- What is the purpose of the breast implant
study?
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is conducting a study to determine the
long-term health effects associated with silicone breast implants, including
any changes in breast cancer risk. Although implants have been linked to various
short-term complications, less is known about their long-range effects. The
current study, evaluating breast cancer risk and breast implants, appears
in the November issue of Cancer Causes and Control.
Future analyses will evaluate the occurrence of other cancers and connective
tissue disorders, as well as the causes of death. The characteristics of the
13,500 participants and 4,000 comparison patients in the study are described
in a paper published in March 2000 (see question 7).
- Why was the study initiated?
Breast implants were first marketed in the early 1960s, before the 1976 Medical
Device Amendments to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act required that medical
devices be shown to be safe and effective. Silicone was initially assumed
by manufacturers to be biologically inactive and, therefore, to have no harmful
effects. However, cases of connective tissue disorders and cancers were reported
in several short-term studies.
Because there were few reports on the long-term safety of implants, in 1992,
the Food
and Drug Administration (FDA)
restricted the use of silicone gel breast implants to controlled
clinical trials of women seeking breast
reconstruction. To address many of the unanswered questions, Congress
directed the National
Institutes of Health in the same year to undertake a large follow-up study
to assess the long-term health effects of exposure to silicone breast implants.
It is estimated that between 1.5 and two million women in this country have
had breast implants since they first appeared on the market. Before the 1992
FDA ban, implants were typically made of a silicone shell filled with silicone
gel, with saline-filled
implants being less popular. Currently, it is not known how many women have
silicone vs. saline implants, but women with both types of implants are included
in the NCI study.
- What are the principal findings of the study?
- The authors found no association between breast implants and the risk
of subsequent breast cancer.
- There was no association of breast cancer risk with years of follow-up.
- Breast cancer risk was not associated with any particular type of implant.
- Breast tumors tended to be detected at a somewhat later stage
among breast implant patients than among the control
group, but the difference was not statistically
significant and could be due to chance.
- There was no significant difference in breast cancer mortality
between the implant and comparison patients.
- Who are the participants in the study?
The participants include 13,500 women who had implant surgery for cosmetic
reasons in both breasts before 1989. For comparison, about 4,000 women similar
in age who had some other type of plastic surgery, such as removal of fat
from the stomach or wrinkles from the face or neck, were identified. All participants
were from 18 plastic surgery practices in six geographic areas (Atlanta, Ga.;
Birmingham, Ala.; Charlotte, N.C.; Miami and Orlando, Fla.; and Washington,
D.C.). The practices were chosen because the plastic surgeons had performed
large numbers of cosmetic breast implant surgeries prior to 1989 and were
willing to give the investigators access to their records.
- What is the design of the study?
The medical records from the plastic surgery practices were reviewed to identify
patients who were eligible for the study. For eligible patients, trained medical
records abstractors collected information about the surgical
procedures, the type of implant, any complications, and factors which might
affect health status, such as weight or medical history.
Patients were then traced through a variety of sources. Living subjects were
asked to complete a mailed questionnaire to collect information about their
health status, including whether they had subsequent plastic surgery as well
as lifestyle factors that could affect their health (menstrual,
pregnancy, and breast-feeding history, weight, hormone
use, cigarette smoking, alcohol
consumption, and medical history). Extensive data on the potential short-term
(rupture) and longer-term complications (cancer, connective tissue diseases,
symptoms
of connective tissue disease) were also obtained through the questionnaire.
No clinical examinations were done on the living patients for this study.
Attempts were made to verify patient reports of cancer and connective tissue
diseases by retrieving medical records from physicians
who had diagnosed
or treated these diseases. Death certificates were collected for the patients
who had died to verify the causes of death.
About 80 percent of the original 13,500 implant patients and 4,000 controls
were successfully traced. About 70 percent of those traced as alive completed
the questionnaires. These percentages are similar to other comparably designed
epidemiologic studies.
- How do the characteristics of women with breast implants compare
to women in the general population?
Previous studies have shown that breast implant patients are different from
the general population in a number of ways. Some studies have reported that
implant patients tend to have different reproductive
and medical histories and different lifestyle characteristics.
- How do the characteristics of the women
in this study compare to other plastic surgery patients?
The authors of the current study published a paper in the March 2000 issue
of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery characterizing a subset of the
participants. Data collected from 7,447 breast implant patients and 2,203
patients with other types of plastic surgery showed that implant patients
were significantly more likely than other plastic surgery patients to be white,
to have less education, to have early ages at first birth, to be thin, and
to be screened frequently for breast disease. However, there were no differences
between the two groups with respect to family income, number of pregnancies,
alcohol consumption, cigarette smoking, histories of previous gynecologic
operations, or operations for benign
breast disease. Therefore, the authors believe that other plastic surgery
patients may be a more appropriate comparison group than women in the general
population for studies of the health effects of breast implants.
- What is unique about this study?
This is one of the longest and largest studies to date on the health effects
of breast implants. Most previous investigations have looked at the effects
of implants over a shorter time period, typically less than 10 years. Besides
the short follow-up periods, previous studies have been too small to evaluate
rare diseases.
In addition, previous reports have not included information about types of
devices implanted or risk
factors affecting health, such as medical history, screening
practices, and lifestyle behaviors (see question 5). All
of these factors are included in the current NCI study.
Another unique feature of this study is that the investigators compared the
breast cancer risks of the implant patients to both the general population
and other plastic surgery patients. Previous studies have generally used only
the general population for a comparison group, except for a recent Swedish
study that compared women with implants to those with breast reduction procedures.
- How do these results compare to other breast implant studies?
Breast cancer risk: A number of previous studies have evaluated the
relationship between breast implants and subsequent breast cancer risk. Most
have shown that the risk of developing breast cancer is less among women with
implants compared to women without implants. In several of the studies, the
size of the reduced risk was as much as 50 percent to 60 percent. However,
these studies generally did not have detailed information on patient characteristics
that could affect the development of breast cancer (see question
5), and had follow-up times of less than 10 years.
NCI researchers found a slight decrease in breast cancer risk during the
initial 10-year period. However, this decrease was not seen with increasing
follow-up time. The reduced risk immediately after implantation may have reflected
the effect of pre-implantation screening; i.e., women at high risk for breast
cancer were unlikely to have received implants. The average length of follow-up
in the NCI study was 12.9 years among the implant patients vs. 11.6 years
among the comparison patients.
Type of implant: Previous studies have not included detailed information
about types of implants. The women in this study had cosmetic surgery between
1962 and 1988, during a time when a great number of changes were taking place
in the manufacturing of breast implants such as the shell thickness, the type
of shell coating, and the gel composition. This is the first study to look
across such a long time-frame and show that the type of implant had no effect
on breast cancer risk.
Stage at diagnosis
and breast cancer mortality: Some clinical
studies have suggested that women with breast implants have more advanced
breast cancer when diagnosed than women without breast implants. However,
in two larger epidemiologic studies, there did not appear to be differences
in stage at diagnosis or survival
rates among the two groups.
In the current study, NCI researchers found a shift toward somewhat later
detection of breast cancers among the implant patients compared to the controls.
Even though the differences were not statistically significant, there were
consistently smaller percentages of in situ (early-stage) cancers among the
implant patients. However, there was no significant difference in breast cancer
mortality between the implant and comparison patients. This finding is consistent
with the one other study that looked at this issue. The authors recommended
further surveillance
of breast cancer death rates among implant patients.
- What's the difference between silicone implants and saline implants?
Implants are soft silicone sacs, inflated with either saline solution (salt
water) or a synthetic
silicone gel. Until 1992, when the FDA banned silicone-filled implants (except
for use in controlled clinical trials among women seeking breast reconstruction),
90 percent to 95 percent of the implants contained the silicone gel because
it had a more pleasing look and feel than the saline-filled implants. Since
the 1992 ban, 90 percent to 95 percent of the implants have been saline-filled.
- Does the study distinguish between the effects of saline and silicone
implants?
Yes, the study includes women with saline and silicone implants, but no altered
breast cancer risk was associated with either type of implant. Of all the
implant patients in the study, 49.7 percent received silicone gel implants,
34.1 percent double lumen implants, 12.2 percent saline-filled implants, 0.1
percent other types of implants, and 3.8 percent unspecified types of implants.
Double lumen implants have two shells; the inner sac is filled with silicone
gel and the outer with saline.
- Does the study address the health effects of breast cancer patients
who receive implants for breast reconstructive surgery?
No, not directly. The participants in the study were limited to women who
received breast implants for cosmetic reasons and did not include breast cancer
patients.
About 80 percent of breast implants in the United States are for cosmetic
surgery and 20 percent for breast reconstruction. The majority of previous
studies have focused on women who received implants for cosmetic reasons.
- What have other studies shown about the risk of breast cancer in
women undergoing breast reconstruction after breast cancer surgery?
Less is known about the risk of breast cancer following reconstructive surgery
compared to cosmetic surgery. One small study reported no increase in the
development of second primary breast cancer in women with silicone implants
following mastectomy
compared to women who received mastectomies without implants. The small size
of the study, however, limits the conclusions.
Any study of the risks of breast cancer or other cancers with women who receive
reconstructive implants is more complicated than one involving women with
cosmetic implants because it needs to take into account the effects of different
breast cancer treatments. A study with breast cancer patients would best be
done in the context of a clinical trial where comparisons can be made between
women who choose to have reconstruction and those who do not, but who otherwise
have received identical treatments.
- What measures were taken to ensure the objectivity of the study?
- The study was funded entirely by the government, not by plastic surgeons,
implant manufacturers, or other special interest groups.
- Government scientists,
not manufacturers of implants or plastic surgeons, designed and provided
scientific oversight for the study.
- To participate in the study, plastic surgeons had to agree to allow investigators
to see all of their records, not just records for selected patients.
- Information gathered through the participant questionnaire about diseases
such as cancer or connective tissue disorders was confirmed by the medical
records of oncologists, rheumatologists, and other physicians who had seen
the study respondents for these illnesses.
- The investigators obtained detailed information on other factors which
could affect health status.
- Death certificates were collected for the patients identified as deceased
to verify the causes of death.
- Scientific oversight for the study is provided by NCIs Board of Scientific
Counselors and its Breast Implant Study Advisory Panel, a multidisciplinary
panel of national experts and consumer representatives.
- What is the role of the Breast Implant Study Advisory Panel?
The role of the advisory panel has been to provide continuing scientific
review of the study. The panel is made up of academic scientists, including
oncologists, plastic surgeons, rheumatologists, epidemiologists, and patient
advocates. The panel meets regularly with the researchers to address issues
involving data analysis
and interpretation, and reports to NCIs Board of Scientific Counselors.
- Does NCI have a role in the legal actions against manufacturers?
No, NCI does not have a role. Contrary to some reports, the attorneys representing
women who were taking legal action against the manufacturers of the implants
were not consulted by NCI investigators as to which plastic surgery practices
to include in the study. A number of professional plastic surgery organizations,
including the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons and
the American Aesthetic Society, were consulted to help identify long-standing
practices in which at least 500 cosmetic operations were done prior to 1989
and in which the surgeons retained complete records and were willing to give
the researchers complete access to them. The NCI investigators performed their
own review of the patient records.
Louise A. Brinton, Ph.D., principal investigator
for the study, interacted with plaintiff attorneys on two occasions in 1995
in order to encourage the attorneys not to dissuade their clients from participating
in the NCI study. The researchers had similar discussions with a number of
advocacy groups. A fact sheet was developed to address several misconceptions
about the research and was widely disseminated to various breast implant advocacy
groups, plastic surgeons and their professional organizations, and lawyers.
- Who are the investigators in this study?
Brinton is chief of the Environmental Epidemiology
Branch in NCIs Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics
(DCEG). Additional NCI investigators are Jay H. Lubin, Ph.D., and Robert N.
Hoover, M.D., also from DCEG, and S. Lori Brown, Ph.D., research scientist
from the FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health in Rockville, Md.
Theodore Colton, Sc.D., from the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics
at the Boston University School of Public Health in Massachusetts, was under
contract with the study team as was Mary Cay Burich from Abt Associates Inc.,
in Chicago, who assisted with specific data collection tasks.
- What are the publications so far from the NCI breast implant study?
Brinton L.A., Brown S.L., Colton T., Burich M.C., Lubin J. Characteristics
of a Population of Women with Breast Implants Compared with Women Seeking
Other Types of Plastic Surgery. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
2000;105(3):919–27.
Brinton L.A., Lubin J.H., Burich M.C., Colton T., Brown S.L., Hoover R.N.
Breast Cancer Following Augmentation Mammoplasty (United States). Cancer
Causes and Control 2000;11(9): 819–827.
Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Burich MC, et al. Cancer Risk at Sites Other than Breast
Following Augmentation Mammoplasty. Annals of Epidemiology May 2001;
11(4):248–256.
Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Burich MC, et al. Mortality Among Augmentation Mammoplasty
Patients. Epidemiology May 2001;12(3):321–326.
Brinton LA, Buckley LM, Dvorkina O, et al. Risk of Connective Tissue Disorders
among Breast Implant Patients. American Journal of Epidemiology;
2004;160; 619–627.
Brinton LA, Lubin JH, Murray MC, et al. Mortality Rates Among Augmentation
Mammoplasty Patients: An Update. Epidemiology March 2006; 17(2):
162–169.
- What additional studies with this cohort
are underway?
Analyses of the causes of mortality and the occurrence of cancers other than
breast cancer are in process and similar analyses of connective tissue disorders
will follow.
We offer comprehensive research-based information for patients and their families, health professionals, cancer researchers, advocates, and the public.