1 Department of Radiology, 200 First St SW, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905.
2 Aurora West Allis Medical Center, West Allis, WI.
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2019 Apr;212(4):933-942. doi: 10.2214/AJR.18.20138. Epub 2019 Feb 19.
The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of dual-energy CT (DECT) with that of breast MRI for detection of silicone gel breast implant rupture and nodal spread of silicone.
This prospective study enrolled consecutive patients with current or prior silicone gel implants and clinical suspicion of implant rupture or extra-capsular silicone. All patients underwent MRI followed by unenhanced DECT. A breast radiologist not participating in image evaluation established reference standards for implant rupture (intra- or extracapsular) and regional nodal silicone spread (to axillary nodes and internal mammary [IM] and mediastinal nodes) using MRI, surgical findings, and medical records. After undergoing reader training, two radiologists who were blinded to all medical records interpreted randomized images in two sessions, indicating confidence in diagnosis using a 100-point visual scale.
A total of 46 patients who had a subpectoral silicone gel implant (n = 31), a subglandular silicone gel implant (n = 14), or a silicone gel implant that was removed (n = 1) underwent MRI and DECT (mean [± SD] volume CT dose index, 8.2 ± 2.0 mGy). Nineteen patients had implant rupture, and 13 of these patients had silicone within the IM or axillary nodes. Pooled data showed no significant difference between MRI and DECT interpretation of intra- or extracapsular rupture of implants (AUC value for intracapsular rupture, 0.958 [for MRI] vs 0.989 [for DECT]; p = 0.28; AUC value for extracapsular rupture, 0.864 [for MRI] vs 0.878 [for DECT]; p = 0.78). No difference was noted in the AUC value for silicone spread to regional lymph nodes: 0.823-0.866 [for MRI] vs 0.892-0.906 [for DECT]; p = 0.34-0.54).
DECT performs similar to MRI for the detection of silicone gel implant rupture and the presence of silicone in regional lymph nodes, and it may be an alternative for patients who are unable or unwilling to undergo MRI.
本研究旨在比较双能 CT(DECT)与乳腺 MRI 在检测硅胶乳房植入物破裂和硅节点扩散方面的性能。
本前瞻性研究纳入了当前或既往使用硅胶凝胶植入物且有植入物破裂或包膜外硅胶扩散临床怀疑的连续患者。所有患者均行 MRI 检查,然后行平扫 DECT 检查。一位不参与图像评估的乳腺放射科医师使用 MRI、手术发现和病历为植入物破裂(包膜内或包膜外)和区域性淋巴结硅胶扩散(至腋窝淋巴结和内乳[IM]和纵隔淋巴结)建立参考标准。在接受读者培训后,两位放射科医师在两次会议中对随机图像进行了盲法解读,使用 100 分视觉量表表示对诊断的信心。
共纳入 46 例患者,其中行胸肌下硅胶凝胶植入物(n = 31)、胸肌上硅胶凝胶植入物(n = 14)或已取出硅胶凝胶植入物(n = 1),均行 MRI 和 DECT 检查(平均[±标准差]容积 CT 剂量指数,8.2 ± 2.0 mGy)。19 例患者有植入物破裂,其中 13 例患者的 IM 或腋窝淋巴结内有硅胶。汇总数据显示 MRI 和 DECT 对植入物的包膜内或包膜外破裂的解读无显著差异(包膜内破裂的 AUC 值,MRI 为 0.958[MRI] vs. DECT 为 0.989[DECT];p = 0.28;包膜外破裂的 AUC 值,MRI 为 0.864[MRI] vs. DECT 为 0.878[DECT];p = 0.78)。区域性淋巴结中硅传播的 AUC 值无差异:0.823-0.866[MRI] vs. 0.892-0.906[DECT];p = 0.34-0.54)。
DECT 在检测硅胶凝胶植入物破裂和区域淋巴结内硅的存在方面与 MRI 表现相似,对于不能或不愿接受 MRI 检查的患者可能是一种替代方法。