Advertisement

Magnetic resonance classification proposal for fibrous capsules in breast silicone implants

      Highlights

      • It is possible to classify the silicone implant fibrous capsules by MRI.
      • The results assume that the changes in the fibrous capsules are chronic-evolutionary.
      • The proposed classification has good interobserver agreement.
      • The fibrous capsule graduation by MRI directly impacts patient management and follow-up.

      Abstract

      Objective

      To propose a new classification system for evaluating fibrous capsules around silicone implants using magnetic resonance.

      Methods

      We retrospectively evaluated 90 consecutive patients who underwent breast MRI scans at a single center from February to March 2022. All patients with silicone implants and contrast dynamic sequences were included. Two radiologists classified the fibrous capsules according to the proposed classification in four grades. Interobserver variability was calculated for the final score. For comparison purposes, the inter-rater agreement of background parenchymal enhancement and the amount of fibroglandular tissue were also calculated.

      Results

      Reader 1 classified 2 (2.2) fibrous capsules as grade 1, 7 (7.8) as grade 2, 18 (20.0) as grade 3, and 63 (70.0) as grade 4, whereas reader 2 classified 1 (1.1), 9 (10.0), 24 (26.7), and 56 (62.2) fibrous capsules, respectively, for each grade. The interobserver agreement for fibrous capsule classification was moderate (ĸ = 0.65). The inter-rater agreement of background parenchymal enhancement and amount of fibroglandular tissue were fair: ĸ = 0.50 and ĸ = 0.44, respectively.

      Conclusion

      Our study proposes classifying FC by MRI in patients with SI to standardize the description and classification of the findings with good interobserver agreement.

      Abbreviations:

      SI (Silicone implants), MRI (Magnetic resonance imaging), FDA (Food and Drug Administration), BI-RADS (Breast imaging-reporting and data system), SIGBIC (Silicone-induced granuloma of breast implant capsules), FC (Fibrous capsules), PD (Proton density), BIA-ALCL (Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma)

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Clinical Imaging
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Spear S.L.
        • Baker Jr., J.L.
        Classification of capsular contracture after prosthetic breast reconstruction.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 1995 Oct; 96 (discussion 1124. PMID: 7568488): 1119-1123
        • de Bakker E.
        • Rots M.
        • Buncamper M.E.
        • Niessen F.B.
        • Smit J.M.
        • Winters H.A.H.
        • Özer M.
        • de Vet H.C.W.
        • Mullender M.G.
        The baker classification for capsular contracture in breast implant surgery is unreliable as a diagnostic tool.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Nov; 146 (PMID: 32852468): 956-962https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007238
        • Hall-Findlay E.J.
        Discussion: the baker classification for capsular contracture in breast implant surgery is unreliable as a diagnostic tool.
        Plast Reconstr Surg. 2020 Nov; 146 (PMID: 33136938): 963https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000007312
        • Hallab N.J.
        • Samelko L.
        • Hammond D.
        Particulate debris released from breast implant surfaces is highly dependent on implant type.
        Aesthet Surg J. 2021 Jun 14; 41 (NP782-NP793) (PMID: 33564817)https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjab051
        • Dijkman H.B.P.M.
        • Slaats I.
        • Bult P.
        Assessment of silicone particle migration among women undergoing removal or revision of silicone breast implants in the Netherlands.
        JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Sep 1; 4 (PMID: 34542618)e2125381https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.25381
        • Food and Drug Administration
        Breast implants - certain labeling recommendations to improve patient communication - guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff (fda.gov).
        https://www.fda.gov/media/131885/download
        Date accessed: September 25, 2021
        • ACR
        ACR Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, Breast Imaging Atlas.
        5th ed. American College of Radiology, Reston, VA2003 (American College of Radiology, “ACR BI-RADS® - Magnetic Resonance”)
      1. blinded.

      2. blinded.

      3. blinded.

        • Market and Markets
        Breast augmentation market by product (silicone breast implant, saline breast implant), shape (anatomical, round), surface (smooth, textured), procedure (inframammary fold, trans-axillary), end user, and region - global forecast to 2025.
        • Groth A.K.
        • Graf R.
        Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and the textured breast implant crisis.
        Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020 Feb; 44 (Epub 2019 Oct 17. Erratum in: Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2020 Oct;44(5):1951. PMID: 31624894): 1-12https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-019-01521-3
        • Clemens M.W.
        • Jacobsen E.D.
        • Horwitz S.M.
        2019 NCCN consensus guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).
        Aesthet Surg J. 2019 Jan 31; 39https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjy331
        • Liao G.J.
        • Henze Bancroft L.C.
        • Strigel R.M.
        • Chitalia R.D.
        • Kontos D.
        • Moy L.
        • Partridge S.C.
        • Rahbar H.
        Background parenchymal enhancement on breast MRI: a comprehensive review.
        J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020; 51: 43-61https://doi.org/10.1002/jmri.26762
        • Wengert G.J.
        • Helbich T.H.
        • Woitek R.
        • Kapetas P.
        • Clauser P.
        • Baltzer P.A.
        • Vogl W.D.
        • Weber M.
        • Meyer-Baese A.
        • Pinker K.
        Inter- and intra-observer agreement of BI-RADS-based subjective visual estimation of amount of fibroglandular breast tissue with magnetic resonance imaging: comparison to automated quantitative assessment.
        Eur Radiol. 2016; 26: 3917-3922https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-016-4274-x
      4. blinded.

      5. blinded.

      6. blinded.