Axillary silicone lymphadenopathy presenting with a lump and altered sensation in the breast: a case report

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Introduction</p> <p>Silicone lymphadenopathy is a rare but recognised complication of procedures involving the use of silicone. It has a poorly understood mechanism but is thought to occur following the transportation of silicone particles from silicone-containing prostheses to lymph nodes by macrophages.</p> <p>Case presentation</p> <p>We report of a case involving a 35-year-old woman who presented to the breast clinic with a breast lump and altered sensation below her left nipple 5 years after bilateral cosmetic breast augmentations. A small lump was detected inferior to the nipple but clinical examination and initial ultrasound investigation showed both implants to be intact. However, mammography and magnetic resonance imaging of both breasts revealed both intracapsular and extracapsular rupture of the left breast prosthesis. The patient went on to develop a flu-like illness and tender lumps in the left axilla and right mastoid regions. An excision biopsy of the left axillary lesion and replacement of the ruptured implant was performed. Subsequent histological analysis showed that the axillary lump was a lymph node containing large amounts of silicone.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The exclusion of malignancy remains the priority when dealing with lumps in the breast or axilla. Silicone lymphadenopathy should however be considered as a differential diagnosis in patients in whom silicone prostheses are present.</p

Incidence of Internal Mammary Lymph Nodes with Silicone Breast Implants at MR Imaging after Oncoplastic Surgery

PURPOSE: To assess the incidence of benign and malignant internal mammary lymph nodes (IMLNs) at magnetic resonance (MR) imaging among women with a history of treated breast cancer and silicone implant reconstruction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The institutional review board approved this HIPAA-compliant retrospective study and waived informed consent. Women were identified who (a) had breast cancer, (b) underwent silicone implant oncoplastic surgery, and (c) underwent postoperative implant-protocol MR imaging with or without positron emission tomography (PET)/computed tomography (CT) between 2000 and 2013. The largest IMLNs were measured. A benign IMLN was pathologically proven or defined as showing 1 year of imaging stability and/or no clinical evidence of disease. Malignant IMLNs were pathologically proven. Incidence of IMLN and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated on a per-patient level by using proportions and exact 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to assess the difference in axis size. RESULTS: In total, 923 women with breast cancer and silicone implants were included (median age, 46 years; range, 22–89 years). The median time between reconstructive surgery and first MR imaging examination was 49 months (range, 5–513 months). Of the 923 women, 347 (37.6%) had IMLNs at MR imaging. Median short- and long-axis measurements were 0.40 cm (range, 0.20–1.70 cm) and 0.70 cm (range, 0.30–1.90 cm), respectively. Two hundred seven of 923 patients (22.4%) had adequate follow-up; only one of the 207 IMLNs was malignant, with a PPV of 0.005 (95% CI: 0.000, 0.027). Fifty-eight of 923 patients (6.3%) had undergone PET/CT; of these, 39 (67.2%) had IMLN at MR imaging. Twelve of the 58 patients (20.7%) with adequate follow-up had fluorine 18 fluorodeoxyglucose–avid IMLN, with a median standardized uptake value of 2.30 (range, 1.20–6.10). Only one of the 12 of the fluorodeoxyglucose-avid IMLNs was malignant, with a PPV of 0.083 (95% CI: 0.002, 0.385). CONCLUSION: IMLNs identified at implant-protocol breast MR imaging after oncoplastic surgery for breast cancer are overwhelmingly more likely to be benign than malignant. Imaging follow-up instead of immediate metastatic work-up may be warranted. (©) RSNA, 201