Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

Importance

The potential association between breast implant-related anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and implant texture has raised concerns about the additional unexpected adverse effects of textured implants, including potentially adverse outcomes for other cancers. In addition to the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, breast cancer survivors may worry about whether the type of implant inserted is associated with recurrence of their original cancer-an issue for which little evidence currently exists.

Objective

To evaluate the oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the surface type of implants used for reconstruction and to identify the independent factors associated with breast cancer recurrence and survival, including implant surface type.

Design, setting, and participants

This cohort study was conducted at Samsung Medical Center, a single tertiary referral center in Seoul, South Korea. Patients with breast cancer who underwent total mastectomy and immediate 2-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the surface type of implant used for their reconstruction (smooth or textured implant). These patients were followed up for at least 2 years after insertion of the implant. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2020, to March 5, 2020.

Exposures

Use of smooth implants vs textured implants at the second-stage operation.

Main outcomes and measures

The main outcomes of interest were local and regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Cumulative incidence of oncologic events in the smooth implant and textured implant groups and their respective hazard ratios (HRs) were collected and updated regularly.

Results

In total, 650 patients (all women, with a mean [SD] age of 43.5 [7.4] years), representing 687 cases, met the inclusion criteria and were followed up for a median (range) duration of 52 (31-106) months. Of the 687 cases, 274 (39.9%) received a smooth implant and 413 (60.1%) received a textured implant. Patients in these 2 surface texture groups had similar characteristics, including tumor staging (stage I: 102 [37.2%] vs 173 [41.9%]; stage II: 93 [33.9%] vs 119 [28.8%]; stage III: 14 [5.1%] vs 20 [4.8%]; P = .50) and rates of adjuvant radiotherapy (42 [15.3%] vs 49 [11.9%]; P = .19) and chemotherapy (113 [41.2%] vs 171 [41.4%]; P = .97). The 5-year LRRFS was 96.7%, and the 5-year DFS was 95.2%. Compared with the use of a smooth implant, textured implant use was statistically significantly associated with lower DFS, and this difference remained significant after adjusting for estrogen receptor (ER) status and tumor stage (HR, 3.054; 95% CI, 1.158-8.051; P = .02). Similar statistically significant associations were observed on multivariable analysis of patients with ER-positive cancer (HR, 3.130; 95% CI, 1.053-9.307; P = .04) and those with invasive cancer (HR, 3.044; 95% CI, 1.152-8.039; P = .03). The association of textured implant use with recurrence (lower DFS) was more prominent in cases with late-stage (stage II or III) tumor (HR, 8.874; 95% CI, 1.146-68.748; P = .04). The LRRFS did not differ statistically significantly according to implant surface texture.

Conclusions and relevance

This cohort study found that use of textured implants in reconstruction appears to be associated with recurrence of breast cancer. Further investigation is required to verify these results.

SUBMITTER: Lee KT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7542523 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The aim of the study was to analyze the reasons for removing implants after breast reconstruction in the course of treatment of breast cancer. The study involved 428 patients, who underwent a total of 648 breast reconstruction procedures using artificial implants. 47 out of 648 cases (7.3%) were identified in which the implant had to be removed. Of the 47 cases, 57.4% had undergone deferred reconstruction, and 42.6% immediate reconstruction; 27.7% had undergone pre-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 27.7% pre-operative chemotherapy, and 2.1% pre-operative radiotherapy; 6.4% were diabetic, 4.3% active smokers, and more than 50.0% had BMI greater than 25 kg/m2. In 83.0% of the analyzed cases, the reason for removal of the implant was infection, in 8.5% it was local recurrence of breast cancer, in 4.3% it was damage (leakage) of the implant, and in 2.1% it was post-operative pain. About 87.0% of infections appeared within one year of implantation; however, less than a half developed within 90 days of the reconstructive surgery, and up to 30 days only about 13.0% had appeared. Among the etiological agents of infections were: coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (31.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (18.7%), Enterococcus faecalis (9.4%), Enterobacter cloacae (18.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.5%), Acinetobacter lwoffii (3.1%), and other Gram-negative fermenting rods accounted for 6.2%. Infections were the most common reason for removing the implant after breast reconstruction. and occurred most often as late infections (>30 days after surgery). The time of observation for infectious complications should be at least 1 year.The aim of the study was to analyze the reasons for removing implants after breast reconstruction in the course of treatment of breast cancer. The study involved 428 patients, who underwent a total of 648 breast reconstruction procedures using artificial implants. 47 out of 648 cases (7.3%) were identified in which the implant had to be removed. Of the 47 cases, 57.4% had undergone deferred reconstruction, and 42.6% immediate reconstruction; 27.7% had undergone pre-operative chemotherapy and radiotherapy, 27.7% pre-operative chemotherapy, and 2.1% pre-operative radiotherapy; 6.4% were diabetic, 4.3% active smokers, and more than 50.0% had BMI greater than 25 kg/m2. In 83.0% of the analyzed cases, the reason for removal of the implant was infection, in 8.5% it was local recurrence of breast cancer, in 4.3% it was damage (leakage) of the implant, and in 2.1% it was post-operative pain. About 87.0% of infections appeared within one year of implantation; however, less than a half developed within 90 days of the reconstructive surgery, and up to 30 days only about 13.0% had appeared. Among the etiological agents of infections were: coagulase-negative Staphylococcus (31.3%), Staphylococcus aureus (18.7%), Enterococcus faecalis (9.4%), Enterobacter cloacae (18.8%), Pseudomonas aeruginosa (12.5%), Acinetobacter lwoffii (3.1%), and other Gram-negative fermenting rods accounted for 6.2%. Infections were the most common reason for removing the implant after breast reconstruction. and occurred most often as late infections (>30 days after surgery). The time of observation for infectious complications should be at least 1 year.