Association of the Implant Surface Texture Used in Reconstruction With Breast Cancer Recurrence

Lee, Kyeong‐Tae; Kim, Sungjin; Jeon, Byung-Joon; Pyon, Jai Kyong; Mun, Goo‐Hyun; Ryu, Jai Min; Lee, Se Kyung; Yu, Jonghan; Kim, Seok Won; Lee, Jeong Eon; Nam, Seok Jin; Bang, Sa Ik

doi:10.1001/jamasurg.2020.4124

Cited by 32 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The relationship between breast implants and tumor genesis is controversial in the literature. Some studies reported the association between breast carcinoma and silicone implants but do not describe the pathology pathway for neoplasm development [8] . Some articles still report breast sarcoma cases in patients with implants but do not describe the pathophysiology and the trigger point of the development of these tumors [9] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silicone exposure associated with breast papillary lesion: A case report

Fleury

2022

Radiology Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Silicone exposure associated with breast papillary lesion: A case report

Fleury

2022

Radiology Case Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Furthermore, scientific studies have provided ample evidence supporting an association between an inflammatory environment and breast cancer recurrence 28 . In a retrospective study, Lee et al 29 reported lower DFS rates with textured implant reconstruction compared with smooth implant reconstruction, particularly in the advanced stage and invasive breast cancer subgroups, thus bringing the safety concerns of breast implants-particularly textured-into the spotlight. In our cohort of patients with invasive breast cancer, all the implants were textured.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of outcomes between immediate implant-based and autologous reconstruction: 15-year, single-center experience in a propensity score-matched Chinese cohort

Ding

et al. 2021

Cancer Biol Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The number of immediate breast reconstruction (IBR) procedures has been increasing in China. This study aimed to investigate the oncological safety of IBR, and to compare the survival and surgical outcomes between implant-based and autologous reconstruction. Methods: Data from patients diagnosed with invasive breast cancer who underwent immediate total breast reconstruction between 2001 and 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Long-term breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), disease-free survival (DFS), and locoregional recurrence-free survival (LRFS) were evaluated. Patient satisfaction with the breast was compared between the implantbased and autologous groups. BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were compared between groups after propensity score matching (PSM). Results: A total of 784 IBR procedures were identified, of which 584 were performed on patients with invasive breast cancer (implantbased, n = 288; autologous, n = 296). With a median follow-up of 71.3 months, the 10-year estimates of BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were 88.9% [95% confidence interval (CI) (85.1%-93.0%)], 79.6% [95% CI (74.7%-84.8%)], and 94.0% [95% CI (90.3%-97.8%)], respectively. A total of 124 patients completed the Breast-Q questionnaire, and no statistically significant differences were noted between groups (P = 0.823). After PSM with 27 variables, no statistically significant differences in BCSS, DFS, and LRFS were found between the implant-based (n = 177) and autologous (n = 177) groups. Further stratification according to staging, histological grade, lymph node status, and lymph-venous invasion status revealed no significant survival differences between groups. Conclusions: Both immediate implant-based and autologous reconstruction were reasonable choices with similar long-term oncological outcomes and patient-reported satisfaction among patients with invasive breast cancer in China.

show abstract

“…Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery • October Supplement 2022 textured group, and all 10 cases of distant metastasis in the cohort occurred in the textured group. 10 There was no statistically significant difference in disease-free survival observed in a comparison of the implant type of the smooth group [Allergan Style 10 versus Mentor MemoryGel versus Bellagel Smooth (HansBiomed Corp., Seoul, Republic of Korea)] and that of the textured group (Mentor MemoryShape versus Allergan Style 410 versus Allergan Style 110). 10 These interesting but alarming findings suggest that in addition to BIA-ALCL risk, textured implants may also be associated with an increased risk of breast cancer recurrence.…”

Section: Smentioning

confidence: 90%

Breast Cancer Recurrence after Smooth vs. Textured Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched Cohort Study

Han

et al. 2022

Plastic &Amp; Reconstructive Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: An increasing number of reports on breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma have recently raised concerns about the potential influence of breast implants on carcinogenicity, particularly implants with a textured surface. The authors compared the recurrence outcomes between smooth and textured implant reconstructions for breast cancer. Methods: All patients who underwent immediate direct-to-implant–based breast reconstruction for primary breast cancer between January of 2010 and December of 2016 were reviewed. A total of 590 patients were included. After propensity score 1:2 matching, 138 patients were included in the smooth implant group and 276 patients in the textured implant group. Locoregional recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival rates were compared between the groups. Results: After matching, the median follow-up periods were 62 months and 66 months for the smooth and textured groups, respectively. The authors observed no significant differences between the smooth and textured implant groups in terms of locoregional recurrence (10.9 percent versus 11.6 percent; p = 0.827), distant metastasis (3.6 percent versus 4.0 percent; p = 0.547), or first recurrence (12.3 percent versus 13.4 percent; p = 0.757) rates. No significant differences were observed between the groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (89.5 percent versus 89.4 percent; p = 0.840), disease-free survival (87.7 percent versus 88.1 percent; p = 0.794), or distant metastasis-free survival (98.8 percent versus 96.8 percent; p = 0.741) rates. Conclusions: No significant differences were observed between the smooth and textured implant groups in this matched cohort analysis of recurrence outcomes in patients with primary breast cancer who underwent immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction. Further larger scale investigations are necessary to validate the authors’ results. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Therapeutic, III.

show abstract

Association of the Implant Surface Texture Used in Reconstruction With Breast Cancer Recurrence

Cited by 32 publications

References 23 publications

Silicone exposure associated with breast papillary lesion: A case report

Silicone exposure associated with breast papillary lesion: A case report

Comparison of outcomes between immediate implant-based and autologous reconstruction: 15-year, single-center experience in a propensity score-matched Chinese cohort

Breast Cancer Recurrence after Smooth vs. Textured Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched Cohort Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About