Breast Implant Evaluation

Variant: 1 Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography screening	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 2 Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 3 Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 4 Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 5 Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Asymptomatic. Less than 5 years after implant placement. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 6 Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging at 5 to 6 years after implant placement and follow-up imaging every 2 to 3 years after initial negative imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 7 Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 8 Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 9 Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
US breast	May Be Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 10 Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Not Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 11 Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 12 Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	Usually Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Variant: 13 Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.

Procedure	Appropriateness Category	Relative Radiation Level
US breast	Usually Appropriate	O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast	Usually Appropriate	O
Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
Mammography diagnostic	May Be Appropriate	☢☢
MRI breast without IV contrast	Usually Not Appropriate	O

Panel Members

Debbie L. Bennett, MD^a; Ann Brown, MD^b; Phoebe E. Freer, MD^c; Manisha Bahl, MD, MPH^d; Elizabeth H. Dibble, MD^e; Heather I. Greenwood, MD^f; Lillian K. Ivansco, MD, MPH^g; Jaime D. Lewis, MD^h; Adeyiza Olutoyin Momoh, MDⁱ; Lisa A. Mullen, MD^j; Colleen H. Neal, MD^k; Yogitha Potini, MD^l; Gaiane M. Rauch, MD, PhD^m; Beatriu Reig, MD, MPHⁿ; Gary A. Ulaner, MD, PhD^o; Alana A. Lewin, MD^p.

Summary of Literature Review

Introduction/Background

Special Imaging Considerations

Initial Imaging Definition

Initial imaging is defined as imaging at the beginning of the care episode for the medical condition defined by the variant. More than one procedure can be considered usually appropriate in the initial imaging evaluation when:

There are procedures that are equivalent alternatives (i.e., only one procedure will be ordered to provide the clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care)

There are complementary procedures (i.e., more than one procedure is ordered as a set or simultaneously wherein each procedure provides unique clinical information to effectively manage the patient’s care).

Discussion of Procedures by Variant

Variant 1:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.

Variant 1:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis screening

Variant 1:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography screening

Variant 1:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 1:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 1:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 2:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.

Variant 2:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 2:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 2:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 2:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 2:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 3:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.

Variant 3:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 3:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 3:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 3:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 3:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 4:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.

Variant 4:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 4:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 4:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 4:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 4:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of saline breast implants. Suspected implant rupture. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 5:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Asymptomatic. Less than 5 years after implant placement. Initial imaging.

Variant 5:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Asymptomatic. Less than 5 years after implant placement. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 5:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Asymptomatic. Less than 5 years after implant placement. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 6:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Asymptomatic. Initial imaging at 5 to 6 years after implant placement and follow-up imaging every 2 to 3 years after initial negative imaging.

Variant 7:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.

Variant 7:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 7:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 7:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 7:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 7:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 8:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.

Variant 8:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 8:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 8:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 8:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 8:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 9:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.

Variant 9:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 9:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 9:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 9:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 9:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of silicone breast implants. Suspected implant complication. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 10:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.

Variant 10:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 10:Adult younger than 30 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 11:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.

Variant 11:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 11:Adult 30 to 39 years of age. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 12:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.

Variant 12:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 12:Adult age 40 years or older. Female or transfeminine. Evaluation of unexplained axillary adenopathy. Silicone breast implants current or prior. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Variant 13:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.

Variant 13:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.
A. Digital breast tomosynthesis diagnostic

Variant 13:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.
B. Mammography diagnostic

Variant 13:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.
C. MRI breast without and with IV contrast

Variant 13:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.
D. MRI breast without IV contrast

Variant 13:Adult of any age. Female or transfeminine. Suspected breast implant-associated malignancy. Breast implant of any type. Initial imaging.
E. US breast

Summary of Highlights

Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Gender Equality and Inclusivity Clause

The ACR acknowledges the limitations in applying inclusive language when citing research studies that predates the use of the current understanding of language inclusive of diversity in sex, intersex, gender, and gender-diverse people. The data variables regarding sex and gender used in the cited literature will not be changed. However, this guideline will use the terminology and definitions as proposed by the National Institutes of Health.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name	Appropriateness Rating	Appropriateness Category Definition
Usually Appropriate	7, 8, or 9	The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.
May Be Appropriate	4, 5, or 6	The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.
May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)	5	The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.
Usually Not Appropriate	1, 2, or 3	The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.

Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria^® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations
Relative Radiation Level*	Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range	Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range
O	0 mSv	0 mSv
☢	<0.1 mSv	<0.03 mSv
☢☢	0.1-1 mSv	0.03-0.3 mSv
☢☢☢	1-10 mSv	0.3-3 mSv
☢☢☢☢	10-30 mSv	3-10 mSv
☢☢☢☢☢	30-100 mSv	10-30 mSv
*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”

References

1.	U.S. FDA. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Breast Implants - Certain Labeling Recommendations to Improve Patient Communication. Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/131885/download.
2.	Adrada BE, Whitman GJ, Crosby MA, Carkaci S, Dryden MJ, Dogan BE. Multimodality Imaging of the Reconstructed Breast. [Review]. Curr Probl Diagn Radiol. 44(6):487-95, 2015 Nov-Dec.
3.	Bennett KG, Qi J, Kim HM, Hamill JB, Pusic AL, Wilkins EG. Comparison of 2-Year Complication Rates Among Common Techniques for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction. JAMA Surg. 153(10):901-908, 2018 10 01.
4.	Green LA, Karow JA, Toman JE, Lostumbo A, Xie K. Review of breast augmentation and reconstruction for the radiologist with emphasis on MRI. [Review]. Clin Imaging. 47:101-117, 2018 Jan - Feb.
5.	U.S. FDA. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) In Women with Breast Implants: Preliminary FDA Findings and Analyses. Available at: http://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20171115053750
6.	U.S. FDA. Breast Implants: Reports of Squamous Cell Carcinoma and Various Lymphomas in Capsule Around Implants: FDA Safety Communication. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/breast-implants-reports-squamous-cell-carcinoma-and-various-lymphomas-capsule-around-implants-fda
7.	U.S. FDA. UPDATE: Reports of Squamous Cell Carcinoma (SCC) in the Capsule Around Breast Implants - FDA Safety Communication. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/update-reports-squamous-cell-carcinoma-scc-capsule-around-breast-implants-fda-safety-communication
8.	Lamaris GA, Butler CE, Deva AK, et al. Breast Reconstruction Following Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 143(3S A Review of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma):51S-58S, 2019 03.
9.	Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants: analysis of 173 cases. Plast Reconstr Surg 2015;135:695-705.
10.	Clemens MW, Horwitz SM. NCCN Consensus Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma. Aesthet. surg. j.. 37(3):285-289, 2017 03 01.
11.	DeCoster RC, Lynch EB, Bonaroti AR, et al. Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: An Evidence-based Systematic Review. Ann Surg. 273(3):449-458, 2021 03 01.
12.	Goldammer F, Pinsolle V, Dissaux C, Pelissier P. Accuracy of mammography, sonography and magnetic resonance imaging for detecting silicone breast implant ruptures: A retrospective observational study of 367 cases. Ann Chir Plast Esthet. 66(1):25-41, 2021 Feb.
13.	Fracol ME, Rodriguez MM, Clemens MW. A Spectrum of Disease: Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma, Atypicals, and Other Implant Associations. [Review]. Clinics in Plastic Surgery. 50(2):249-257, 2023 Apr.Clin Plast Surg. 50(2):249-257, 2023 Apr.
14.	Niell BL, Jochelson MS, Amir T, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Female Breast Cancer Screening: 2023 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2024;21:S126-S43.
15.	Brown A, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Transgender Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2021;18:S502-S15.
16.	Klein KA, Kocher M, Lourenco AP, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses: 2022 Update. J Am Coll Radiol 2023;20:S146-S63.
17.	Glasberg SB, Sommers CA, McClure GT. Breast Implant-associated Squamous Cell Carcinoma: Initial Review and Early Recommendations. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open 2023;11:e5072.
18.	Clemens MW, Jacobsen ED, Horwitz SM. 2019 NCCN Consensus Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). Aesthet Surg J 2019;39:S3-S13.
19.	Adrada BE, Miranda RN, Rauch GM, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: sensitivity, specificity, and findings of imaging studies in 44 patients. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2014;147(1):1-14.
20.	Sharma B, Jurgensen-Rauch A, Pace E, et al. Breast Implant-associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Review and Multiparametric Imaging Paradigms. [Review]. Radiographics. 40(3):609-628, 2020 May-Jun.
21.	Middleton MS.. MR evaluation of breast implants. [Review]. Radiol Clin North Am. 52(3):591-608, 2014 May.
22.	Seiler SJ, Sharma PB, Hayes JC, et al. Multimodality Imaging-based Evaluation of Single-Lumen Silicone Breast Implants for Rupture. [Review]. Radiographics. 37(2):366-382, 2017 Mar-Apr.
23.	Lalonde L, David J, Trop I. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: current indications. Can Assoc Radiol J 2005;56:301-8.
24.	Holmich LR, Fryzek JP, Kjoller K, et al. The diagnosis of silicone breast-implant rupture: clinical findings compared with findings at magnetic resonance imaging. Ann Plast Surg. 2005;54(6):583-589.
25.	Brenner RJ. Evaluation of breast silicone implants. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am 2013;21:547-60.
26.	Gorczyca DP, Gorczyca SM, Gorczyca KL. The diagnosis of silicone breast implant rupture. [Review] [29 refs]. Plast Reconstr Surg. 120(7 Suppl 1):49S-61S, 2007 Dec.
27.	Lake E, Ahmad S, Dobrashian R. The sonographic appearances of breast implant rupture. Clin Radiol. 2013;68(8):851-858.
28.	Yang N, Muradali D. The augmented breast: a pictorial review of the abnormal and unusual. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2011;196:W451-60.
29.	Scaranelo AM, Marques AF, Smialowski EB, Lederman HM. 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 2004;122:41-7.
30.	Rietjens M, Villa G, Toesca A, et al. Appropriate use of magnetic resonance imaging and ultrasound to detect early silicone gel breast implant rupture in postmastectomy reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(1):13e-20e.
31.	Bengtson BP, Eaves FF, 3rd. High-resolution ultrasound in the detection of silicone gel breast implant shell failure: background, in vitro studies, and early clinical results. Aesthet Surg J 2012;32:157-74.
32.	Berry MG, Stanek JJ. PIP implant biodurability: a post-publicity update. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg 2013;66:1174-81.
33.	Di Benedetto G, Cecchini S, Grassetti L, et al. Comparative study of breast implant rupture using mammography, sonography, and magnetic resonance imaging: correlation with surgical findings. Breast J 2008;14:532-7.
34.	McCarthy CM, Pusic AL, Kerrigan CL. 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 2008;121:1127-34.
35.	Collis N, Litherland J, Enion D, Sharpe DT. Magnetic resonance imaging and explantation investigation of long-term silicone gel implant integrity. Plast Reconstr Surg 2007;120:1401-06.
36.	Heden P, Bone B, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS. Style 410 cohesive silicone breast implants: safety and effectiveness at 5 to 9 years after implantation. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(6):1281-1287.
37.	Heden P, Nava MB, van Tetering JP, et al. Prevalence of rupture in inamed silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;118(2):303-308; discussion 309-312
38.	Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J 2012;32:709-17.
39.	Holmich LR, Vejborg I, Conrad C, Sletting S, McLaughlin JK. The diagnosis of breast implant rupture: MRI findings compared with findings at explantation. Eur J Radiol 2005;53:213-25.
40.	Helyar V, Burke C, McWilliams S. The ruptured PIP breast implant. Clin Radiol 2013;68:845-50.
41.	Song JW, Kim HM, Bellfi LT, Chung KC. 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 2011;127:1029-44.
42.	Rukanskiene D, Bytautaite G, Cesnauskaite A, Pilipaityte L, Astrauskas T, Jonaitiene E. The Value of Ultrasound in the Evaluation of the Integrity of Silicone Breast Implants. Medicina (Kaunas). 57(5), 2021 May 03.
43.	Vestito A, Mangieri FF, Ancona A, Minervini C, Perchinunno V, Rinaldi S. Study of breast implant rupture: MRI versus surgical findings. Radiol Med (Torino). 117(6):1004-18, 2012 Sep.
44.	Collado-Mesa F, Yepes MM, Net JM, Jorda M. Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell lymphoma: Brief overview of current data and imaging findings. [Review]. BREAST DIS.. 40(1):17-23, 2021.
45.	Brody GS. Commentary on: Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma: Report of 2 Cases and Review of the Literature. Aesthet Surg J 2014;34:895-95.
46.	Bengtson B, Brody GS, Brown MH, et al. Managing late periprosthetic fluid collections (seroma) in patients with breast implants: a consensus panel recommendation and review of the literature. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011;128:1-7.
47.	Gidengil CA, Predmore Z, Mattke S, van Busum K, Kim B. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma: a systematic review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(3):713-720.
48.	Clemens MW, Medeiros LJ, Butler CE, et al. Complete surgical excision is essential for the management of patients with breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. Journal of Clinical Oncology 2016;34:160.
49.	Clemens MW, Miranda RN. Commentary on: CD30+ T Cells in Late Seroma May Not Be Diagnostic of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma. Aesthet Surg J. 2017;37(7):776-778.
50.	Vorstenbosch J, Chu JJ, Ariyan CE, McCarthy CM, Disa JJ, Nelson JA. Clinical Implications and Management of Non-BIA-ALCL Breast Implant Capsular Pathology. [Review]. Plastic & Reconstructive Surgery. 151(1):20e-30e, 2023 01 01.Plast Reconstr Surg. 151(1):20e-30e, 2023 01 01.
51.	Rotili A, Ferrari F, Nicosia L, et al. MRI features of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. [Review]. British Journal of Radiology. 94(1125):20210093, 2021 Sep 01.Br J Radiol. 94(1125):20210093, 2021 Sep 01.
52.	Turton P, El-Sharkawi D, Lyburn I, et al. UK Guidelines on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma on behalf of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery Expert Advisory Group. Br J Haematol. 192(3):444-458, 2021 02.
53.	Keane GC, Keane AM, Diederich R, Kennard K, Duncavage EJ, Myckatyn TM. The evaluation of the delayed swollen breast in patients with a history of breast implants. [Review]. Frontiers in Oncology. 13:1174173, 2023.Front. oncol.. 13:1174173, 2023.
54.	Klang E, Amitai MM, Raskin S, et al. Association between Enlarged Axillary Lymph Nodes and Silicone Breast Implant Ruptures seen on Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Isr Med Assoc J. 18(12):719-724, 2016 Dec.

Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked. Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.