Generic placeholder image

Current Medical Imaging

Editor-in-Chief

ISSN (Print): 1573-4056
ISSN (Online): 1875-6603

Review Article

Is it Possible to Differentiate Types of Breast Implants by Imaging in the Era of Implant-associated Lymphoma?

Author(s): Levent Celik and Gozde Gunes*

Volume 18, Issue 11, 2022

Published on: 10 June, 2022

Article ID: e110422203365 Pages: 5

DOI: 10.2174/1573405618666220411083530

Price: $65

Abstract

Objectives: Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) has been recognised in recent years, and there is extensive ongoing research. Although the exact mechanism and cause are still unclear, we now know that the disease is more associated with textured implants. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies investigating the radiological differential of various implants have been conducted. In this essay, we aimed to demonstrate dicriminating in vitro and in vivo imaging features of variuos types of breast implant devices using mammography, ultrasound, and Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI).

Methods: Five different implant devices from various manufacturers with various surface textures, including smooth, micro-textured, regular macro-textured, lightweight macro-textured, and polyurethane- coated were used. In vitro mammography was performed with a digital mammogram (Amulet Innovality, Fuji, Japan), and in vitro and in vivo sonography were performed with Esaote MyLab9 using a 7.5 MHz linear probe. In vitro MRI was performed with a 1.5T magnet (Symphony TIM upgrade and Aera, Siemens Healthcare, Erlangen, Germany) with a 7-channel breast coil (Sense coil, Innova, Germany). MRI studies included fat sat T2 weighted sequences (T2WS), non-fat sat T2WS, and silicone only sequences.

Results: Each imaging technique had different contributions to dealing with this challenge. Mammography and MRI were limited to identifying the capsule’s double bands. We could only differentiate the lightweight macro-textured implant on the mammogram as the borosilicate microspheres were represented by tiny, round lucencies within the gel. Ultrasound imaging with the proper technique was very helpful in identifying the surface. The inner capsule (implant shell) was identified as parallel double echogenic bands on the in vitro sonogram. Bands of the smooth implant were better delineated compared to the textured implants. The double echogenic bands of the polyurethane-coated implant were not even identified individually. The reverberation artifact caused by the smooth implant was the main discriminating in vivo sonographic feature of smooth implants. The hyperintense polyurethane-coated capsule was identified on fat-saturated T2WS and non-fat-saturated T2WS via in vitro MRI. The tiny hypointense microspheres of the lightweight implant were also identified on the silicone-only sequence of the in vitro MRI.

Conclusion: In this study, we have shown that breast implant material and type may differ with the help of in vitro and in vivo imaging characteristics on different radiological modalities. These different imaging features could be used for recognising and labelling the implant type, especially macrotextured implants that are reported to be more associated with breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) compared to other types. We believe evaluating these imaging characteristics during daily practice will help radiologists become aware of the implant type and possible complications or diseases associated with that type.

Keywords: Breast ımplant, mammography, MRI, ultrasonography, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, fat-saturated T2WS, nonfat- saturated T2WS.

Graphical Abstract
[1]
de Jong D, Vasmel WL, de Boer JP, et al. Anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in women with breast implants. JAMA 2008; 300(17): 2030-5.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2008.585] [PMID: 18984890]
[2]
Duvic M, Moore D, Menter A, Vonderheid EC. Cutaneous T-cell lymphoma in association with silicone breast implants. J Am Acad Dermatol 1995; 32(6): 939-42.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0190-9622(95)91328-9] [PMID: 7751462]
[3]
Roden AC, Macon WR, Keeney GL, Myers JL, Feldman AL, Dogan A. Seroma-associated primary anaplastic large-cell lymphoma adjacent to breast implants: An indolent T-cell lymphoproliferative disorder. Mod Pathol 2008; 21(4): 455-63.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/modpathol.3801024] [PMID: 18223553]
[4]
US Food and Drug Administration. Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) Letter to Health Care Providers. 2018 FDA. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/letters-health-care-providers/breast-implant-associated
[5]
Decision de portant interdiction de mise sur le marché, de distribution, de publicité et d'utilisation d'implants mammaires à enveloppe macro-texturée et d'implants mammaires polyuréthane, ainsi que retrait de ces produits. French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety. 2019.ANSM
[6]
Becherer B E. Dutch Breast Implant Registry (DBIR) Annual report 2015-2017. 2018.
[7]
Srinivasa DR, Miranda RN, Kaura A, et al. Global Adverse Event Reports of Breast Implant-Associated ALCL: An International Review of 40 Government Authority Databases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 139(5): 1029-39.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003233] [PMID: 28157770]
[8]
Loch-Wilkinson A, Beath KJ, Knight RJW, et al. Breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in Australia and New Zealand-high surface area textured implants are associated with increased risk. Plast Reconstr Surg 2017; 140(4): 645-54.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003654] [PMID: 28481803]
[9]
Munhoz AM, Clemens MW, Nahabedian MY. Breast implant surfaces and their impact on current practices: Where we are now and where are we going? Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2019; 7(10): e2466.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GOX.0000000000002466] [PMID: 31772893]
[10]
Aladily TN, Medeiros LJ, Amin MB, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast implants: A report of 13 cases. Am J Surg Pathol 2012; 36(7): 1000-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAS.0b013e31825749b1] [PMID: 22613996]
[11]
Thompson PA, Lade S, Webster H, Ryan G, Prince HM. Effusion-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma of the breast: Time for it to be defined as a distinct clinico-pathological entity. Haematologica 2010; 95(11): 1977-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.3324/haematol.2010.026237] [PMID: 20801901]
[12]
Clemens MW, Medeiros LJ, Butler CE, et al. Complete surgical excision is essential for the management of patients with breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34(2): 160-8.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.3412] [PMID: 26628470]
[13]
Taylor CR, Siddiqi IN, Brody GS. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in association with breast implants: Review of pathologic and immunohistochemical features in 103 cases. Appl Immunohistochem Mol Morphol 2013; 21(1): 13-20.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/PAI.0b013e318266476c] [PMID: 23235342]
[14]
US Food and Drug Administration. The FDA requests Allergan voluntarily recall Natrelle BIOCELL textured breast implants and tissue expanders from the market to protect patients: FDA safety communication. US Food and Drug Administration. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/fda-requests-allergan-voluntarily-recall-natrelle-biocell-textured-breast-implants-and-tissue
[15]
Feldman MK, Katyal S, Blackwood MS. US artifacts. Radiographics 2009; 29(4): 1179-89.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1148/rg.294085199] [PMID: 19605664]
[16]
Huang J, Triedman JK, Vasilyev NV, Suematsu Y, Cleveland RO, Dupont PE. Imaging artifacts of medical instruments in ultrasound-guided interventions. J Ultrasound Med 2007; 26(10): 1303-22.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.7863/jum.2007.26.10.1303] [PMID: 17901134]
[17]
Hölmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjøller K, et al. The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: Clinical findings compared with findings at mag-netic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 2005; 54(6): 583-9.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.sap.0000164470.76432.4f] [PMID: 15900139]
[18]
Hölmich LR, Vejborg I, Conrad C, Sletting S, McLaughlin JK. The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with find-ings at explantation. Eur J Radiol 2005; 53(2): 213-25.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.03.012] [PMID: 15664285]

Rights & Permissions Print Cite
© 2024 Bentham Science Publishers | Privacy Policy