Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

MRI screening for silicone breast implant rupture: accuracy, inter- and intraobserver variability using explantation results as reference standard

  • Breast
  • Published:
European Radiology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

The recall of Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) silicone breast implants in 2010 resulted in large numbers of asymptomatic women with implants who underwent magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) screening. This study’s aim was to assess the accuracy and interobserver variability of MRI screening in the detection of rupture and extracapsular silicone leakage.

Methods

A prospective study included 107 women with 214 PIP implants who underwent explantation preceded by MRI. In 2013, two radiologists blinded for previous MRI findings or outcome at surgery, independently re-evaluated all MRI examinations. A structured protocol described the MRI findings. The ex vivo findings served as reference standard.

Results

In 208 of the 214 explanted prostheses, radiologists agreed independently about the condition of the implants. In five of the six cases they disagreed (2.6 %), but subsequently reached consensus. A sensitivity of 93 %, specificity of 93 %, positive predictive value of 77 % and negative predictive value of 98 % was found. The interobserver agreement was excellent (kappa value of 0.92).

Conclusions

MRI has a high accuracy in diagnosing rupture in silicone breast implants. Considering the high kappa value of interobserver agreement, MRI appears to be a consistent diagnostic test. A simple, uniform classification, may improve communication between radiologist and plastic surgeon.

Key points

• MRI has a high accuracy in diagnosing rupture in silicone breast implants.

• MRI appears to be a consistent diagnostic test with excellent interobserver agreement.

• A simple, uniform classification system, improves communication between radiologist and plastic surgeon.

• The interobserver agreement on implant rupture is higher than on extracapsular leakage.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Surgery ASoP (2011) 2011 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. National Clearhouse of Plastic Surgery Statistics. Available via http://www.plasticsurgery.org/Documents/news-resources/statistics/2011-statistics/2011-cosmetic-procedures-trends-statistics.pdf. Accessed 13 February 2014

  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2006) FDA approves silicone gel-filled breat implants after in-depth evaluation. Available via http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2006/NEW01512.html. Accessed 08 March 2013

  3. Gabriel SE, Woods JE, O’Fallon WM, Beard CM, Kurland LT, Melton LJ 3rd (1997) Complications leading to surgery after breast implantation. N Engl J Med 336:677–682

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Holmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K et al (2005) The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg 54:583–589

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Ahn CY, Shaw WW, Narayanan K et al (1993) Definitive diagnosis of breast implant rupture using magnetic resonance imaging. Plast Reconstr Surg 92:681–691

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Ikeda DM, Borofsky HB, Herfkens RJ, Sawyer-Glover AM, Birdwell RL, Glover GH (1999) Silicone breast implant rupture: pitfalls of magnetic resonance imaging and relative efficacies of magnetic resonance, mammography, and ultrasound. Plast Reconstr Surg 104:2054–2062

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Scaranelo AM, Marques AF, Smialowski EB, Lederman HM (2004) Evaluation of the rupture of silicone breast implants by mammography, ultrasonography and magnetic resonance imaging in asymptomatic patients: correlation with surgical findings. Sao Paulo Med J 122:41–47

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. ANSMP (Agence Nationale de Sécurité du Médicament et des Produits de Santé) formerly AFSSPS (Agence Francaise de Securite Sanitaire des Produits de Sante). (2010) Press release: Silicone filled breast implants manufactured by Poly Implant Protheses (PIP). Available via http://ansm.sante.fr/var/ansm_site/storage/original/application/ff8f7014c6ee1b-6674c8fb7dd2835840.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2014

  9. Torjesen I (2012) Hundreds of thousands of pounds of NHS funds have been spent on care of private patients with PIP implants. BMJ 344:e1259

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Smith R, Lunt N, Hanefeld J (2012) The implications of PIP are more than just cosmetic. Lancet 379:1180–1181

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Helyar V, Burke C, McWilliams S (2013) The ruptured PIP breast implant. Clin Radiol 68:845–50

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Administration USFaD (2011) Medical devices: Silicone gel-filled breast implants. Available via http://www.fda.gov/downloads/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/ImplantsandProsthetics/BreastImplants/UCM260090.pdf. Accessed 26 August 2013

  13. McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL (2008) Silicone breast implants and magnetic resonance imaging screening for rupture: do U.S. Food and Drug Administration recommendations reflect an evidence-based practice approach to patient care? Plast Reconstr Surg 121:1127–1134

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Chung KC, Malay S, Shauver MJ, Kim HM (2012) Economic analysis of screening strategies for rupture of silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 130:225–237

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Berg WA, Nguyen TK, Middleton MS, Soo MS, Pennello G, Brown SL (2002) MR imaging of extracapsular silicone from breast implants: diagnostic pitfalls. AJR Am J Roentgenol 178:465–472

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. DeAngelis GA, de Lange EE, Miller LR, Morgan RF (1994) MR imaging of breast implants. Radiographics 14:783–794

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Marotta JS, Widenhouse CW, Habal MB, Goldberg EP (1999) Silicone gel breast implant failure and frequency of additional surgeries: analysis of 35 studies reporting examination of more than 8,000 explants. J Biomed Mater Res 48:354–364

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Maijers MC, Niessen FB (2013) The clinical and diagnostic consequences of poly implant prothese silicone breast implants, recalled from the European market in 2010. Plast Reconstr Surg 131:394e–402e

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Maijers MC NF, Veldhuizen JFH, Ritt MJPF, Manoliu RA (2014) MRI screening results compared to explantation results in Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) silicone breast implants, recalled from the European market in 2010. Plast Reconstr Surg 133:114e–121e

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Floyd CE Jr (1996) Breast imaging reporting and data system standardized mammography lexicon: observer variability in lesion description. AJR Am J Roentgenol 166:773–778

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Berg WA, Campassi C, Langenberg P, Sexton MJ (2000) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: inter- and intraobserver variability in feature analysis and final assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 174:1769–1777

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Liberman L, Menell JH (2002) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). Radiol Clin N Am 40:409–430

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159–174

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Everson LI, Parantainen H, Detlie T et al (1994) Diagnosis of breast implant rupture: imaging findings and relative efficacies of imaging techniques. AJR Am J Roentgenol 163:57–60

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Ahn CY, DeBruhl ND, Gorczyca DP, Shaw WW, Bassett LW (1994) Comparative silicone breast implant evaluation using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: experience with 59 implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 94:620–627

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Quinn SF, Neubauer NM, Sheley RC, Demlow TA, Szumowski J (1996) MR imaging of silicone breast implants: evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement. J Magn Reson Imaging 6:213–218

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Song JW, Kim HM, Bellfi LT, Chung KC (2011) The effect of study design biases on the diagnostic accuracy of magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: a meta-analysis. Plast Reconstr Surg 127:1029–1044

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Vestito A, Mangieri FF, Ancona A, Minervini C, Perchinunno V, Rinaldi S (2012) Study of breast implant rupture: MRI versus surgical findings. Radiol Med 117:1004–1018

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Cook RR, Bowlin SJ, Curtis JM et al (2002) Silicone gel breast implant rupture rates: research issues. Ann Plast Surg 48:92–101

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Aliu O, Chung KC (2012) Assessing strength of evidence in diagnostic tests. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:989e–998e

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Cher DJ, Conwell JA, Mandel JS (2001) MRI for detecting silicone breast implant rupture: meta-analysis and implications. Ann Plast Surg 47:367–380

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Holmich LR, Vejborg I, Conrad C, Sletting S, McLaughlin JK (2005) The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with findings at explantation. Eur J Radiol 53:213–225

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. SCENIHR (Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks) (2013) Preliminary Opinion on the safety of Poly Implant Prothèse (PIP) Silicone Breast Implants (2013 update). Available via http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/scenihr_o_038.pdf. Accessed 13 January 2014

  34. Brown SL, Middleton MS, Berg WA, Soo MS, Pennello G (2000) Prevalence of rupture of silicone gel breast implants revealed on MR imaging in a population of women in Birmingham, Alabama. AJR Am J Roentgenol 175:1057–1064

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kulmala I, Boice JD Jr, McLaughlin JK et al (2005) A feasibility study of magnetic resonance imaging of silicone breast implants in Finland. J Long Term Eff Med Implants 15:9–14

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Beekman WH, van Straalen WR, Hage JJ, Taets van Amerongen AH, Mulder JW (1998) Imaging signs and radiologists’ jargon of ruptured breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg 102:1281–1289

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Maijers MC, Niessen FB (2012) Prevalence of rupture in poly implant prothese silicone breast implants, recalled from the European market in 2010. Plast Reconstr Surg 129:1372–1378

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The scientific guarantor of this publication is R.A. Manoliu. The authors of this manuscript declare no relationships with any companies whose products or services may be related to the subject matter of the article. The authors state that this work has not received any funding. No complex statistical methods were necessary for this paper. Institutional Review Board approval was not required because all MRIs were made during normal follow-up procedure after the recall procedure at the Jan van Goyen Medical Centre in Amsterdam; all information was anonymous and is not traceable to individual patients. Written informed consent was not required for this study because all MRIs were made during normal follow-up procedure after the recall procedure at the Jan van Goyen Clinic in Amsterdam; all information was anonymous and is not traceable to individual patients. Some study subjects or cohorts have been previously reported in Plastic Reconstructive Surgery [18, 19, 37]. This study, however, had a new purpose: to evaluate all MRI images made in 2011 by two independent radiologists to assess accuracy, as well as interobserver and intraobserver agreement. This current study was recently performed in 2013. The two radiologists evaluated all images from 2011 according to a new structured protocol, which was different from the 2011 round, reported earlier. Methodology: prospective, cross sectional study/prognostic study, performed at one institution.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Plastic, Reconstructive and Hand Surgery, VU University Medical Centre, De Boelelaan 1117, PO Box 7057, 1007 MB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    M. C. Maijers, F. B. Niessen & M. J. P. F. Ritt

  2. Department of Plastic Surgery, Jan van Goyen Clinic, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    F. B. Niessen

  3. MRI Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    J. F. H. Veldhuizen & R. A. Manoliu

  4. Department of Radiology, VU University Medical Centre, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    R. A. Manoliu

Authors
  1. M. C. Maijers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. F. B. Niessen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. J. F. H. Veldhuizen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. M. J. P. F. Ritt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. R. A. Manoliu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M. C. Maijers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Maijers, M.C., Niessen, F.B., Veldhuizen, J.F.H. et al. MRI screening for silicone breast implant rupture: accuracy, inter- and intraobserver variability using explantation results as reference standard. Eur Radiol 24, 1167–1175 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3119-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3119-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation