Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma and Textured Breast Implants

Advances in surface modifications of the silicone breast implant and impact on its biocompatibility and biointegration

Silicone breast implants are commonly used for cosmetic and oncologic surgical indications owing to their inertness and being nontoxic. However, complications including capsular contracture and anaplastic large cell lymphoma have been associated with certain breast implant surfaces over time. Novel implant surfaces and modifications of existing ones can directly impact cell-surface interactions and enhance biocompatibility and integration. The extent of foreign body response induced by breast implants influence implant success and integration into the body. This review highlights recent advances in breast implant surface technologies including modifications of implant surface topography and chemistry and effects on protein adsorption, and cell adhesion. A comprehensive online literature search was performed for relevant articles using the following keywords silicone breast implants, foreign body response, cell adhesion, protein adsorption, and cell-surface interaction. Properties of silicone breast implants impacting cell-material interactions including surface roughness, wettability, and stiffness, are discussed. Recent studies highlighting both silicone implant surface activation strategies and modifications to enhance biocompatibility in order to prevent capsular contracture formation and development of anaplastic large cell lymphoma are presented. Overall, breast implant surface modifications are being extensively investigated in order to improve implant biocompatibility to cater for increased demand for both cosmetic and oncologic surgeries.

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.