RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free silicone in the adjacent tissue. METHODS: A contrast resolution phantom and breast of veal phantom were tested. Fat was used as a reference material. The phantoms were imaged with xeromammography, film-screen mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Proton MRI spectroscopy also was performed on fat, silicone, water, and water/gelatin samples. The consensus of two radiologists determined whether free silicone was present. RESULTS: CT and MRI provided the best images of the implant and the free silicone. Several features of MRI were useful: spin-density scans and the fast low-angle shot (FLASH) and fast imaging with steady-state precision (FISP) techniques provided excellent resolution, a consistent chemical shift artifact appeared around the silicone, and frequency selective pre-saturation techniques resulted in marked suppression of the silicone. CONCLUSION: Additional testing in a more realistic setting, breast coil design, and improvement of various MRI techniques, particularly the frequency selective pre-saturation techniques, all appear promising in evaluating breast implants, the presence of free silicone, and the adjacent tissues.
RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Recent concern regarding possible adverse effects from silicone breast implants has increased the role of radiologists in assessing augmented breasts. The authors compare the commonly available imaging modalities in evaluating the intact silicone implant as well as free silicone in the adjacent tissue. METHODS: A contrast resolution phantom and breast of veal phantom were tested. Fat was used as a reference material. The phantoms were imaged with xeromammography, film-screen mammography, ultrasound, computed tomography (CT), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Proton MRI spectroscopy also was performed on fat, silicone, water, and water/gelatin samples. The consensus of two radiologists determined whether free silicone was present. RESULTS: CT and MRI provided the best images of the implant and the free silicone. Several features of MRI were useful: spin-density scans and the fast low-angle shot (FLASH) and fast imaging with steady-state precision (FISP) techniques provided excellent resolution, a consistent chemical shift artifact appeared around the silicone, and frequency selective pre-saturation techniques resulted in marked suppression of the silicone. CONCLUSION: Additional testing in a more realistic setting, breast coil design, and improvement of various MRI techniques, particularly the frequency selective pre-saturation techniques, all appear promising in evaluating breast implants, the presence of free silicone, and the adjacent tissues.
Authors: Melanie Freed; Jacco A de Zwart; Jennifer T Loud; Riham H El Khouli; Kyle J Myers; Mark H Greene; Jeff H Duyn; Aldo Badano Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071