Do Breast Implants Adversely Affect Prognosis among Those Subsequently Diagnosed with Breast Cancer? Findings from an Extended Follow-Up of a Canadian Cohort

Breast cancer screening in women with and without implants: retrospective study comparing digital mammography to digital mammography combined with digital breast tomosynthesis

OBJECTIVES

Compare four groups being screened: women without breast implants undergoing digital mammography (DM), women without breast implants undergoing DM with digital breast tomosynthesis (DM/DBT), women with implants undergoing DM, and women with implants undergoing DM/DBT.

METHODS

Mammograms from February 2011 to March 2017 were retrospectively reviewed after 13,201 were excluded for a unilateral implant or prior breast cancer. Patients had been allowed to choose between DM and DM/DBT screening. Mammography performance metrics were compared using chi-square tests.

RESULTS

Six thousand forty-one women with implants and 91,550 women without implants were included. In mammograms without implants, DM (n = 113,973) and DM/DBT (n = 61,896) yielded recall rates (RRs) of 8.53% and 6.79% (9726/113,973 and 4204/61,896, respectively, p < .001), cancer detection rates per 1000 exams (CDRs) of 3.96 and 5.12 (451/113,973 and 317/61,896, respectively, p = .003), and positive predictive values for recall (PPV1s) of 4.64% and 7.54% (451/9726 and 317/4204, respectively, p < .001), respectively. In mammograms with implants, DM (n = 6815) and DM/DBT (n = 5138) yielded RRs of 5.81% and 4.87% (396/6815 and 250/5138, respectively, p = .158), CDRs of 2.49 and 2.92 (17/6815 and 15/5138, respectively, p > 0.999), and PPV1s of 4.29% and 6.0% (17/396 and 15/250, respectively, p > 0.999), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

DM/DBT significantly improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to DM alone in women without implants. DM/DBT performance in women with implants trended towards similar improvements, though no metric was statistically significant.

KEY POINTS

• Digital mammography with tomosynthesis improved recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women without implants. • Digital mammography with tomosynthesis trended towards improving recall rates, cancer detection rates, and positive predictive values for recall compared to digital mammography alone for women with implants, but these trends were not statistically significant - likely related to sample size.

Breast Cancer following Augmentation Mammaplasty: A Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to determine whether augmentation mammaplasty, implant type, and implant location affect breast cancer detection, stage, and treatment.

METHODS

An institutional case-control study was performed of patients with prior breast augmentation undergoing breast cancer treatment from 2000 to 2013. Controls were propensity matched and randomized, and data were retrospectively reviewed.

RESULTS

Forty-eight cases and 302 controls were analyzed. Palpable lesions were detected at a smaller size in augmentation patients (1.6 cm versus 2.3 cm; p < 0.001). Fewer lesions in augmented patients were detected by screening mammography (77.8 percent of cases versus 90.7 percent of controls; p = 0.010). Patients with implants were more likely to undergo an excisional biopsy for diagnosis (20.5 percent versus 4.4 percent; p < 0.001), rather than image-guided core needle biopsy (77.3 percent versus 95.3 percent; p < 0.001). Earlier staging in augmented patients approached but did not reach statistical significance (p = 0.073). Augmented patients had higher mastectomy rates (74.5 percent versus 57.0 percent) and lower rates of breast-conservation therapy (25.5 percent versus 43 percent; p = 0.023). Neither implant fill type nor anatomic location affected method of diagnosis, stage, or treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Palpable detection of breast cancer is more likely at a smaller size in augmented patients, yet it is less likely on screening mammography than in controls. Augmentation breast cancer patients have a comparable disease stage and are more likely to undergo mastectomy rather than lumpectomy. Both silicone and saline implants, whether placed submuscularly or subglandularly, have comparable effects on breast imaging, biopsy modality, and surgical intervention.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Breast Cancer after Augmentation: Oncologic and Reconstructive Considerations among Women Undergoing Mastectomy

BACKGROUND

Breast augmentation with subglandular versus subpectoral implants may differentially impact the early detection of breast cancer and treatment recommendations. The authors assessed the impact of prior augmentation on the diagnosis and management of breast cancer in women undergoing mastectomy.

METHODS

Breast cancer diagnosis and management were retrospectively analyzed in all women with prior augmentation undergoing therapeutic mastectomy at the authors' institution from 1993 to 2014. Comparison was made to all women with no prior augmentation undergoing mastectomy in 2010. Subanalyses were performed according to prior implant placement.

RESULTS

A total of 260 women with (n = 89) and without (n = 171) prior augmentation underwent mastectomy for 95 and 179 breast cancers, respectively. Prior implant placement was subglandular (n = 27) or subpectoral (n = 63) (For five breasts, the placement was unknown). Breast cancer stage at diagnosis (p = 0.19) and detection method (p = 0.48) did not differ for women with and without prior augmentation. Compared to subpectoral augmentation, subglandular augmentation was associated with the diagnosis of invasive breast cancer rather than ductal carcinoma in situ (p = 0.01) and detection by self-palpation rather than screening mammography (p = 0.03). Immediate two-stage implant reconstruction was the preferred reconstructive method in women with augmentation (p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Breast cancer stage at diagnosis was similar for women with and without prior augmentation. Among women with augmentation, however, subglandular implants were associated with more advanced breast tumors commonly detected on palpation rather than mammography. Increased vigilance in breast cancer screening is recommended among women with subglandular augmentation.

CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Therapeutic, III.

Current Trends in the Oncologic and Surgical Managements of Breast Cancer in Women with Implants: Incidence, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Breast augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgery in the United States, and thousands of augmented patients develop breast cancer each year. The possible effects of implants on cancer incidence, diagnosis, and treatment usually generate a disarming confusion. The present paper represents an update of the more recent oncologic and surgical strategies, aiming to support plastic and general surgeons in such challenging aspects. Several aspects of breast cancer management in augmented women are investigated, including (1) risk estimation and cancer characteristics, stage at diagnosis, and prognosis; (2) cancer diagnosis with clinical examination, mammography, ultrasound, and magnetic resonance imaging; (3) cancer treatment including breast conservation, intraoperative radiotherapy, sentinel node biopsy and mastectomy, and reconstruction. A brief resume of recommendations and conclusions is suggested, elucidating correct trends in the oncologic management of augmented patients and refusing well-established misconceptions: (1) breast augmentation does not increase the risk of breast cancer incidence, and it does not influence the prognosis; (2) possible risks exist in cancer detection due to technical difficulties; (3) sentinel lymph node detection is feasible; (4) intraoperative radiotherapy represents a good chance for conserving treatment; (5) immediate reconstruction with submuscular-subfascial implants is the most common procedure after mastectomy, and biological substitutes could support this procedure. Breast clinicians should be alerted because of high expectations of this subgroup of patients, accustomed to emphasize the aesthetic result.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE V

This journal requires that the authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266.

The Effect of Breast Implants on Mammogram Outcomes

Breast cancer detection in women with implants has been questioned. We sought to evaluate the impact of breast implants on mammographic outcomes. A retrospective review of women undergoing mammography between March 1 and October 30, 2013 was performed. Demographic characteristics and mammogram results were compared between women with and without breast implants. Overall, 4.8 per cent of 1863 women identified during the study period had breast implants. Median age was 59 years (26–93). Women with implants were younger (53.9 vs 59.2 years, P < 0.0001), had lower body mass index (25.4 vs 28.9, P < 0.0001), and were more likely to have dense breast tissue (72.1% vs 56.4%, P = 0.004) than those without. There were no statistically significant differences with regards to Breast Imaging Recording and Data System 0 score (13.3% with implants vs 21.4% without), call back exam (18.9% with vs 24.1% without), time to resolution of abnormal imaging (58.6 days with vs 43.3 without), or cancer detection rate (0% with implants vs 1.0% without). Because implants did not significantly affect mammogram results, women with implants should be reassured that mammography remains useful in detecting cancer. However, future research is required to determine whether lower call back rates and longer time to resolution of imaging findings contribute to delays in diagnosis in patients with implants.

Spatial distribution of cosmetic-procedure businesses in two U.S. cities: a pilot mapping and validation study

Cosmetic procedures have proliferated rapidly over the past few decades, with over $11 billion spent on cosmetic surgeries and other minimally invasive procedures and another $2.9 billion spent on U.V. indoor tanning in 2012 in the United States alone. While research interest is increasing in tandem with the growth of the industry, methods have yet to be developed to identify and geographically locate the myriad types of businesses purveying cosmetic procedures. Geographic location of cosmetic-procedure businesses is a critical element in understanding the public health impact of this industry; however no studies we are aware of have developed valid and feasible methods for spatial analyses of these types of businesses. The aim of this pilot validation study was to establish the feasibility of identifying businesses offering surgical and minimally invasive cosmetic procedures and to characterize the spatial distribution of these businesses. We developed and tested three methods for creating a geocoded list of cosmetic-procedure businesses in Boston (MA) and Seattle (WA), USA, comparing each method on sensitivity and staff time required per confirmed cosmetic-procedure business. Methods varied substantially. Our findings represent an important step toward enabling rigorous health-linked spatial analyses of the health implications of this little-understood industry.