MR imaging of silicone breast implants: Evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement

MR imaging was used to evaluate the integrity of silicone breast implants in 54 women with 108 implants. MR images were interpreted by relatively inexperienced readers who tried to reproduce the experiences reported in the literature. The study examines the interobserver agreement using different di...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of magnetic resonance imaging 1996-01, Vol.6 (1), p.213-218
Hauptverfasser: Quinn, Stephen F., Neubauer, Nancy M., Sheley, Robert C., Demlow, Thomas A., Szumowski, Jerzy
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 218
container_issue 1
container_start_page 213
container_title Journal of magnetic resonance imaging
container_volume 6
creator Quinn, Stephen F.
Neubauer, Nancy M.
Sheley, Robert C.
Demlow, Thomas A.
Szumowski, Jerzy
description MR imaging was used to evaluate the integrity of silicone breast implants in 54 women with 108 implants. MR images were interpreted by relatively inexperienced readers who tried to reproduce the experiences reported in the literature. The study examines the interobserver agreement using different diagnostic signs and the influence of experience on interpretation errors. Prospective and retrospective interpretations were compared with surgical findings at the time of explantation. Diagnostic indicators, including the linguine sign, the inverted tear drop sign, the C sign, water droplets mixed with silicone, and extracapsular globules of silicone, were evaluated for diagnostic efficacy and interobserver agreement. The prospective sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 78%, respectively. With the retrospective interpretations, the sensitivity and specificity increased to 93% and 92%, respectively. Most of the prospective false‐positive interpretations were due to misinterpreting radial folds as signs of implant rupture. Six implants interpreted retrospectively as false positives had gross amounts of silicone around the implants at surgery but there were no obvious rents in the implant shells. There was fair to excellent interobserver agreement with the individual diagnostic signs except for extracapsular globules of silicone. All of the signs had specificities of greater than 90%. The sensitivities of the individual signs were less than the overall retrospective sensitivity. With experience, the sensitivity improved from 87% to 93% and the specificity improved from 78% to 92%. This study helps substantiate the use of diagnostic signs used by other authors to detect silicone loss from breast implants by MR imaging; however, questions remain as to the clinical role of MR imaging in evaluating implants for silicone loss.
doi_str_mv 10.1002/jmri.1880060137
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78407615</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>78407615</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3827-3572a969ffb7f0ce8aa9d0cb4bd7d704225c100f271d667dcadd6346268da6e73</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkDtvFDEUhS0ECiFQUyFNRTeJH-PHQIVWIQRtErGAtrQ89p2Vw7xiexdS8dfxPhRCRWXrnu8c3XsQek3wKcGYnt32wZ8SpTAWmDD5BB0TTmlJuRJP8x9zVhKF5XP0IsZbjHFdV_wIHSnFScXwMfp9tSh8b1Z-WBVjW0TfeTsOUDQBTExZmjozpPiuON-Ybm2SH4ctN4UxTmCT30BhBlcESI8mfkgQpjzb8XFH7GZjEyFsIBRmFQB6GNJL9Kw1XYRXh_cEff94_m32qZzfXFzOPsxLyxSVJeOSmlrUbdvIFltQxtQO26ZqnHQSV5Rym_toqSROCOmscU6wSlChnBEg2Ql6u8_Nm9-tISbd-2ihy9fBuI5aqgpLQXgGz_agzQfFAK2eQi4o3GuC9bZyva1c_608O94cotdND-6BP3Sc9fd7_afv4P5_cfrz1eLyn_Ry7_Yxwa8Htwk_tJBMcr28vtBfvywWs-vlXC_ZH14Hoac</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>78407615</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>MR imaging of silicone breast implants: Evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Quinn, Stephen F. ; Neubauer, Nancy M. ; Sheley, Robert C. ; Demlow, Thomas A. ; Szumowski, Jerzy</creator><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Stephen F. ; Neubauer, Nancy M. ; Sheley, Robert C. ; Demlow, Thomas A. ; Szumowski, Jerzy</creatorcontrib><description>MR imaging was used to evaluate the integrity of silicone breast implants in 54 women with 108 implants. MR images were interpreted by relatively inexperienced readers who tried to reproduce the experiences reported in the literature. The study examines the interobserver agreement using different diagnostic signs and the influence of experience on interpretation errors. Prospective and retrospective interpretations were compared with surgical findings at the time of explantation. Diagnostic indicators, including the linguine sign, the inverted tear drop sign, the C sign, water droplets mixed with silicone, and extracapsular globules of silicone, were evaluated for diagnostic efficacy and interobserver agreement. The prospective sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 78%, respectively. With the retrospective interpretations, the sensitivity and specificity increased to 93% and 92%, respectively. Most of the prospective false‐positive interpretations were due to misinterpreting radial folds as signs of implant rupture. Six implants interpreted retrospectively as false positives had gross amounts of silicone around the implants at surgery but there were no obvious rents in the implant shells. There was fair to excellent interobserver agreement with the individual diagnostic signs except for extracapsular globules of silicone. All of the signs had specificities of greater than 90%. The sensitivities of the individual signs were less than the overall retrospective sensitivity. With experience, the sensitivity improved from 87% to 93% and the specificity improved from 78% to 92%. This study helps substantiate the use of diagnostic signs used by other authors to detect silicone loss from breast implants by MR imaging; however, questions remain as to the clinical role of MR imaging in evaluating implants for silicone loss.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1053-1807</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1522-2586</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/jmri.1880060137</identifier><identifier>PMID: 8851430</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Baltimore: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</publisher><subject>Adult ; Breast ; Breast - pathology ; Breast Implants ; Breast, MR ; Breast, prostheses ; Female ; Humans ; Magnetic Resonance Imaging ; Middle Aged ; Observer Variation ; Predictive Value of Tests ; Prospective Studies ; prostheses ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Sensitivity and Specificity ; Silicone ; Silicones</subject><ispartof>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 1996-01, Vol.6 (1), p.213-218</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 1996 Wiley‐Liss, Inc., A Wiley Company</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3827-3572a969ffb7f0ce8aa9d0cb4bd7d704225c100f271d667dcadd6346268da6e73</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3827-3572a969ffb7f0ce8aa9d0cb4bd7d704225c100f271d667dcadd6346268da6e73</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fjmri.1880060137$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fjmri.1880060137$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,1411,27901,27902,45550,45551</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8851430$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Stephen F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Nancy M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheley, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demlow, Thomas A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szumowski, Jerzy</creatorcontrib><title>MR imaging of silicone breast implants: Evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement</title><title>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</title><addtitle>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging</addtitle><description>MR imaging was used to evaluate the integrity of silicone breast implants in 54 women with 108 implants. MR images were interpreted by relatively inexperienced readers who tried to reproduce the experiences reported in the literature. The study examines the interobserver agreement using different diagnostic signs and the influence of experience on interpretation errors. Prospective and retrospective interpretations were compared with surgical findings at the time of explantation. Diagnostic indicators, including the linguine sign, the inverted tear drop sign, the C sign, water droplets mixed with silicone, and extracapsular globules of silicone, were evaluated for diagnostic efficacy and interobserver agreement. The prospective sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 78%, respectively. With the retrospective interpretations, the sensitivity and specificity increased to 93% and 92%, respectively. Most of the prospective false‐positive interpretations were due to misinterpreting radial folds as signs of implant rupture. Six implants interpreted retrospectively as false positives had gross amounts of silicone around the implants at surgery but there were no obvious rents in the implant shells. There was fair to excellent interobserver agreement with the individual diagnostic signs except for extracapsular globules of silicone. All of the signs had specificities of greater than 90%. The sensitivities of the individual signs were less than the overall retrospective sensitivity. With experience, the sensitivity improved from 87% to 93% and the specificity improved from 78% to 92%. This study helps substantiate the use of diagnostic signs used by other authors to detect silicone loss from breast implants by MR imaging; however, questions remain as to the clinical role of MR imaging in evaluating implants for silicone loss.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Breast</subject><subject>Breast - pathology</subject><subject>Breast Implants</subject><subject>Breast, MR</subject><subject>Breast, prostheses</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Observer Variation</subject><subject>Predictive Value of Tests</subject><subject>Prospective Studies</subject><subject>prostheses</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Sensitivity and Specificity</subject><subject>Silicone</subject><subject>Silicones</subject><issn>1053-1807</issn><issn>1522-2586</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1996</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkDtvFDEUhS0ECiFQUyFNRTeJH-PHQIVWIQRtErGAtrQ89p2Vw7xiexdS8dfxPhRCRWXrnu8c3XsQek3wKcGYnt32wZ8SpTAWmDD5BB0TTmlJuRJP8x9zVhKF5XP0IsZbjHFdV_wIHSnFScXwMfp9tSh8b1Z-WBVjW0TfeTsOUDQBTExZmjozpPiuON-Ybm2SH4ctN4UxTmCT30BhBlcESI8mfkgQpjzb8XFH7GZjEyFsIBRmFQB6GNJL9Kw1XYRXh_cEff94_m32qZzfXFzOPsxLyxSVJeOSmlrUbdvIFltQxtQO26ZqnHQSV5Rym_toqSROCOmscU6wSlChnBEg2Ql6u8_Nm9-tISbd-2ihy9fBuI5aqgpLQXgGz_agzQfFAK2eQi4o3GuC9bZyva1c_608O94cotdND-6BP3Sc9fd7_afv4P5_cfrz1eLyn_Ry7_Yxwa8Htwk_tJBMcr28vtBfvywWs-vlXC_ZH14Hoac</recordid><startdate>199601</startdate><enddate>199601</enddate><creator>Quinn, Stephen F.</creator><creator>Neubauer, Nancy M.</creator><creator>Sheley, Robert C.</creator><creator>Demlow, Thomas A.</creator><creator>Szumowski, Jerzy</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199601</creationdate><title>MR imaging of silicone breast implants: Evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement</title><author>Quinn, Stephen F. ; Neubauer, Nancy M. ; Sheley, Robert C. ; Demlow, Thomas A. ; Szumowski, Jerzy</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3827-3572a969ffb7f0ce8aa9d0cb4bd7d704225c100f271d667dcadd6346268da6e73</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1996</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Breast</topic><topic>Breast - pathology</topic><topic>Breast Implants</topic><topic>Breast, MR</topic><topic>Breast, prostheses</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Magnetic Resonance Imaging</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Observer Variation</topic><topic>Predictive Value of Tests</topic><topic>Prospective Studies</topic><topic>prostheses</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Sensitivity and Specificity</topic><topic>Silicone</topic><topic>Silicones</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Quinn, Stephen F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Neubauer, Nancy M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sheley, Robert C.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Demlow, Thomas A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Szumowski, Jerzy</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Quinn, Stephen F.</au><au>Neubauer, Nancy M.</au><au>Sheley, Robert C.</au><au>Demlow, Thomas A.</au><au>Szumowski, Jerzy</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>MR imaging of silicone breast implants: Evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement</atitle><jtitle>Journal of magnetic resonance imaging</jtitle><addtitle>J. Magn. Reson. Imaging</addtitle><date>1996-01</date><risdate>1996</risdate><volume>6</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>213</spage><epage>218</epage><pages>213-218</pages><issn>1053-1807</issn><eissn>1522-2586</eissn><abstract>MR imaging was used to evaluate the integrity of silicone breast implants in 54 women with 108 implants. MR images were interpreted by relatively inexperienced readers who tried to reproduce the experiences reported in the literature. The study examines the interobserver agreement using different diagnostic signs and the influence of experience on interpretation errors. Prospective and retrospective interpretations were compared with surgical findings at the time of explantation. Diagnostic indicators, including the linguine sign, the inverted tear drop sign, the C sign, water droplets mixed with silicone, and extracapsular globules of silicone, were evaluated for diagnostic efficacy and interobserver agreement. The prospective sensitivity and specificity were 87% and 78%, respectively. With the retrospective interpretations, the sensitivity and specificity increased to 93% and 92%, respectively. Most of the prospective false‐positive interpretations were due to misinterpreting radial folds as signs of implant rupture. Six implants interpreted retrospectively as false positives had gross amounts of silicone around the implants at surgery but there were no obvious rents in the implant shells. There was fair to excellent interobserver agreement with the individual diagnostic signs except for extracapsular globules of silicone. All of the signs had specificities of greater than 90%. The sensitivities of the individual signs were less than the overall retrospective sensitivity. With experience, the sensitivity improved from 87% to 93% and the specificity improved from 78% to 92%. This study helps substantiate the use of diagnostic signs used by other authors to detect silicone loss from breast implants by MR imaging; however, questions remain as to the clinical role of MR imaging in evaluating implants for silicone loss.</abstract><cop>Baltimore</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company</pub><pmid>8851430</pmid><doi>10.1002/jmri.1880060137</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1053-1807
ispartof Journal of magnetic resonance imaging, 1996-01, Vol.6 (1), p.213-218
issn 1053-1807
1522-2586
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_78407615
source MEDLINE; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete
subjects Adult
Breast
Breast - pathology
Breast Implants
Breast, MR
Breast, prostheses
Female
Humans
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Middle Aged
Observer Variation
Predictive Value of Tests
Prospective Studies
prostheses
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Sensitivity and Specificity
Silicone
Silicones
title MR imaging of silicone breast implants: Evaluation of prospective and retrospective interpretations and interobserver agreement
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T18%3A30%3A31IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=MR%20imaging%20of%20silicone%20breast%20implants:%20Evaluation%20of%20prospective%20and%20retrospective%20interpretations%20and%20interobserver%20agreement&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20magnetic%20resonance%20imaging&rft.au=Quinn,%20Stephen%20F.&rft.date=1996-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=213&rft.epage=218&rft.pages=213-218&rft.issn=1053-1807&rft.eissn=1522-2586&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/jmri.1880060137&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E78407615%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=78407615&rft_id=info:pmid/8851430&rfr_iscdi=true