BIA-ALCL is a rare neoplasm with a good prognosis. Our data support the recommendation that stage I disease be managed with surgery alone. Adjuvant chemotherapy may be required for more invasive disease and our experience has shown the efficacy of Brentuximab as a second line treatment.

Following subcutaneous injection of SPIOs, iron deposition is found predominantly in sinuses and the subcapsular space and is not found in areas containing metastases. This reinforces the notion that high resolution SPIO-enhanced MRI has the potential for in vivo metastasis in the SLN in breast cancer. Routine histological examination was unaffected.

Aims Breast implant‐associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA‐ALCL) is an uncommon complication associated largely with textured implants. It is important that the symptoms associated with BIA‐ALCL are recognised and that robust pathways are in place to establish the diagnosis. The aim of this paper is to review what is known of the incidence of the disease, current thoughts on pathogenesis, patterns of presentation and pathological features to provide standard guidelines for its diagnosis. Methods and results Systematic review of the literature via PubMed covering cases series, modes of presentation, cytological, histological and immunohistochemical features and disease outcome. Since 1997, 518 cases throughout 25 countries have been registered on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons PROFILE registry, with an estimated risk for women with an implant of one to three per million per year. It most frequently presents as a late‐onset accumulation of seroma fluid, sometimes as a mass lesion. The neoplastic cells are highly atypical, consistently strongly positive for CD30, with 43–90% also positive for EMA, and all are ALK‐negative. Behaviour is best predicted using a staging system for solid tumours. Conclusion BIA‐ALCL is a rare but important complication of breast implants. While characterised by CD30‐positive neoplastic cells this must be interpreted with care, and we provide pathological guidelines for the robust diagnosis of this lesion as well as the most appropriate staging system and management strategies. Finally, in order to generate more accurate data on incidence, we recommend mechanisms for the routine central reporting of all cases.

Background The impact of neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) on surgical outcomes following immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) remains unclear. While it is generally considered safe practice to perform an IBR post NACT, reported complication rates in published data are highly variable with the majority of studies including fewer than 50 patients in the NACT and IBR arm. To evaluate this further, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on the effect of NACT on autologous and implant based immediate breast reconstructions. We aimed to assess for differences in the post-operative course following IBR between patients who received NACT with those who did not. Methods PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from 1995 to Sept 2, 2020 to identify articles that assessed the impact of NACT on IBR. All included studies assessed outcomes following IBR. Only studies comparing reconstructed patients receiving NACT to a control group of women who did not receive NACT were included. Unadjusted relative risk of outcomes between patients who received or did not receive NACT were synthesized using a fixed-effect meta-analysis. The evidence was assessed using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale scores and GRADE. Primary effect measures were risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals. Results A total 17 studies comprising 3249 patients were included in the meta-analyses. Overall, NACT did not increase the risk of complications after immediate breast reconstructions (risk ratio [RR]: 0.91, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.11, p = 0.34). There was a moderate, but not significant, increase in flap loss following NACT compared with controls (RR: 1.23, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.18, p = 0.47; I 2 = 0%). Most notably, there was a statistically significant increase in implant/expander loss after NACT (RR: 1.54, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.29, p = 0.03; I 2 = 34%). NACT was not shown to significantly increase the incidence of hematomas, seromas or wound complications, or result in a significant delay to commencing adjuvant therapy (RR: 1.59, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87, p = 0.30). Conclusion Immediate breast reconstruction after NACT is a safe procedure with an acceptable post-operative complication profile. It may result in a slight increase in implant loss rates, but it does not delay commencing adjuvant therapy.

No abstract

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a T-cell neoplasm arising around textured breast implants that was recognized recently as a distinct entity by the World Health Organization. Rarely, other types of lymphoma have been reported in patients with breast implants, raising the possibility of a pathogenetic relationship between breast implants and other types of lymphoma. We report 8 cases of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-positive large B-cell lymphoma associated with breast implants. One of these cases was invasive, and the other seven neoplasms were non-invasive and showed morphologic overlap with breast implant ALCL. All eight cases expressed B-cell markers, had a non-germinal center B-cell immunophenotype, and were EBV+ with a latency type III pattern of infection. We compared the non-invasive EBV+ large B-cell lymphoma cases with a cohort of breast implant ALCL cases matched for clinical and pathologic stage. The EBV+ large B-cell lymphoma cases more frequently showed a thicker capsule, and more often were associated with calcification and prominent lymphoid aggregates outside of the capsule. The EBV+ B-cell lymphoma cells were more often arranged within necrotic fibrinoid material in a layered pattern. We believe this case series highlights many morphologic similarities between EBV+ large B-cell lymphoma and breast implant ALCL. The data presented suggest a pathogenetic role for breast implants (as well as EBV) in the pathogenesis of EBV+ large B-cell lymphoma. We also provide some histologic findings useful for distinguishing EBV+ large B-cell lymphoma from breast implant ALCL in this clinical setting.

Summary Breast implant‐associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA‐ALCL) is an uncommon T‐cell non‐Hodgkin Lymphoma (NHL) associated with breast implants. Raising awareness of the possibility of BIA‐ALCL in anyone with breast implants and new breast symptoms is crucial to early diagnosis. The tumour begins on the inner aspect of the peri‐implant capsule causing an effusion, or less commonly a tissue mass to form within the capsule, which may spread locally or to more distant sites in the body. Diagnosis is usually made by cytological, immunohistochemical and immunophenotypic evaluation of the aspirated peri‐implant fluid: pleomorphic lymphocytes are characteristically anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK)‐negative and strongly positive for CD30. BIA‐ALCL is indolent in most patients but can progress rapidly. Surgical removal of the implant with the intact surrounding capsule (total en‐bloc capsulectomy) is usually curative. Late diagnosis may require more radical surgery and systemic therapies and although these are usually successful, poor outcomes and deaths have been reported. By adopting a structured approach, as suggested in these guidelines, early diagnosis and successful treatment will minimise the need for systemic treatments, reduce morbidity and the risk of poor outcomes.

Restorative proctocolectomy with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis with or without mucosectomy has become the procedure of choice in patients with long-standing ulcerative colitis complicated by malignancy or medically refractory disease and for familial polyposis syndrome. Some reports have demonstrated the development of malignancy at the ileoanal anastomosis. We present a recent series of five patients who developed adenocarcinoma in the middle of their ileal pouch including the first case of pouch carcinoma in a patient who underwent pouch formation for ulcerative colitis. We discuss their presentation and management. Development of ileal pouch cancers, while rare, has been seen with increasing frequency in our practice. Patients with long-standing ileal pouches may benefit from routine surveillance of the pouch as often as every six months, which can be performed quickly and easily in the office using flexible endoscopy.