Splenic Infarction: An Ultrasonographic Diagnosis [MARCH 2025]
June 20, 2025
An unexpected guest beneath the liver [May 2025]
August 26, 2025
SUBMIT YOUR CASE
EFSUMB invites submission of interesting cases for the website section 'Case of the Month'. All CoM submissions are eligible for selection for free registration at the next Euroson congress. Two cases that receive the most 'likes' in a year will receive free registration for the next EUROSON congress and the third most liked liked case will receive a cash prize of 100 EUR.
Anaplastic giant cell lymphoma (ALCG) associated with breast implants
Authors:
González Lafuente, Elena; García Ramos, Mateo; Sal de Rellán Arango, Seila; Bulnes Vázquez, Verónica; Budiño Torres, Sara.
Central University Hospital of Asturias, Oviedo, Asturias. SPAIN
Figure 2C & 2D. C and D: Post-contrast sequences with fat suppression (axial and sagittal respectively). Bilateral retropectoral prostheses. A significant amount of periprosthetic fluid at the level of the left breast is striking (yellow asterisks). It causes a significant mass effect, displacing the prosthesis (red asterisks) posteriorly and superiorly (image D). The fluid is encapsulated with a cover that enhances after the administration of contrast (purple arrows).
1Clinical History
An asymptomatic 35-year-old woman who comes for a periodic review of her breast prostheses, placed five years previously.
2Image Findings
Breast sonography was performed, observing the retropectoral breast prosthesis surrounded by a moderate amount of periprosthetic fluid with septations inside that caused an increase in breast volume (Fig.1)
3Diagnosis
Given these findings, more than a year after the placement of the prosthesis, a possible anaplastic giant cell lymphoma associated with the prosthesis was suspected. It was decided to perform an FNA that confirmed the suspected diagnosis (Fig.3).
4Discussion
BACKGROUND:
Anaplastic giant cell lymphoma (ALCG) associated with breast prostheses is a rare type of non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma that affects a large variety of tissues, including the breast in those women who have breast implants. It develops from the lymphocytes involved in a fibrous capsule which is formed around the implant, as a consequence of a foreign body reaction. It is a rare and relatively new entity. Its pathogenesis is still unknown although it is currently postulated that it has a multifactorial origin and may be related mainly to three factors: type of implants (more common in surface implants textured than with smooth surface implants), genetic basis, and contamination. It is considered a late complication since it usually appears approximately ten years after the implantation. However, a new periprosthetic leak that appears more than one year after implantation should raise suspicion of ALCL.
CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE:
It usually has an indolent clinical course and in many cases is an incidental finding in periodic check-ups. In some cases, it may present with an increase in breast volume as the main clinical sign.
THERAPEUTIC APPROACH:
The therapeutic option of choice is early removal of the prosthesis.
OUTCOME & PROGNOSIS:
In the case of our patient, she underwent surgery with early removal of the prosthetic material with adequate clinical evolution in subsequent controls.
It usually has a benign clinical course with adequate and early treatment, although cases of death secondary to said disease have been reported.
Anaplastic giant cell lymphoma (ALCG) associated with breast prostheses is a rare type of non-Hodgkin T-cell lymphoma that affects a large variety of tissues, including the breast in those women who have breast implants. It develops from the lymphocytes involved in a fibrous capsule which is formed around the implant, as a consequence of a foreign body reaction. It is a rare and relatively new entity. Its pathogenesis is still unknown although it is currently postulated that it has a multifactorial origin and may be related mainly to three factors: type of implants (more common in surface implants textured than with smooth surface implants), genetic basis, and contamination. It is considered a late complication since it usually appears approximately ten years after the implantation. However, a new periprosthetic leak that appears more than one year after implantation should raise suspicion of ALCL.
CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE:
It usually has an indolent clinical course and in many cases is an incidental finding in periodic check-ups. In some cases, it may present with an increase in breast volume as the main clinical sign.
THERAPEUTIC APPROACH:
The therapeutic option of choice is early removal of the prosthesis.
OUTCOME & PROGNOSIS:
In the case of our patient, she underwent surgery with early removal of the prosthetic material with adequate clinical evolution in subsequent controls.
It usually has a benign clinical course with adequate and early treatment, although cases of death secondary to said disease have been reported.
5Teaching Points
Anaplastic giant cell lymphoma associated with breast prostheses is a rare but potentially serious entity, so early diagnosis is vital. If periprosthetic ffuid appears more than a year after placement of the prosthesis, it must be suspected. In these cases, ultrasound-guided FNA is indicated for correct diagnosis and early treatment by prosthesis removal.
6References
1. Noreña-Rengifo BD, Sanín-Ramírez MP, Adrada BE, Luengas AB, Martínez de Vega V, Guirguis MS, et al. MRI for evaluation of complications of breast augmentation. Radiographics 2002;42(4):S2S–4c.
2. Middleton MS, McNamara MP Jr. Breast implant classification with MR imaging correlation. Radiographics 2000 ;20(3):e1e1.
3. Shah M, Tanna N, Margolies L. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast implants. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2014;23(c):345–53.
4. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbert FJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer .2010 ;4c(8):12Sc– 31c.
2. Middleton MS, McNamara MP Jr. Breast implant classification with MR imaging correlation. Radiographics 2000 ;20(3):e1e1.
3. Shah M, Tanna N, Margolies L. Magnetic resonance imaging of breast implants. Top Magn Reson Imaging 2014;23(c):345–53.
4. Sardanelli F, Boetes C, Borisch B, Decker T, Federico M, Gilbert FJ, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: Recommendations from the EUSOMA working group. Eur J Cancer .2010 ;4c(8):12Sc– 31c.
