Cancer risk among Danish women with cosmetic breast implants

Exploring the Susceptibility to Multiple Primary Tumors in Patients with Differentiated Thyroid Cancer

PURPOSE

It was demonstrated that differentiated thyroid cancer (DTC) patients may develop multiple primary tumors (MPT) during follow-up. Many studies showed an association between reduced telomere length and cancer phenotype; in particular, the short telomeres were associated with the development of a primary tumor. However, the role of altered telomere length in MPT development has not yet been demonstrated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible correlation between a short telomere length in blood leukocytes and the risk of developing MPT in DTC patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively evaluated 167 DTC patients followed up for a median of 13.6 years. Our control group was represented by 105 healthy subjects without any thyroid disease or present or past history of tumors. Our study groups, age-matched, were evaluated for the relative telomere length measured in leukocytes of peripheral venous blood.

RESULTS

The relative telomere length (RTL) was significantly different in healthy subjects compared to the total group of differentiated thyroid cancer patients [p < 0.0001]. Shorter telomeres length was observed in DTC patients with (n = 32) and without (n = 135) MPT compared to healthy subjects (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.0002, respectively). At multivariate analysis, the parameters independently associated with the presence of MPT were RTL [OR: 0.466 (0.226-0.817), p = 0.018] and the familial DTC [OR: 2.949 (1.142-8.466), p = 0.032].

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study suggest a role of the relative telomere length in predicting MPT development in DTC patients. Our results contribute to increasing the knowledge of the genetic mechanisms underlying MPT development in DTC patients, considering relative telomere length as a possible prognostic marker.

Assessment, Complications, and Surveillance of Breast Implants: Making Sense of 2022 FDA Breast Implant Guidance

As more information about the potential risks and complications related to breast implants has become available, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has responded by implementing changes to improve patient education, recalling certain devices and updating the recommendations for screening for silicone implant rupture. In addition to staying up-to-date with FDA actions and guidance, radiologists need to maintain awareness about the types of implants they may see, breast reconstruction techniques including the use of acellular dermal matrix, and the multimodality imaging of implants and their complications. Radiologists should also be familiar with some key differences between the updated FDA guidelines for implant screening and the imaging recommendations from the American College of Radiology Appropriateness Criteria. The addition of US as an acceptable screening exam for silicone implant rupture by the FDA is one of the most notable changes that has potentially significant implications.

Analysis of breast follow-up results in patients after polyacrylamide hydrogel (PAAG) or silicone prosthesis removal

BACKGROUND

Polyacrylamide hydrogel has been prohibited since 2006 due to numerous complications. Unsatisfactory breast contour was always observed in patients after PAAG removal. The same occurred in patients after silicone prosthesis removal. We attempt to compare and analyze the difference in postoperative breast conditions and pathology between the two groups.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed the data of patients who underwent PAAG or silicone prosthesis removal between 2011 and 2021. The BREAST-Q was used to evaluate the follow-up results, including satisfaction with breasts, physical well-being, psychosocial well-being, sexual well-being, and the operation.

RESULTS

A total of 63 patients were analyzed. The PAAG group complained of more lumps or indurations (p = 0.004), benefited less from operations as for symptomatic relief (p = 0.002), and had more chronic inflammation(p = 0.000) than the silicone group. No breast cancer was found. All the Breast-Q scores were lower in the PAAG group than in the silicone group, and there was a significant difference in satisfaction with physical well-being (p = 0.035). Besides, patients without symptoms tended to score higher in all aspects of Breast-Q than patients with symptoms after removal. The two groups (symptom & no symptom) differed in psychosocial well-being (p = 0.043) and satisfaction with operation (p = 0.048).

CONCLUSIONS

The breast contour of patients after PAAG or silicone prosthesis removal was worse than before. Early removal of PAAG before complications arise may result in a better surgical benefit. There is no doubt that PAAG are harmful both physically and psychologically. All patients are suggested to have PAAG injections removed.

Can Breast Implants Induce Breast Cancer Immunosurveillance? An Analysis of Antibody Response to Breast Cancer Antigen following Implant Placement

BACKGROUND

Women with cosmetic breast implants have significantly lower rates of subsequent breast cancer than the general population (relative risk, 0.63; 95 percent CI, 0.56 to 0.71). The authors hypothesize that breast implant-induced local inflammation stimulates immunosurveillance recognition of breast tumor antigen.

METHODS

Sera were collected from two cohorts of healthy women: women with long-term breast implants (i.e., breast implants for >6 months) and breast implant-naive women. Antibody responses to breast tumor antigens were tested by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and compared between cohorts by unpaired t test. Of the implant-naive cohort, nine women underwent breast augmentation, and antibody responses before and after implant placement were compared by paired t test.

RESULTS

Sera were collected from 104 women: 36 (34.6 percent) long-term breast implants and 68 (65.4 percent) implant-naive women. Women with long-term breast implants had higher antibody responses than implant-naive women to mammaglobin-A (optical density at 450 nm, 0.33 versus 0.22; p = 0.003) and mucin-1 (optical density at 450 nm, 0.42 versus 0.34; p = 0.02). There was no difference in antibody responses to breast cancer susceptibility gene 2, carcinoembryonic antigen, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2, or tetanus. Nine women with longitudinal samples preoperatively and 1 month postoperatively demonstrated significantly elevated antibody responses following implant placement to mammaglobin-A (mean difference, 0.13; p = 0.0002) and mucin-1 (mean difference 0.08; p = 0.02). There was no difference in postimplant responses to other breast tumor antigens, or tetanus.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with long-term breast implants have higher antibody recognition of mammaglobin-A and mucin-1. This study provides the first evidence of implant-related immune responses to breast cancer antigens.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, V.

Breast implant illness: a topic in review

Recently, the term breast implant illness has become popularized in social media to describe a constellation of symptoms which have been attributed to a patient's breast implants. These symptoms include fatigue, chest pain, hair loss, headaches, chills, photosensitivity, rash, and chronic pain amongst others. While physicians aim to treat these physical symptoms, currently the evidence supports the safety of silicone breast implants. This article entitled "Breast implant illness: a topic in review" presents an up-to-date review focusing on the safety of silicone breast implants. Patients retain the right to decide to keep or remove their breast implants and for those who choose to pursue explantation, they should be advised to seek the care of a board-certified plastic surgeon. As a scientific community is our duty to continue to conduct well-designed scientific studies to gain more insight into the safety of breast implants as it related to cancer detection, autoimmune disease, and other health concerns to improve patient safety, awareness, and education. This review article aims to delineate both the content and timing of all research and evidence as it pertains to the newly coined phrase "breast implant illness". The authors of this study support that currently there have not been any concrete or evidence-based studies which support the formation of a new syndrome "silicone implant illness".

Silicone Implant Illness: Science versus Myth?

The purpose of this Special Topic article is to present the current state of scientific evidence related to the safety of silicone breast implants. There is presently overwhelming evidence to support the safety of silicone breast implants. Ultimately, the decision to obtain, keep, or remove breast implants is the choice of the patient. If a patient chooses to have her breast implants removed, it is important to find a board-certified plastic surgeon with expertise in breast surgery. Ongoing studies are strongly encouraged in all areas, from cancer detection to autoimmune disease, as we strive for improved patient safety, patient awareness, and patient education. To the best of our body of scientific knowledge to date, there have not been any concrete or evidence-based studies or peer-reviewed data concerning the formation of a new syndrome: "silicone implant illness." Silicone breast implants are used in nearly 300,000 breast augmentation and 100,000 breast reconstruction operations annually in the United States. Silicone gel-filled implants were first approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1962. Since that time, few medical devices have been studied as closely for their safety and associated adverse outcomes. Despite multiple generations of implant shells and gel fillers, the basic components remain as originally designed.

US FDA Breast Implant Postapproval Studies: Long-term Outcomes in 99,993 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To analyze the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of patients with breast implants.

SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA

Research is ongoing regarding the safety of silicone breast implants. Despite the number of patients with breast implants followed by United States Food and Drug Administration large postapproval studies (LPAS), this database has not been thoroughly analyzed or reported.

METHODS

This is a multicentered, cohort study. LPAS prospectively monitor long-term implant-related outcomes and systemic harms for silicone/saline implants from 2 manufacturers (Allergan and Mentor) placed for primary/revision augmentation/reconstruction. Systemic harms, self-harm, and reproductive outcomes are compared with normative data. Implant-related complications are analyzed by implant composition and operative indication in the short and long terms.

RESULTS

LPAS data includes 99,993 patients, 56% of implants were silicone for primary augmentation. Long-term magnetic resonance imaging surveillance is under 5%. Compared with normative data, silicone implants are associated with higher rates of Sjogren syndrome (Standardized incidence ratio [SIR]8.14), scleroderma (SIR 7.00), rheumatoid arthritis (SIR5.96), stillbirth (SIR4.50), and melanoma (SIR3.71). One case of BI-ALCL is reported. There is no association with suicide. In the short term, rupture is higher for saline (2.5% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), and capsular contracture higher for silicone (5.0% vs. 2.8%, P < 0.001). At 7 years, reoperation rate is 11.7% for primary augmentation, and 25% for primary/revision reconstruction. Capsular contracture (III/IV) occurs in 7.2% of primary augmentations, 12.7% primary reconstructions, and is the most common reason for reoperation among augmentations.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the largest study of breast implant outcomes. Silicone implants are associated with an increased risk of certain rare harms; associations need to be further analyzed with patient-level data to provide conclusive evidence. Long-term safety and implant-related outcomes should inform patient and surgeon decision-making when selecting implants.

Risk of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma in patients submitted to breast implantation: A systematic review

Although breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a rare disease, its incidence has been increasing. The aim of this study was to assess the risk of BIA-ALCL in women with breast implants. A systematic search was carried out in Pubmed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, LIVIVO, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and OpenGrey databases. The risk assessment of bias was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The rarity of BIA-ALCL was a major limitation. Although we have found evidence of an increased risk of BIA-ALCL, further studies are needed to understand why some large samples did not present any case of the disease.

The Impact of Implant Location on Breast Cancer Characteristics in Previously Augmented Patients: A Systematic Literature Analysis

Background

There is a paucity of data comparing the oncologic properties of breast cancer among patients previously having undergone breast augmentation in either the subglandular or subpectoral planes. The objective of the present systematic review was to evaluate whether implant location influenced the characteristics of breast tumors in previously augmented women.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify relevant articles reporting tumor characteristics in augmented patients. The search included published articles in three electronic databases; Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PubMed. Comparative studies (subglandular vs. subpectoral) were included.

Results

Analysis of data pooled from the included studies showed that subglandular implants had a higher frequency of tumors between 2 to 5 cm (26.5% vs. 9.9%, P = 0.0130). Subglandular implants also had a higher frequency of stage 2 tumors (42.9% vs. 23.7%, P = 0.0308). There was no significant difference in lymphovascular invasion between the 2 groups. These results of this systematic review suggest that the prognosis of patients undergoing augmentation is unaffected by implant location (subpectoral vs. subglandular).

Conclusions

With the absence of large randomized controlled trials, our study provides surgeons with an evidence-based reference to improve informed consent with regards to implant placement.

U.S. Epidemiology of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma

BACKGROUND

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a distinctive type of T-cell lymphoma that arises around breast implants. Although rare, all cases with adequate history have involved a textured breast implant. The objective of this study was to determine the U.S. incidence and lifetime prevalence of breast implant-associated ALCL in women with textured breast implants.

METHODS

This is a retrospective review of documented cases of breast implant-associated ALCL in the United States from 1996 to 2015. The incidence and prevalence were determined based on a literature and institutional database review of breast implant-associated ALCL cases and textured breast implant sales figures from implant manufacturers' annualized data.

RESULTS

One hundred pathologically confirmed breast implant-associated ALCL cases were identified in the United States. Mean age at diagnosis was 53.2 ± 12.3 years. Mean interval from implant placement to diagnosis was 10.7 ± 4.6 years. Forty-nine patients had breast implants placed for cosmetic reasons, 44 for mastectomy reconstruction, and seven for unknown reasons. Assuming that breast implant-associated ALCL occurs only in textured breast implants, the incidence rate is 2.03 per 1 million person-years (203 per 100 million person-years), which is 67.6 times higher than that of primary ALCL of the breast in the general population (three per 100 million per year; p < 0.001). Lifetime prevalence was 33 per 1 million persons with textured breast implants.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates a statistically significant association between textured breast implants and breast implant-associated ALCL. Although women with a textured breast implant have a low risk of developing breast implant-associated ALCL, the current U.S. incidence is significantly higher than that of primary ALCL of the breast in the general population.

A population-based analysis of secondary malignancies in breast cancer patients receiving breast reconstruction

Background:

There is an ongoing debate about the relationship between breast implants and secondary malignancies.

Methods:

Breast cancer patients undergoing surgical reconstruction after mastectomy by either implants or autologous flap were identified in the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results registry between 1998 and 2002. The occurrence of secondary malignancies at least 1 year after diagnosis was compared between breast reconstruction with implants vs autologous flap.

Results:

Of 7955 women, 3727 underwent reconstruction using implants and 4228 using autologous flap. The incidence of secondary tumours was similar in both the groups (hazards ratio (HR)=1.02, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82–1.26, P=0.880). For lung cancer, a significantly increased risk for implants (HR=2.51, 95% CI: 1.28–4.95, P=0.005) was observed.

Conclusions:

Except for lung cancer, no association between implants and secondary malignancies including lymphomas was observed.

In vivo contaminant partitioning to silicone implants: Implications for use in biomonitoring and body burden

Silicone polymers are used for a wide array of applications from passive samplers in environmental studies, to implants used in human augmentation and reconstruction. If silicone sequesters toxicants throughout implantation, it may represent a history of exposure and potentially reduce the body burden of toxicants influencing the risk of adverse health outcomes such as breast cancer. Objectives of this research included identifying a wide variety of toxicants in human silicone implants, and measuring the in vivo absorption of contaminants into silicone and surrounding tissue in an animal model. In the first study, eight human breast implants were analyzed for over 1400 organic contaminants including consumer products, chemicals in commerce, and pesticides. A total of 14 compounds including pesticides such as trans-nonachlor (1.2-5.9ng/g) and p,p'-DDE (1.2-34ng/g) were identified in human implants, 13 of which have not been previously reported in silicone prostheses. In the second project, female ICR mice were implanted with silicone and dosed with p,p'-DDE and PCB118 by intraperitoneal injection. After nine days, silicone and adipose samples were collected, and all implants in dosed mice had p,p'-DDE and PCB118 present. Distribution ratios from silicone and surrounding tissue in mice compare well with similar studies, and were used to predict adipose concentrations in human tissue. Similarities between predicted and measured chemical concentrations in mice and humans suggest that silicone may be a reliable surrogate measure of persistent toxicants. More research is needed to identify the potential of silicone implants to refine the predictive quality of chemicals found in silicone implants.

Adjuvants and lymphoma risk as part of the ASIA spectrum

The emerging epidemic of Hodgkin and non-Hodgkin lymphomas worldwide continues to defy our understanding and forces the search for the causative factors. Adjuvants are known to act as triggers of immune and inflammatory responses. Animal experiments have demonstrated that long-term inflammation is related to aggravation of the immune network resulting in cellular and humoral responses leading to autoimmunity and lymphoma development. Chronic stimulation of the immune system is thought to be the key mechanism through which infectious diseases as well as autoimmune diseases can lead to lymphomagenesis. Many adjuvants can act similarly perturbing immune system's function, inducing a state of prolonged immune activation related to chronic lymphatic drainage. Several mechanisms were proposed by which adjuvants induce inflammation, and they are discussed herein. Some of them are triggering inflammasome; others bind DNA, lipid moieties in cells, induce uric acid production or act as lipophilic and/or hydrophobic substances. The sustained inflammation increases the risk of genetic aberrations, where the initial polyclonal activation ends in monoclonality. The latter is the hallmark of malignant lymphoma. Thus, chronic adjuvant stimulation may lead to lymphoma.

Breast implants and the risk of breast cancer: a meta-analysis of cohort studies

BACKGROUND

The popularity of cosmetic breast augmentation and the incidence of breast cancer have been increasing worldwide. It has been hypothesized that the risk of breast cancer may be greater among patients who have undergone cosmetic breast implantation.

OBJECTIVES

The authors performed a meta-analysis of the available literature on the risk of breast cancer among women with cosmetic breast implants.

METHODS

The study was designed as a meta-analysis of observational studies. A systematic search of the English literature (published by August 28, 2013) was conducted in PubMed and EMBASE. Eligible reports were those that included relative risk (RR; the increased or decreased risk of breast cancer associated with breast implants) or the standardized incidence ratio (SIR) of the observed number of cases of breast cancer to the expected number of cases among patients that previously underwent cosmetic breast augmentation.

RESULTS

Seventeen studies representing 7 cohorts were selected. Some of these were follow-up reports of previously published studies; in such cases, only the most recent reports were included in the meta-analysis. Summary SIR and RR rates and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated with a random-effects (SIR) or fixed-effects (RR) model. The overall SIR estimate was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.56-0.85), and the overall RR, based on 4 studies, was 0.63 (95% CI, 0.56-0.71).

CONCLUSIONS

Finding of this meta-analysis suggest that women who have undergone cosmetic breast implantation do not have an increased risk of breast cancer.

Breast size and breast cancer: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There are many known breast cancer risk factors, but traditionally the list has not included breast size. The aim of this study was to synthesize the literature on breast size as a risk factor for breast carcinoma by examining studies addressing this question both directly and indirectly.

METHODS

A systematic review was performed searching MEDLINE from 1950 to November 2010, and updated again in February 2014. Literature was sought to assess the relationship between the following variables and breast cancer: 1) breast size; 2) breast reduction; 3) breast augmentation; and 4) prophylactic subcutaneous mastectomy. Findings were summarized and the levels of evidence were assessed.

RESULTS

50 papers were included in the systematic review. Increasing breast size appears to be a risk factor for breast cancer, but studies are limited by their retrospective nature, imperfect size measurement techniques and confounding variables. The evidence is stronger for risk reduction with breast reduction, including prophylactic subcutaneous mastectomy at the extreme. Generally the breast augmentation population has a lower risk of breast cancer than the general population, but it is unclear whether or not this is related to the bias of small breasts in this patient population and the presence of other confounders.

CONCLUSIONS

There is direct and indirect evidence that breast size is an important factor in the risk of developing breast cancer. Plastic surgeons are in a unique position to observe this effect. Well-designed prospective studies are required to further assess this risk factor.

Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and breast implants: breaking down the evidence

Systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a distinct disease classification provisionally sub-divided into ALCL, Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK)(+) and ALCL, ALK(-) entities. More recently, another category of ALCL has been increasingly reported in the literature and is associated with the presence of breast implants. A comprehensive review of the 71 reported cases of breast implant associated ALCL (iALCL) is presented indicating the apparent risk factors and main characteristics of this rare cancer. The average patient is 50 years of age and most cases present in the capsule surrounding the implant as part of the periprosthetic fluid or the capsule itself on average at 10 years post-surgery suggesting that iALCL is a late complication. The absolute risk is low ranging from 1:500,000 to 1:3,000,000 patients with breast implants per year. The majority of cases are ALK-negative, yet are associated with silicone-coated implants suggestive of the mechanism of tumorigenesis which is discussed in relation to chronic inflammation, immunogenicity of the implants and sub-clinical infection. In particular, capsulotomy alone seems to be sufficient for the treatment of many cases suggesting the implants provide the biological stimulus whereas others require further treatment including chemo- and radiotherapy although reported cases remain too low to recommend a therapeutic approach. However, CD30-based therapeutics might be a future option.

Allergan’s silicone gel breast implants

In the USA, women seeking breast implants for augmentation, revision or reconstruction can choose between saline-filled devices and round, silicone gel-filled devices. Form-stable, highly cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implants are marketed in other countries and are currently under review by the US FDA. Allergan has conducted clinical studies to investigate the safety and effectiveness of its round and anatomical (Style 410) devices for US marketing approval. The most frequently reported complications were reoperation, implant removal with replacement, implant malposition and capsular contracture. The FDA approved the round devices in 2006. The weight of the scientific literature suggests that silicone gel-filled breast implants do not increase a patient's risk of cancer, autoimmune disease, reproductive effects or suicide. As differently shaped, cohesive breast implants continue to be introduced, breast implant surgery will become more customized to the patient's biological conditions and desires.

Breast implants and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: a danish population-based cohort study

BACKGROUND

A potential link between breast implants and anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) has been suggested.

METHODS

We examined lymphoma occurrence in a nationwide cohort of 19,885 Danish women who underwent breast implant surgery during 1973-2010. Standardized incidence ratios (SIR), with 95% confidence intervals (CI), for ALCL and lymphoma overall associated with breast implantation were calculated.

RESULTS

During 179,246 person-years of follow-up, we observed 31 cases of lymphoma among cohort members. No cases of ALCL were identified. SIRs for ALCL and lymphoma overall were zero (95% CI, 0-10.3) and 1.20 (95% CI, 0.82-1.70), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In our nationwide cohort study, we did not find an increased risk of lymphoma in general, or ALCL in particular, among Danish women who underwent breast implantation. However, our evaluation of ALCL risk was limited by the rarity of the disease.

IMPACT

Our results do not support an association between breast implants and ALCL and are consistent with other studies on cancer risk and breast implants.

Canadian breast implant cohort: extended follow-up of cancer incidence

Cosmetic breast implants are not associated with increased breast cancer incidence, but variations of risk according to implant characteristics are still poorly understood. As well, the assessment of cancer risk for sites other than breast needs to be clarified. The purpose of this study was to fill these research gaps. This study presents an extended analysis of 10 more years of follow-up of a large Canadian cohort of women who received either cosmetic breast implants (n = 24,558) or other cosmetic surgery (15,893). Over 70% of the implant cohort was followed for over 20 years. Cancer incidence among implant women was compared to those of controls using multivariate Poisson models and the general female population using the standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Women with breast implants had reduced rates of breast and endometrial cancers compared to other surgery women. Subglandular implants were associated to a reduced rate of breast cancer compared to submuscular implants [incidence rate ratio (IRR) = 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.63-0.96] and this reduction persisted over time. We observed a sevenfold increased rate (IRR = 7.36, 95% CI = 1.86-29.12) of breast cancer in the first 5 years after the date of surgery for polyurethane-coated subglandular implant women but this IRR decreased progressively over time (p value for trend = 0.02). We also observed no increased risk of rarer forms of cancer among augmented women. A reduction in breast cancer incidence was observed for women with subglandular implants relative to women with submuscular implants. Possible increase of breast cancer incidence shortly after breast augmentation with polyurethane implants needs to be verified.

[Special considerations in breast cancer treatment of an augmented breast]

Breast augmentation surgery involving the use of implants has been one of the most popular plastic surgical procedures for decades. As the multi-million female population who received breast implants ages, the risk of cancer is increasing rapidly, therefore the incidence of malignant disease in association with breast implants will increase as well. Although there is no relationship between tumor development and implants, these cases require special considerations in diagnostics, therapy and follow-up methods. Appropriate multidisciplinary treatment of tumors in augmented breasts corresponding with modern oncoplastic principles can only be accomplished based on adequate oncological, breast and plastic surgical knowledge. Supposing a possible increase of this condition in Hungary, too, authors provide a wide review of the literature on the special oncological and esthetic considerations, for the first time in Hungarian language.

Primary anaplastic large-cell lymphoma associated with breast implants

Primary T-cell anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (ALCL) of the breast is a rare entity, which has been reported in association with breast implants. In a retrospective analysis of the City of Hope pathology database, we uncovered nine such patients, eight of whom had breast implants proximal to primary ALCL. The diagnosis of ALCL in the implant capsule occurred at a median of 7 years (range 5-30) following implant surgery, and median patient age was 45.5 years (range 32-62). Malignancy was effusion-associated in two cases and tissue-associated in six. Seven patients were negative for anaplastic large-cell kinase (ALK) and one patient was positive. Treatment and follow-up data were available for four patients, all tissue-associated cases: two patients were lost to follow-up after failing to mobilize stem cells and two patients were in remission, 6 years and 7.5 years post-autologous transplant. These cases represent 24% of reported primary ALCL cases associated with breast implants. Our review of these cases and the literature suggest that (1) there is a strong skew in primary breast lymphomas associated with implant capsules toward T-cell, ALCL ALK-, and (2) the disease course for tissue-associated cases is not always indolent, with four patients requiring multiple treatment regimens.

The influence of cosmetic breast augmentation on the stage distribution and prognosis of women subsequently diagnosed with breast cancer

This study aimed to determine whether cosmetic breast implants impair the early detection of breast cancer, and adversely influence survival. This analysis derives from a cohort of 24,558 women who received bilateral cosmetic breast implants, and 15,893 women who underwent other plastic surgery procedures at the same practices in Ontario and Quebec, Canada, between 1974 and 1989. Incident cancers and vital status through 1997 were determined by record linkage to the Canadian Cancer Registry and Canadian Mortality Database. Analyses are based on a total of 182 and 202 incident cases of breast cancer identified among the implant and control groups, respectively. Contingency table analyses were performed to test for differences in the stage distribution of breast cancers between the 2 groups. Potential differences in survival were evaluated using the Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Women who received breast implants were more likely to have advanced stage breast carcinoma relative to the other plastic surgery patients (crude and adjusted ps </= 0.01). No statistically significant differences in distributions between the implant and control patients were found for age at diagnosis, tumor size, histological type, period of diagnosis or length of follow-up. The delayed diagnosis in augmented women did not appear to influence the overall prognosis. Breast cancer-specific survival was similar in both groups (hazard ratio = 1.06; 95% confidence interval = 0.65-1.74). In conclusion, this study suggests that breast implants delay the detection of breast cancer, but there was no statistically significant difference in survival between the breast implant and other plastic surgery groups.

Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast: recommendations from the EUSOMA working group

The use of breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is rapidly increasing. EUSOMA organised a workshop in Milan on 20-21st October 2008 to evaluate the evidence currently available on clinical value and indications for breast MRI. Twenty-three experts from the disciplines involved in breast disease management - including epidemiologists, geneticists, oncologists, radiologists, radiation oncologists, and surgeons - discussed the evidence for the use of this technology in plenary and focused sessions. This paper presents the consensus reached by this working group. General recommendations, technical requirements, methodology, and interpretation were firstly considered. For the following ten indications, an overview of the evidence, a list of recommendations, and a number of research issues were defined: staging before treatment planning; screening of high-risk women; evaluation of response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy; patients with breast augmentation or reconstruction; occult primary breast cancer; breast cancer recurrence; nipple discharge; characterisation of equivocal findings at conventional imaging; inflammatory breast cancer; and male breast. The working group strongly suggests that all breast cancer specialists cooperate for an optimal clinical use of this emerging technology and for future research, focusing on patient outcome as primary end-point.

Cancer among Scandinavian women with cosmetic breast implants: a pooled long-term follow-up study

No increased risks of specific types of cancer following breast implantation have been consistently reported, but data on risk beyond 15 years are limited. We have pooled the results of 2 nationwide cohort studies of 3,486 Swedish and 2,736 Danish women who underwent cosmetic breast implantation between 1965 and 1993. Cancer incidence through 2002 was ascertained through nationwide cancer registries. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare cancer incidence among women with implants with women in the general population. Mean duration of follow up was 16.6 years (range 0.1-37.8 years). Over 50% of women were followed for 15 years or more after breast implantation and 13.3% for at least 25 years. There was a reduced incidence of breast cancer (SIR=0.73; 95% CI 0.58-0.90), whereas lung cancer was above expectation (SIR=1.64; 95% CI 1.10-2.36). The increased risk of lung cancer is expected due to the high prevalence of smoking among the women with implants in our study. With respect to other site-specific cancers, no significantly increased or decreased SIR was observed. This study, which includes women followed for almost 4 decades, represents the longest follow up of women with cosmetic breast implants to date. The results provide no evidence of an association between breast implants and any type of cancer.

MOC-PS(SM) CME article: breast augmentation

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After studying this article, the participant should be able to: 1. Evaluate patients seeking breast augmentation using key variables to assist in selection from the choices for incision, implant type and size, and plane of dissection. 2. Minimize the need for revisionary surgery to factors beyond the surgeon's control.

SUMMARY

The purpose of this article is to provide guidelines for Maintenance of Certification continuing medical education using the breast augmentation module. It may be used as an aid in the extraction of data for 10 consecutive cases of breast augmentation and, in this regard, provides a template to facilitate the collection of pertinent information. Interspersed with the Maintenance of Certification-oriented format is continuing medical education information regarding the current state of practice concerning the multiple variables in the specific procedure of breast augmentation.

The relationship of silicone breast implants and cancer at other sites

BACKGROUND

Although most attention regarding the effects of silicone breast implants on cancer risk has focused on breast cancer, there have also been concerns regarding effects on other cancers. This includes malignancies that could occur as a result of foreign-body carcinogenesis (sarcomas) or immune alterations (hematopoietic malignancies), or cancers suggested as possibly elevated on the basis of previous epidemiologic studies (cancers of the cervix, vulva, lung, and brain).

METHODS

Searches of the English language literature on the topic of silicone breast implants and cancer risk were conducted and reviewed to determine relationships that might have etiologic relevance.

RESULTS

Epidemiologic studies provide no support for an increased risk of either sarcoma or multiple myeloma among breast implant recipients, disputing clinical and laboratory findings suggesting such a link. Although a number of epidemiologic studies have demonstrated elevated risks of cervical, vulvar, and lung cancers among breast implant patients, it is likely that these excesses relate more to lifestyle characteristics (e.g., cigarette smoking, sexual behavior) than to the effects of the implants. Brain cancer excesses, suggested in one study, have not been confirmed in either an update of the mortality experience in this study or on the basis of other investigations.

CONCLUSIONS

At present, there is no convincing evidence that breast implants alter the risk of nonbreast malignancies. Breast implant patients should continue to be monitored for longer term risks and to assess whether cancer risk is influenced by various patient and implant characteristics.

Excess Mortality From Suicide and Other External Causes of Death Among Women With Cosmetic Breast Implants

An increased rate of suicide among women with cosmetic breast implants has been consistently reported in the epidemiologic literature. We extended by 8 years the follow-up of our earlier mortality study of a nationwide cohort of 3527 Swedish women with cosmetic breast implants to examine in greater detail suicide and other causes of death. The number of deaths observed among these women was compared with the number expected among the age- and calendar-period-matched general female population of Sweden. Women with breast implants were followed for over 65,000 person-years, with a mean follow-up of 18.7 years (range, 0.1-37.8 years). Overall, 175 deaths occurred among women with breast implants versus 133.4 expected (standardized mortality ratio (SMR) = 1.3; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-1.5). Among women with implants, we observed statistically significant 3-fold excesses of suicide (SMR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.9-4.5) and deaths from alcohol or drug dependence (SMR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.0-7.3), as well as an excess of deaths from accidents and injuries consistent with substance abuse or dependence. The increased risk of suicide was not apparent until 10 years after implantation. Deaths from cancer overall were close to expectation (SMR, 1.1; 95% CI, 0.8-1.4). Women with cosmetic implants had elevated SMRs for lung cancer and chronic respiratory disease. There was no excess of breast cancer mortality. The excess of deaths from suicides, drug and alcohol abuse and dependence, and other related causes suggests significant underlying psychiatric morbidity among these women. Thus, screening for pre-implant psychiatric morbidity and post-implant monitoring among women seeking cosmetic breast implants may be warranted.

Cancer risk among Los Angeles women with cosmetic breast implants

BACKGROUND

As the first generation of women who received cosmetic breast implants ages, questions remain about cancer risk. This study is an update of the Los Angeles Augmentation Mammaplasty Study and examines cancer risk among women with long-term exposure to breast implants.

METHODS

The authors conducted a record linkage cohort study of patients with cosmetic breast implants by abstracting from records of the private practices of 35 board-certified plastic surgeons in Los Angeles County, California. They included 3139 Caucasian women who received cosmetic breast implants between 1953 and 1980. Spanish-surnamed women, nonresidents of Los Angeles County, and patients with prior subcutaneous mastectomy or breast cancer were excluded. Cancer outcomes through 1994 were ascertained through record linkage with the Los Angeles County Cancer Surveillance Program.

RESULTS

With a mean follow-up period of 15.5 years, 43 cases of breast cancer were observed, compared with 62.6 expected, based on Los Angeles County population-based incidence rates (standardized incidence ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.93). Significant increases were observed for cancer of the lung and bronchus (standardized incidence ratio, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.42 to 3.09) and vulvar cancer (standardized incidence ratio, 3.47; 95% CI, 1.39 to 7.16).

CONCLUSIONS

The breast cancer results of this study are consistent with the previous reports of the Los Angeles study as well as with several other long-term cohort studies. Lung cancer has previously been found to be increased in this cohort and also in some, but not most, other studies. The increased risk of vulva cancer has previously been observed in this cohort and just one other.

Surgical solutions to the problem of massive weight loss

In response to the global rise in obesity, bariatric surgery has become increasingly more popular and successful. As a result, the demand for body contouring following massive weight loss is rapidly growing. Although bariatric procedures may produce impressive weight loss, people who achieve massive weight loss are often unhappy with the hanging folds of skin and subcutaneous tissue that remain. This review examines the nature of the post-bariatric deformity in each body region and briefly reviews common approaches to their treatment.

Long-Term Cancer Risk Among Swedish Women With Cosmetic Breast Implants: An Update of a Nationwide Study

Epidemiologic evidence does not support a consistently increased cancer risk among women with cosmetic breast implants, but few studies have assessed risk beyond 15 years. Swedish women who underwent cosmetic breast implantation for the first time between January 1, 1965, and December 31, 1993 (N = 3486), were followed through December 31, 2002. Cancer incidence was ascertained through the nationwide Swedish Cancer Registry. Standardized incidence ratios (SIRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to compare cancer incidence of women with implants with women in the general population. Mean follow-up among women with breast implants was 18.4 years (range = 0.1-37.8 years). The incidence of breast cancer was below expectation (SIR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.6 to 1.0), whereas lung cancer was above expectation (SIR = 2.2, 95% CI = 1.3 to 3.4). With respect to cancer overall and all other specific cancer sites, including brain cancer and sarcoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma, no statistically significantly increased or decreased SIRs were observed. Stratification by duration of follow-up revealed no statistically significantly increased or decreased SIR, with the exception of a two- to threefold excess of lung cancer among women followed for more than 15 years, which would be expected due to the high prevalence of smoking among the Swedish women with implants in our study.