Accuracy of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: A retrospective observational study of 367 cases

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.

Ultrasound versus MRI for evaluation of silicone leakage from silicone breast implants

Background

Implant ruptures and gel bleed are not uncommon among women with silicone breast implants. While magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is traditionally considered the gold standard diagnostic modality, recent studies suggest ultrasound might be an acceptable alternative. This study compares the efficacy of ultrasound and MRI in assessing implant integrity.

Methods

Women with silicone breast implants underwent a breast and axillary ultrasound and MRI on the same day. All tests were assessed by experienced radiologists. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasound and MRI for implant rupture detection and silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes were evaluated.

Findings

A total of 104 women participated in the study. The accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of ultrasound for detecting implant ruptures compared to MRI were 96 %, 95 %, and 96 %, respectively. MRI demonstrated significantly lower sensitivity (44 %) for detecting silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes compared to ultrasound. A significant association was observed between the presence of enlarged axillary lymph nodes and/or axillary pain and the detection of silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes on ultrasound (χ2 (1, N = 104) = 5·1, p = 0·024). Six women exhibited silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes despite having intact first-pair implants, indicative of gel bleed.

Interpretation

Ultrasound is nearly as effective as MRI for detecting breast implant ruptures and is superior for detecting silicone depositions in axillary lymph nodes. We therefore recommend initiating radiological examination in women with breast implants with a breast and axillary ultrasound, proceeding to MRI only if the ultrasound is inconclusive. The prevalence of gel bleed is understudied and its potential adverse health effects might be underestimated. Further research is needed to explore its potential association with development of systemic symptoms.

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.

Anatomical Breast Implant Assessment Using Ultrasound: A Case Series from the International Breast Implant Check Clinic

Background

Breast augmentation with anatomic implants can achieve a natural look, but over time, implant-related complications can occur. This includes a risk of potential rotation, which can cause a change in breast shape. Reported rates of rotation vary widely (0%-42%). Implant rotation is often detected by physical examination only or as a perioperative finding. Change in breast shape after augmentation requires clinical evaluation. In-office ultrasound allows for detailed assessment of implants for rotation and other complications.

Methods

Women with anatomical breast implants seeking follow-up at the International Breast Implant Check Clinic in Stockholm, Sweden, from April 2020 to July 2022 were included in the study. Using a standardized protocol, subjective symptoms were recorded, and a physical examination followed by an ultrasound assessment was performed by a single board-certified plastic surgeon (M.J.) trained in implant assessment via ultrasound. Rotation was defined as an implant rotated past 30 degrees off the breast midline at 6 o'clock.

Results

The study included 308 women (mean age 40.1, range 20-78) with bilateral anatomical implants. Overall, 40 women (13.0%) reported a change in breast shape; 35 had one or more implant-related complications, including five with rotation on ultrasound. Of the 308 women, 11 (3.6%) had rotations upon physical examination, and an additional 10 cases were identified using ultrasound.

Conclusions

Rotation is a potential complication of anatomical breast implants. However, in this study, change in breast shape was more commonly caused by other implant-related complications. Ultrasound is a valuable tool in evaluating causes of change in breast shape.

ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Implant Evaluation: 2023 Update

This document discusses the appropriate initial imaging in both asymptomatic and symptomatic patients with breast implants. For asymptomatic patients with saline implants, no imaging is recommended. If concern for rupture exists, ultrasound is usually appropriate though saline rupture is often clinically evident. The FDA recently recommended patients have an initial ultrasound or MRI examination 5 to 6 years after initial silicone implant surgery and then every 2 to 3 years thereafter. In a patient with unexplained axillary adenopathy with current or prior silicone breast implants, ultrasound and/or mammography are usually appropriate, depending on age. In a patient with concern for silicone implant rupture, ultrasound or MRI without contrast is usually appropriate. In the setting of a patient with breast implants and possible implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, ultrasound is usually appropriate as the initial imaging. 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 process support the systematic analysis of the medical literature from peer reviewed journals. Established methodology principles such as Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation or GRADE are adapted to evaluate the evidence. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method User Manual provides the methodology to determine the appropriateness of imaging and treatment procedures for specific clinical scenarios. In those instances where peer reviewed literature is lacking or equivocal, experts may be the primary evidentiary source available to formulate a recommendation.

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.

What's Hot in Breast MRI

Several articles in the literature have demonstrated a promising role for breast MRI techniques that are more economic in total exam time than others when used as supplement to mammography for detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. There are many technical factors that must be considered in the shortened breast MRI protocols to cut down time of standard ones, including using optimal fat suppression, gadolinium-chelates intravascular contrast administrations for dynamic imaging with post processing subtractions and maximum intensity projections (MIP) high spatial and temporal resolution among others. Multiparametric breast MRI that includes both gadolinium-dependent, i.e., dynamic contrast-enhanced (DCE-MRI) and gadolinium-free techniques, i.e., diffusion-weighted/diffusion-tensor magnetic resonance imaging (DWI/DTI) are shown by several investigators that can provide extremely high sensitivity and specificity for detection of breast cancer. This article provides an overview of the proven indications for breast MRI including breast cancer screening for higher than average risk, determining chemotherapy induced tumor response, detecting residual tumor after incomplete surgical excision, detecting occult cancer in patients presenting with axillary node metastasis, detecting residual tumor after incomplete breast cancer surgical excision, detecting cancer when results of conventional imaging are equivocal, as well patients suspicious of having breast implant rupture. Despite having the highest sensitivity for breast cancer detection, there are pitfalls, however, secondary to false positive and false negative contrast enhancement and contrast-free MRI techniques. Awareness of the strengths and limitations of different approaches to obtain state of the art MR images of the breast will facilitate the work-up of patients with suspicious breast lesions.

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.