The possibility that women, who receive breast implants for cosmetic purposes, have increased long-term risks of developing cancer continues to be debated. The objective of our study was to prospectively examine cancer incidence among women who received breast implants. A cohort was assembled of 24,558 women, 18 years of age and older, who underwent bilateral cosmetic breast augmentation, and 15,893 women who underwent other cosmetic procedures in Ontario or Quebec between 1974 and 1989. These plastic surgery patients were selected from the same clinics as the implant population. Incident cancers were identified by linking to Canadian registry data up to December 31, 1997. In total, 676 cancers were identified among women who received breast implants compared to 899 expected based on general population rates (standardized incidence ratio (SIR) = 0.75; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.70-0.81). Overall cancer incidence rates among women who received breast implants were similar to that of the other plastic surgery patients (relative risk (RR) = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.81-1.02). However, women who received breast implants had lower breast cancer rates than the plastic surgery patients (RR = 0.64, 95% CI = 0.53-0.79). No increased risks were observed among the implant population for any of the other cancer sites examined. Comparisons involving only women who received breast implants found no association between long-term breast cancer incidence and implant site (submuscular vs. subglandular), fill (saline vs. silicone) or envelope (polyurethane-coated or not). In conclusion, women undergoing cosmetic breast augmentation do not appear to be at an increased long-term risk of developing cancer.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.21711 | DOI Listing |
Ultraschall Med
January 2025
Frauenklinik, Universität Tübingen, Germany.
Breast ultrasound has been established for many years as an important method in addition to mammography for clarifying breast findings. The goal of the Best Practice Guidelines Part III of the DEGUM breast ultrasound working group is to provide colleagues working in senology with information regarding the specific medical indications for breast ultrasound in addition to the current ultrasound criteria and assessment categories published in part I and the additional and optional sonographic diagnostic methods described in part II. The value of breast ultrasound for specific indications including follow-up, evaluation of breast implants, diagnostic workup of dense breast tissue, diagnostic workup during pregnancy and lactation, and the diagnostic workup of breast findings in men is discussed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFUltraschall Med
January 2025
Frauenklinik, Universität Tübingen, Germany.
Breast ultrasound has been established for many years as an important method in addition to mammography for clarifying breast findings. The goal of the Best Practice Guidelines Part III of the DEGUM breast ultrasound working group is to provide colleagues working in senology with information regarding the specific medical indications for breast ultrasound in addition to the current ultrasound criteria and assessment categories published in part I and the additional and optional sonographic diagnostic methods described in part II. The value of breast ultrasound for specific indications including follow-up, evaluation of breast implants, diagnostic workup of dense breast tissue, diagnostic workup during pregnancy and lactation, and the diagnostic workup of breast findings in men is discussed.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFAnn Surg Oncol
January 2025
Section of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Department of Surgery, University of Michigan Health Systems, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Background: The placement of breast implants in a prepectoral plane has become increasingly popular in breast reconstruction, although data on how this affects radiation delivery in women with breast cancer are limited. This study aimed to assess the dosimetric differences in radiation plans for immediate breast reconstruction between prepectoral and subpectoral implants.
Methods: In this study, a retrospective review and dosimetric analysis of patients with breast cancer who underwent immediate implant-based reconstruction and postmastectomy radiation therapy (PMRT) were performed.
Cureus
December 2024
Surgery, The Royal Wolverhampton NHS Trust, Wolverhampton, GBR.
Background Pre-pectoral implant-based breast reconstruction has become increasingly popular because it is associated with less postoperative pain and earlier recovery than traditional sub-pectoral techniques. Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in pre-pectoral reconstruction is thought to provide additional support for the implant and improve cosmetic outcomes. However, it leads to additional costs.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFJ Natl Cancer Inst
January 2025
School of Public Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4006, Australia.
Background: Use of long-acting, reversible contraceptives has increased over the past 20 years, but an understanding of how they could influence cancer risk is limited.
Methods: We conducted a nested case-control study among a national cohort of Australian women (n = 176 601 diagnosed with cancer between 2004 and 2013; 882 999 matched control individuals) to investigate the associations between the levonorgestrel intrauterine system, etonogestrel implants, depot-medroxyprogesterone acetate and cancer risk and compared these results with the oral contraceptive pill. We used conditional logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!