, OR = 2.79, p = 0.04, and OR = 16.98, p < 0.001, respectively. The cumulative risk of positive findings in MRI increased considerably only after 10 years of implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

Time with breast implants may be associated with a higher risk of changes in breast MRI examinations, although this relationship was not significant in multivariate logistic regression analysis. The cumulative risk for positive findings seems to increase considerably only after 10 years of implantation. This study draws attention to the paramount importance of follow-up with a clinical breast examination. Despite time with implants or patients' age, both pain and breast form changes were the most important predictors for MRI alterations.

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 .

Is breast ultrasound a good alternative to magnetic resonance imaging for evaluating implant integrity?

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic performance of breast ultrasound and breast magnetic resonance imaging and to correlate the findings on the two techniques that are suggestive of implant rupture.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We reviewed the images and reports of breast ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging studies done in our diagnostic and interventional breast imaging unit to evaluate breast implants in 205 patients between January 2015 and December 2017.

RESULTS

Ultrasound findings were compatible with implant rupture in 87 (42.4%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 44 (21.5%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 43 (21.0%). Ultrasound yielded 85.2% sensitivity, 89.7% specificity, 86.2% positive predictive value, and 89.0% negative predictive value. Magnetic resonance imaging findings were compatible with implant rupture in 88 (42.9%) patients: intracapsular rupture in 50 (24.4%) and intracapsular and extracapsular rupture in 38 (18.5%). The correlation between positive findings for the location of the rupture on the two imaging techniques was excellent (0.77; p<0.0001).

CONCLUSION

We found high concordance between the two techniques for the detection of intracapsular and extracapsular implant rupture. These results consolidate the use of ultrasound as the first-line imaging technique to evaluate implant integrity in our population; magnetic resonance imaging can be reserved for cases in which the ultrasound diagnosis of implant integrity is uncertain.

Understanding Silicone Breast Implant-Associated Complications for Radiologists

미용적 성형 및 유방암 수술 후 재건의 목적으로 사용되는 실리콘 보형물의 사용이 국내외에서 크게 증가함에 따라 진료 영역에서 실리콘 보형물 삽입술을 받은 환자들을 어렵지 않게 접하게 되었다. 기존에 알려져 있던 보형물의 파열이나 구축과 같은 합병증 외에 최근에는 유방 보형물 연관 역형성 대세포 림프종과 같은 악성 종양과의 연관성도 보고되면서 보형물 관련한 영상 검사가 증가하고 있다. 이러한 상황에서 영상의학과 의사들은 보형물 삽입술을 받은 환자에 대해 어떤 검사가 필요하고 어떤 영상 소견이 보형물 관련 합병증을 시사하는지에 관한 충분한 지식을 갖추고 있어야 할 것이다. 본 종설에서는 영상의학과 의사들이 알아야 하는 실리콘 보형물의 다양한 합병증과 이들의 영상 소견에 대해 다루고자 한다.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Imaging After Mastectomy and Breast Reconstruction

Mastectomy may be performed to treat breast cancer or as a prophylactic approach in women with a high risk of developing breast cancer. In addition, mastectomies may be performed with or without reconstruction. Reconstruction approaches differ and may be autologous, involving a transfer of tissue (skin, subcutaneous fat, and muscle) from other parts of the body to the chest wall. Reconstruction may also involve implants. Implant reconstruction may occur as a single procedure or as multistep procedures with initial use of an adjustable tissue expander allowing the mastectomy tissues to be stretched without compromising blood supply. Ultimately, a full-volume implant will be placed. Reconstructions with a combination of autologous and implant reconstruction may also be performed. Other techniques such as autologous fat grafting may be used to refine both implant and flap-based reconstruction. This review of imaging in the setting of mastectomy with or without reconstruction summarizes the literature and makes recommendations based on available evidence. The American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria are evidence-based guidelines for specific clinical conditions that are reviewed annually by a multidisciplinary expert panel. The guideline development and revision include an extensive analysis of current medical literature from peer reviewed journals and the application of well-established methodologies (RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE) to rate the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where evidence is lacking or equivocal, expert opinion may supplement the available evidence to recommend imaging or treatment.

Breast Implant Imaging Surveillance among U.S. Plastic Surgeons: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Recommendations versus Clinical Reality

BACKGROUND

Device rupture is considered a major complication associated with breast implants. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommends magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) surveillance 3 years after implantation and then every 2 years, but adherence to these recommendations is poor. The authors identified current practice management for breast implant rupture surveillance by surveying practicing U.S. plastic surgeons.

METHODS

An online survey of all active members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons was performed. Questions analyzed imaging practice patterns related to breast implants. Logistic regression models were used to analyze determinants for radiographic imaging in breast implant patients.

RESULTS

The survey had a response rate of 16.5 percent. For patients with breast implants, 37.7 percent of respondents recommended MRI at the recommended intervals. Fifty-five percent perform imaging only if there is a problem with the implant. Academic surgeons more frequently recommended MRI (56.3 percent and 39.3 percent; p = 0.0002). Surgeons with less than 5 years of experience are four times more likely to order MRI than surgeons with over 25 years' experience (60.8 percent and 28.1 percent; p < 0.0001). Furthermore, lower volume surgeons recommend significantly more MRI (45.2 percent and 27.3 percent; p = 0.001). Respondents are almost two times more likely to recommend MRI in reconstructive versus cosmetic patients (51.2 percent and 35.6 percent; p = 0.0004).

CONCLUSIONS

MRI limitations include high costs, time commitments, and equipment constraints. Fewer than 40 percent of survey respondents suggest the recommended screening frequency to their patients; however, academic, low-volume, early-career surgeons are more likely to recommend MRI implant monitoring. Screening recommendations need to be evidence based and align with common practices to prevent undue system, provider, and patient burden.

Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Review and Multiparametric Imaging Paradigms

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a new provisional category in the 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) classification of lymphoid neoplasms, and its incidence is rising owing to increasing recognition of this complication of breast implant insertion. At a median of 10 years after implant insertion, the typical presenting features are sudden-onset breast swelling secondary to peri-implant effusion and less frequently mass-forming disease. Histologic features comprise pleomorphic cells expressing CD30 and negative anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) receptor, similar to systemic and cutaneous ALK-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). The effusion-only subtype is generally indolent and curable with surgery, unlike the more aggressive mass-forming disease, for which systemic therapy is advocated. High clinical suspicion and pertinent use of radiologic and pathology modalities are essential for timely and accurate diagnosis of BIA-ALCL. Contemporary imaging techniques including US, mammography, breast MRI, CT, and PET/CT are routinely used in breast disease and lymphomas; however, the unique behavior of BIA-ALCL presents significant diagnostic and radiologic interpretative challenges, with numerous nuanced imaging features being pertinent, and current lymphoma staging and response guidelines are not easily applicable to BIA-ALCL. The authors evaluate available evidence in this evolving field; detail key indications, strengths, and limitations of the panoply of radiologic techniques for BIA-ALCL; and propose multiparametric imaging paradigms for management of the peri-implant effusion and mass-forming or advanced disease subtypes, with the goal of accurate optimal patient care. The authors also predict a future model of multimodal assessment using novel imaging and molecular techniques and define key research directions. ^©RSNA, 2020.