Strain histograms are equal to strain ratios in predicting malignancy in breast tumours.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether strain histograms are equal to strain ratios in predicting breast tumour malignancy and to see if either could be used to upgrade Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) 3 tumours for immediate biopsy. METHODS: Ninety-nine breast tumours were examined using B-mode BI-RADS scorings and strain elastography. Strain histograms and ratios were assessed, and areas- under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve (AUROC) for each method calculated. In BI-RADS 3 tumours cut-offs for strain histogram and ratio values were calculated to see if some tumours could be upgraded for immediate biopsy. Linear regression was performed to evaluate the effect of tumour depth and size, and breast density on strain elastography. RESULTS: Forty-four of 99 (44.4%) tumours were malignant. AUROC of BI-RADS, strain histograms and strain ratios were 0.949, 0.830 and 0.794 respectively. There was no significant difference between AUROCs of strain histograms and strain ratios (P = 0.405), while they were both inferior to BI-RADS scoring (P<0.001, P = 0.008). Four out of 26 BI-RADS 3 tumours were malignant. When cut-offs of 189 for strain histograms and 1.44 for strain ratios were used to upgrade BI-RADS 3 tumours, AUROCS were 0.961 (Strain histograms and BI-RADS) and 0.941 (Strain ratios and BI-RADS). None of them was significantly different from BI-RADS scoring alone (P = 0.249 and P = 0.414). Tumour size and depth, and breast density influenced neither strain histograms (P = 0.196, P = 0.115 and P = 0.321) nor strain ratios (P = 0.411, P = 0.596 and P = 0.321). CONCLUSION: Strain histogram analyses are reliable and easy to do in breast cancer diagnosis and perform comparably to strain ratio analyses. No significant difference in AUROCs between BI-RADS scoring and elastography combined with BI-RADS scoring was found in this study.

The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with findings at explantation.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) as performed according to a strict study protocol in diagnosing rupture of silicone breast implants. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study population consisted of 64 women with 118 implants, who had participated in either one or two study MRI examinations, aiming at determining the prevalence and incidence of silent implant rupture, respectively, and who subsequently underwent explantation. Implant rupture status was determined by four independent readers and a consensus diagnosis of either rupture (intracapsular or extracapsular), possible rupture or intact implant was then obtained. Strict predetermined rupture criteria were applied as described in this report and findings at surgery were abstracted in a standardised manner and results compared. RESULTS: At MRI, 66 implants were diagnosed as ruptured, nine as possibly ruptured and 43 as intact. Among the ruptured implants, 27 were categorized as extracapsular. At surgery, on average 297 days after the MRI, 65 of the 66 rupture diagnoses were confirmed, as were 20 of the cases with extracapsular silicone. Eight of the nine possibly ruptured implants were in fact ruptured at surgery. Thirty-four of the 43 intact implants were described as intact at surgery. When categorising possible ruptures as ruptures, there were one false positive and nine false negative rupture diagnoses at MRI yielding an accuracy of 92%, a sensitivity of 89%, and a specificity of 97%. Correspondingly, the predictive value of a positive MRI examination was 99% and the predictive value of a negative MRI examination was 79%. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that MRI is highly accurate for identification of silicone breast implant rupture, with a high sensitivity and specificity when evaluation of images are based on presence of well-defined rupture criteria.

Untreated silicone breast implant rupture.

Implant rupture is a well-known complication of breast implant surgery that can pass unnoticed by both patient and physician. To date, no prospective study has addressed the possible health implications of silicone breast implant rupture. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether untreated ruptures are associated with changes over time in magnetic resonance imaging findings, serologic markers, or self-reported breast symptoms. A baseline magnetic resonance imaging examination was performed in 1999 on 271 women who were randomly chosen from a larger cohort of women having cosmetic breast implants for a median period of 12 years (range, 3 to 25 years). A follow-up magnetic resonance imaging examination was carried out in 2001, excluding women who underwent explantation in the period between the two magnetic resonance imaging examinations (n = 44). On the basis of these examinations, the authors identified 64 women who had at least one ruptured implant at the first magnetic resonance imaging examination and, for comparison, all women who had intact implants at both examinations (n = 98). Magnetic resonance images from the two examinations were compared and changes in rupture configuration were evaluated. Comparisons were also made for self-reported breast symptoms occurring during the study period and for changes in serum values of antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor, and cardiolipin antibodies immunoglobulin G and immunoglobulin M. The majority of the women with implant rupture had no visible magnetic resonance imaging changes of their ruptured implants. For 11 implants (11 percent) in 10 women, the authors observed progression of silicone seepage, either as a conversion from intracapsular into extracapsular rupture (n = 7), as progression of extra-capsular silicone (n = 3), or as increasing herniation of the silicone within the fibrous capsule (n = 1); however, in most cases, these changes were minor. Some changes could be ascribed to trauma, but others seemed spontaneous. There was no increase in levels of autoantibodies during the study period in either study group. Women with untreated implant ruptures reported a significant increase in nonspecific breast changes (odds ratio, 2.1; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.2 to 3.8) compared with women without ruptures. On the basis of this first study of women with untreated silicone breast implant rupture, the authors conclude that implant rupture is a relatively harmless condition, which only rarely progresses and gives rise to notable symptoms. Even so, because of a small risk of silicone spread, the authors suggest that women with implant ruptures be followed clinically, if not operated on. Because implant ruptures often occur asymptomatically, any woman with silicone implants, regardless of rupture status, should be evaluated at regular intervals.

Incidence of silicone breast implant rupture.

HYPOTHESIS: The incidence of silicone breast implant rupture varies with implantation time and type of implant. OBJECTIVE: To measure the incidence of implant rupture by repeated magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) among women with silicone breast implants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: In 1999, 271 women who had received breast implants at least 3 years before, and who were randomly chosen from a larger cohort of women with cosmetic breast implants, underwent a baseline MRI. A second MRI was performed in 2001; 317 silicone implants (in 186 women) that were intact at the baseline MRI (n = 280) or were intact at baseline but removed before the second MRI (n = 37) were included in the rupture incidence analyses. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Implants were diagnosed with definite or possible rupture. Crude and implant age-adjusted incidence rates were calculated, and implant survival was estimated based on the observed rupture rates. RESULTS: We found 33 definite ruptures (10%) and 23 possible ruptures (7%) during the 2-year period. The overall rupture incidence rate for definite ruptures was 5.3 ruptures/100 implants per year (95% confidence interval, 4.0-7.0). The rupture rate increased significantly with increasing implant age. Double-lumen implants were associated with substantially lower rupture risk than single-lumen implants. For modern implants intact 3 years after implantation, we estimated rupture-free survival of 98% at 5 years and 83% to 85% at 10 years. CONCLUSIONS: The risk of implant rupture increases with implant age. A minimum of 15% of modern implants can be expected to rupture between the third and tenth year after implantation.

Self-reported diseases and symptoms by rupture status among unselected Danish women with cosmetic silicone breast implants.

Epidemiologic evidence does not support an association between silicone breast implants and connective tissue or other rheumatic diseases. However, a recent study has suggested that women with ruptured implants may be at increased risk of developing fibromyalgia. An analysis of adverse health outcomes according to breast implant rupture status was conducted in 238 unselected Danish women with cosmetic silicone breast implants. Ninety-two of the women had definite implant rupture, and 146 had intact implants as determined by magnetic resonance imaging. Before undergoing imaging, the women provided blood samples and completed a self-administered questionnaire. Women with ruptured implants overall, and the subgroup with extracapsular ruptures (n = 23), were compared with women with intact implants regarding a number of self-reported diseases and symptoms and the presence of specific autoantibodies, such as antinuclear antibodies, rheumatoid factor, and cardiolipin immunoglobulin G and M antibodies. Overall, there were no differences in the occurrence of self-reported diseases or symptoms or in the presence of autoantibodies between women with intact implants and women with ruptured implants, including extracapsular rupture. The only exception was capsular contracture, which was reported six times more frequently by women with extracapsular ruptures than by women with intact implants (OR, 6.3; 95 percent CI, 1.7 to 23.5). In conclusion, this study of unselected women with silicone breast implants could establish no association between silicone implant rupture and specific diseases or symptoms related to connective tissue disease or other rheumatic conditions, except for an excess of capsular contracture among women with extracapsular rupture.