MRI for Evaluation of Complications of Breast Augmentation

Recognizing patient-related artefacts in MRI of the breasts: principles, imaging appearance, and solutions to minimize them

Breast MRI has emerged as an increasingly important tool in evaluating breast pathologies including detection and assessment of cancers, evaluation of implant integrity and as a problem-solving tool for inconclusive conventional breast imaging findings. MRI artefacts encountered during image interpretation may create diagnostic dilemmas. Many of these artefacts are patient-related and can be avoidable. Identification of these artefacts can be challenging in daily practice in particular to trainees or inexperienced radiologists. This article illustrates the principles and imaging appearance of the common patient-related artefacts in breast MRI, with discussion on how to minimize them. They include positioning-related artefacts, inhomogeneous fat suppression, susceptibility artefacts including those associated with the newly emerged non-radioactive wireless localization devices and superparamagnetic lymphatic tracer, as well as motion artefacts. Familiarization with these 4 major types of artefacts by radiologists is crucial in troubleshooting and achieving accurate image interpretation.

Silicone granuloma with intact breast implants: A case report

Silicone granuloma formation is a potential complication of silicone implant rupture. Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is a useful diagnostic tool to assess implant integrity and complications; however, there can be overlap in the enhancement pattern of silicone granuloma and malignancy. We present the case of an 85 year old with suspicious axillary masses on clinical exam for which MRI was recommended. MRI demonstrated enhancing masses in the right axilla that were suspicious for malignancy and biopsy was ultimately performed. This case discusses the use of inversion recovery sequences on MRI, as well as ultrasound, to differentiate malignancy from silicone granuloma formation to prevent unnecessary biopsies.

Retrospective study on the strength of magnetic resonance signs for predicting breast implant rupture: assessing the impact of radiologist expertise at a breast cancer referral center

OBJECTIVE

This study evaluates the diagnostic criteria of MRI for breast implant rupture and examines the influence of radiologist experience on the accuracy of rupture detection.

METHODS

A retrospective study was conducted in a single center, involving patients who underwent implant replacement surgery between March 2019 and October 2022. MRI evaluations by four radiologists of varying experience levels were compared with surgical outcomes.

RESULTS

The study included 118 explanted prostheses, with 25 identified as ruptured. Expert radiologists demonstrated near-perfect agreement (κ = 0.94) in identifying rupture signs, with high PPV and NPV, whereas non-experts showed only moderate agreement (κ = 0.44). Indicators such as the linguine sign, subcapsular line, and keyhole sign were identified with high accuracy by experts, contrasting with non-experts' lower detection rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Expertise in radiology significantly impacts the accurate diagnosis of breast implant ruptures. This study supports updating radiological guidelines and underscores the importance of specialized training and experience in improving diagnostic outcomes in breast implant assessments.

The Spectrum of Non-neoplastic Changes Associated With Breast Implants: Histopathology, Imaging, and Clinical Significance

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma has been recognized as a distinct entity in the World Health Organization classification of hematolymphoid neoplasms. These neoplasms are causally related to textured implants that were used worldwide until recently. Consequently, there is an increased demand for processing periprosthetic capsules, adding new challenges for surgeons, clinicians, and pathologists. In the literature, the focus has been on breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma; however, benign complications related to the placement of breast implants occur in up to 20% to 30% of patients. Imaging studies are helpful in assessing patients with breast implants for evidence of implant rupture, changes in tissues surrounding the implants, or regional lymphadenopathy related to breast implants, but pathologic examination is often required. In this review, we couple our experience with a review of the literature to describe a range of benign lesions associated with breast implants that can be associated with different clinical presentations or pathogenesis and that may require different diagnostic approaches. We illustrate the spectrum of the most common of these benign disorders, highlighting their clinical, imaging, gross, and microscopic features. Finally, we propose a systematic approach for the diagnosis and handling of breast implant specimens in general.

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.

Photon-counting CT of degenerative changes and rupture of silicone breast implants: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Accurate assessment of breast implants is important for appropriate clinical management. We evaluated silicone properties and diagnostic accuracy for characterizing silicone implants and detecting degenerative changes including rupture in photon-counting computed tomography (PCCT).

METHODS

Over 16 months, we prospectively included patients with silicone implants and available breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) who received thoracic PCCT performed in prone position. Consensus reading of all available imaging studies including MRI served as reference standard. Two readers evaluated all implants in PCCT reconstructions for degenerative changes. In a subgroup of implants, mean density of silicone, adjacent muscle, and fat were measured on PCCT reconstructions. Contrast-to-noise ratios (CNRs) were calculated for implant-to-muscle and implant-to-fat.

RESULTS

Among 21 subjects, aged 60 ± 13.1 years (mean ± standard deviation) with 29 implants PCCT showed the following: high accuracy for linguine sign, intraimplant fluid (all > 0.99), peri-implant silicone (0.95), keyhole sign (0.90), and folds of the membrane (0.81); high specificity for linguine sign, intraimplant fluid, keyhole sign, folds of the membrane (all > 0.99), and peri-implant silicone (0.98); and high sensitivity for linguine sign and intraimplant fluid (all > 0.99). In a subgroup of 12 implants, the highest CNR for implant-to-muscle was observed on virtual unenhanced reconstructions (20.9) and iodine maps (22.9), for implant-to-fat on iodine maps (27.7) and monoenergetic reconstructions (31.8).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings demonstrate that silicone breast implants exhibit distinct contrast properties at PCCT, which may provide incremental information for detection of degenerative changes and rupture of implants.

RELEVANCE STATEMENT

Thoracic photon-counting computed tomography is a promising modality for the diagnostic assessment of silicone breast implants.

KEY POINTS

• Thoracic photon-counting computed tomography demonstrates unique contrast properties of silicone breast implants. • Iodine map reconstructions reveal strong contrast-to-noise ratios for implant-to-muscle and implant-to-fat. • Thoracic photon-counting computed tomography shows high diagnostic accuracy in detecting implant degeneration and rupture.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

German Clinical Trials Register number DRKS00028997, date of registration 2022-08-08, retrospectively registered.

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging: Current status and future challenges

BACKGROUND

Contrast-enhanced breast MRI and recently also contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) are available for breast imaging. The aim of the current overview is to explore existing evidence and ongoing challenges of contrast-enhanced breast imaging.

METHODS

This narrative provides an introduction to the contrast-enhanced breast imaging modalities breast MRI and CEM. Underlying principle, techniques and BI-RADS reporting of both techniques are described and compared, and the following indications and ongoing challenges are discussed: problem-solving, high-risk screening, supplemental screening in women with extremely dense breast tissue, breast implants, neoadjuvant systemic therapy (NST) response monitoring, MRI-guided and CEM- guided biopsy.

RESULTS

Technique and reporting for breast MRI are standardised, for the newer CEM standardisation is in progress. Similarly, compared to other modalities, breast MRI is well established as superior for problem-solving, screening women at high risk, screening women with extremely dense breast tissue or with implants; and for monitoring response to NST. Furthermore, MRI-guided biopsy is a reliable technique with low long-term false negative rates. For CEM, data is as yet either absent or limited, but existing results in these settings are promising.

CONCLUSION

Contrast-enhanced breast imaging achieves highest diagnostic performance and should be considered essential. Of the two contrast-enhanced modalities, evidence of breast MRI superiority is ample, and preliminary results on CEM are promising, yet CEM warrants further study.

Underreported and underrecognized: a comprehensive imaging review of breast injury

Breast injury is commonly encountered yet it remains significantly underreported. Injury to the breast may arise from either primary mechanisms or secondary or iatrogenic mechanisms. Primary mechanisms of breast injury include blunt force, seat-belt, penetrating, and thermal injury. Secondary or iatrogenic mechanisms of breast injury include breast biopsy or intervention as well as operative intervention and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The severity of breast injury arising from these mechanisms is broad, ranging from breast contusion to avulsion. Sequelae of breast injury include fat necrosis and Mondor's disease. Radiologists play an integral role in the evaluation and management of breast injury both in the acute and non-acute settings. In the acute setting, radiologists must be able to recognize breast injury arising from primary mechanisms or iatrogenic or secondary mechanisms and to identify rare but potentially life-threatening complications promptly to ensure timely, appropriate management. In the non-acute setting, radiologists must be able to discern the sequalae of breast injury from other processes to prevent potentially unnecessary further evaluation and intervention. Nonetheless, though breast injury is commonly encountered there remain few guidelines and a lack of established recommendations for the evaluation and management of breast injury. We provide a comprehensive multi-modality imaging review of breast injury arising in the acute setting as well as the sequela of breast injury arising in the non-acute setting. Moreover, we provide an overview of the management of breast injury.

Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast

The incidence of breast cancer and, therefore, the need for breast reconstruction are expected to increase. The many reconstructive options available and the changing aspects of the field make this a complex area of plastic surgery, requiring knowledge and expertise. Two major types of breast reconstruction can be distinguished: breast implants and autologous flaps. Both present advantages and disadvantages. Autologous fat grafting is also commonly used. MRI is the modality of choice for evaluating breast reconstruction. Knowledge of the type of reconstruction is preferable to provide the maximum amount of pertinent information and avoid false positives. Early complications include seroma, hematoma, and infection. Late complications depend on the type of reconstruction. Implant rupture and implant capsular contracture are frequently encountered. Depending on the implant type, specific MRI signs can be depicted. In the case of myocutaneous flap, fat necrosis, fibrosis, and vascular compromise represent the most common complications. Late cancer recurrence is much less common. Rarely reported late complications include breast-implant-associated large cell anaplastic lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and, recently described and even rarer, breast-implant-associated squamous cell carcinoma (BIA-SCC). In this review article, the various types of breast reconstruction will be presented, with emphasis on pertinent imaging findings and complications.

[Lipofilling in the management of breast cancer: An update based on a literature review and national and international guidelines]

BACKGROUND

Lipomodelling (LM) is an increasingly used technique to reconstruct or correct an aesthetic defect linked to a loss of substance. In France, the Haute Autorité de santé (HAS) published recommendations in 2015 and 2020 concerning the conditions of use of LM on the treated and contralateral breast. These appear to be inconsistently followed.

METHODS

Twelve members of the Senology Commission of the Collège national des gynécologues-obstétriciens français (French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians) reviewed the carcinological safety of LM and the clinical and radiological follow-up of patients after breast cancer surgery, based on French and international recommendations and a review of the literature. The bibliographic search was conducted via Medline from 2015 to 2022, selecting articles in French and English and applying PRISMA guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 14 studies on the oncological safety of LM, 5 studies on follow-up and 7 guidelines were retained. The 14 studies (6 retrospective, 2 prospective and 6 meta-analyses) had heterogeneous inclusion criteria and variable follow-up, ranging from 38 to 120 months. Most have shown no increased risk of locoregional or distant recurrence after LM. A retrospective case-control study (464 LMs and 3100 controls) showed, in patients who had no recurrence at 80 months, a subsequent reduction in recurrence-free survival after LM in cases of luminal A cancer, highlighting the number of lost to follow-up (more than 2/3 of luminal A cancers). About follow-up after LM, the 5 series showed the high frequency after LM of clinical mass and radiological images (in ¼ of cases), most often corresponding to cytosteatonecrosis. Most of the guidelines highlighted the uncertainties concerning oncological safety of LM, due to the lack of prospective data and long-term follow-up.

DISCUSSION AND PERSPECTIVES

The members of the Senology Commission agree with the conclusions of the HAS working group, in particular by advising against LM "without cautionary periods", excessively, or in cases of high risk of relapse, and recommend clear, detailed information to patients before undergoing LM, and the need for postoperative follow-up. The creation of a national registry could address most questions regarding both the oncological safety of this procedure and the modalities of patient follow-up.

A pictorial guide to artifacts on contrast mammography: How to avoid pitfalls and improve interpretation

Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an increasingly accepted emerging imaging modality that demonstrates a similar sensitivity to MRI but has the advantage of being less time consuming and inexpensive. The use of CEM continues to expand as it is recognized and utilized as a valuable tool for diagnostic and potentially screening examinations. As with any radiologic examination, artifacts occur and knowledge of these is important for adequate image interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to provide a pictorial review the common artifacts encountered on CEM examinations and identify causes and potential resolutions.

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.