In patients with silicone breast implants, implant rupture can occur, which can be intra- or extracapsular. Following implant rupture, silicone can travel through the lymphatic system into regional and distant lymph nodes. The purpose of this pictorial essay is to present findings of silicone implant rupture with intramammary and systemic silicone deposition as seen on dual energy CT, ultrasound, mammogram, PET/CT and MRI. We include imaging findings of silicone deposition in the breast in cases of intra- and extracapsular rupture. We also present silicone deposition in mediastinal, axillary, and internal mammary lymph nodes, as well as in the liver and spleen. To our knowledge, deposition of silicone in the liver and spleen has not been previously demonstrated on cross-sectional imaging. While all imaging modalities were able to detect silicone in the spleen, ultrasound appeared to be more sensitive than dual energy CT or MRI for detection of silicone deposition in the liver.

Pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas are tumors that occur in characteristic locations and are commonly detected on imaging studies. A correct diagnosis is important because of differences in associated neoplasms, risk for malignancy, and need for genetic testing. In addition, associated complications, including death, can be avoided if appropriately recognized and treated. Here, we report a rare case of an extra-adrenal paraganglioma of the organ of Zuckerkandl.

No abstract

Pseudoaneurysm (PSA) formation is a potential complication of breast biopsies. Ultrasound is the most common imaging modality used for evaluation and treatment of a PSA. Color Doppler images show a cystic structure with swirling flow inside in a "to-and-fro" pattern. Treatment options for PSA include observation, ultrasound-guided focused compression, thrombin injection, open surgical repair, and percutaneous embolization. The risks and benefits of these treatment options will be discussed in the following cases.

Background: We assessed confidence in visualization of markers within metastatic axillary lymph nodes (LNs) on magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), which were placed post-ultrasound (US)-guided biopsy. Methods: A retrospective review was performed on 55 MRI cases between May 2015 and October 2017. Twentytwo MRIs were performed before neoadjuvant therapy, and 33 MRIs were after its initiation. There were 34/55 HydroMARK®, 10/55 Tumark®, and 11/55 other marker types. Time interval between marker placement and MRI examination was 103 ± 81 days (mean ± standard deviation). Three readers with 1-30 years of experience independently assessed four axial sequences: unenhanced fat-suppressed three-dimensional T1-weighted spoiled gradient-recalled (SPGR), first contrast-enhanced fat-suppressed SPGR, T2-weighted water-only fast spin-echo (T2-WO), and T2-weighted fat-only fast-spin-echo (T2-FO). Results: Markers were 5.2× more likely to be visualized on T2-WO than on unenhanced images (p = < 0.001), and 3.3× more likely to be visualized on contrast-enhanced than on unenhanced sequences (p = 0.009). HydroMARK markers demonstrated a 3× more likelihood of being visualized than Tumark (p = 0.003). Markers were 8.4× more likely to be visualized within morphologically abnormal LNs (p < 0.001). After 250 days post-placement, confidence in marker brightness of HydroMARK markers on T2-WO images was less than 50% (p < 0.001). Inter-rater agreement was excellent for T2-WO and contrast-enhanced SPGR, good for unenhanced SPGR, and poor for T2-FO images. Conclusion: T2-WO and contrast-enhanced images should be used for marker identification. HydroMARK was the best visualized marker. Markers were easier to identify when placed in abnormal LNs. The visibility of HydroMARK markers was reduced with time.