Allergan Voluntarily Recalls BIOCELL® Textured Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders, 07.24.2019
“The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today took significant action to protect women from breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) by requesting that Allergan, the manufacturer of a specific type of textured implant, recall specific models of its textured breast implants from the U.S. market due to the risk of BIA-ALCL. Following the agency’s request, Allergan has notified the FDA that it is moving forward with a worldwide recall of their BIOCELL textured breast implant products, including: Natrelle Saline-Filled breast implants, Natrelle Silicone-Filled breast implants, Natrelle Inspira Silicone-Filled breast implants, and Natrelle 410 Highly Cohesive Anatomically Shaped Silicone-Filled breast implants. The recall also includes tissue expanders used by patients prior to breast augmentation or reconstruction, including Natrelle 133 Plus Tissue Expander and Natrelle 133 Tissue Expander with Suture Tabs. The recall helps ensure that unused products are removed from suppliers and doctors’ offices. The agency also issued a safety communication today for patients with breast implants, patients considering breast implants and their health care professionals outlining the known risks and what steps patients should consider when monitoring for symptoms of BIA-ALCL, including swelling and pain in their breasts. The safety communication also lists information about all models and style numbers included in the recall.” …
Breast implants are 60 years old, and we are still fighting about whether they are safe or not
Sybil Goldrich and Jamee Cook both suffered after getting breast implants, Sybil in 1983 and Jamee in 1998. Together, they are fighting regulators to get more information to people considering getting breast implants.
ICIJ “fights corruption with the world’s best cross-border watchdog journalism by over 160 investigative reporters in 60+ countries. The home of Offshore Leaks.”
Depuis l’apparition en 2011 des premiers cas de lymphomes anaplasiques à grandes cellules associés aux implants mammaires (LAGC-AIM), l’Agence nationale du médicament et des produits de santé (ANSM) a mené de nombreuses investigations afin d’étudier le lien entre la survenue de cas de LAGC et la texture des implants mammaires.
Au regard de l’ensemble des informations dont elle dispose, dont des avis d’experts indépendants, l’ANSM considère que la texturation de certains implants macrotexturés et implants à surface recouverte de polyuréthane constitue un facteur de risque dans l’apparition de LAGC-AIM.
Ainsi, l’ANSM prend la décision, par mesure de précaution, de retirer du marché ces implants afin de réduire l’exposition des femmes au risque de LAGC qui reste un risque rare mais grave.Compte tenu de la rareté de ce risque, l’ANSM ne recommande pas d’explantation préventive pour les femmes porteuses de ces implants.
L’ANSM met en place le numéro vert 0.800.71.02.35 pour répondre aux interrogations des patientes. Celles-ci sont également invitées à consulter un professionnel de santé en cas de questions complémentaires.
Le risque de lymphomes anaplasiques à grandes cellules associé aux #implants mammaires reste un risque rare#ANSM ne recommande pas d’explantation préventive pour les femmes porteuses de ces implants
Compte tenu de la rareté du risque de survenue de LAGC-AIM et de l’avis du CSST, l’ANSM ne recommande pas d’explantation préventive des implants macrotexturés et des implants à surface recouverte de polyuréthane.
La décision est historique. Quatre mois après la vaste enquête #ImplantFiles, les prothèses macrotexturées en silicone et les implants en polyuréthane vont être interdits en France. https://t.co/W2nHmm8Gbk | par @ecazi & @stephanehorel
— Le Monde Sciences (@lemonde_science) April 4, 2019
Timing vertigineux, le jour où la France interdit 15 modèles de prothèses mammaires liés à un cancer.https://t.co/NIG2xtHyDs
Implant Files, video published by ICIJ, 26 November 2018
“Thank you for watching! So thankful to have support. It is a journey I never thought I would have to take, but I hope that my voice is making a difference”.
A NEW GLOBAL INVESTIGATION: Health authorities have failed to protect millions worldwide from poorly tested implants that can sicken, maim and kill, the very people they were designed to help. https://t.co/I5DL5CI152#ImplantFilespic.twitter.com/CHvkYaq1ON
ICIJ “fights corruption with the world’s best cross-border watchdog journalism by over 160 investigative reporters in 60+ countries. The home of Offshore Leaks.”
Largest-Ever Study Shows Silicone Breast Implants Associated with Rare Diseases
In the largest study of long-term safety outcomes for patients with breast implants, researchers at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center have found that silicone implants are associated with some rare diseases, autoimmune disorders and other conditions.
Abstract
Objective: To analyze the long-term safety and efficacy outcomes of patients with breast implants.
Summary Background Data: Research is ongoing regarding the safety of silicone breast implants. Despite the number of patients with breast implants followed by United States Food and Drug Administration large postapproval studies (LPAS), this database has not been thoroughly analyzed or reported.
Methods: This is a multicentered, cohort study. LPAS prospectively monitor long-term implant-related outcomes and systemic harms for silicone/saline implants from 2 manufacturers (Allergan and Mentor) placed for primary/revision augmentation/reconstruction. Systemic harms, self-harm, and reproductive outcomes are compared with normative data. Implant-related complications are analyzed by implant composition and operative indication in the short and long terms.
Results: LPAS data includes 99,993 patients, 56% of implants were silicone for primary augmentation. Long-term magnetic resonance imaging surveillance is under 5%. Compared with normative data, silicone implants are associated with higher rates of Sjogren syndrome (Standardized incidence ratio [SIR]8.14), scleroderma (SIR 7.00), rheumatoid arthritis (SIR5.96), stillbirth (SIR4.50), and melanoma (SIR3.71). One case of BI-ALCL is reported. There is no association with suicide. In the short term, rupture is higher for saline (2.5% vs. 0.5%, P < 0.001), and capsular contracture higher for silicone (5.0% vs. 2.8%, P < 0.001). At 7 years, reoperation rate is 11.7% for primary augmentation, and 25% for primary/revision reconstruction. Capsular contracture (III/IV) occurs in 7.2% of primary augmentations, 12.7% primary reconstructions, and is the most common reason for reoperation among augmentations.
Conclusions: This is the largest study of breast implant outcomes. Silicone implants are associated with an increased risk of certain rare harms; associations need to be further analyzed with patient-level data to provide conclusive evidence. Long-term safety and implant-related outcomes should inform patient and surgeon decision-making when selecting implants.
Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) In Women with Breast Implants
Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) — is a cancer that has affected a tiny proportion of the women who have received implants. Nearly all the cases have been linked to implants with a textured or slightly roughened surface, rather than a smooth covering. Texturing may cause inflammation that leads to cancer.
Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) In Women with Breast Implants
January 2011 Preliminary FDA Findings and Analyses
Executive Summary
Reports in the scientific community have suggested a possible association between anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) and breast implants. In this document we summarize the scientific data the FDA used to assess the possible association. It represents our current understanding, based on the published scientific literature on ALCL in women with breast implants and information gathered through the FDA’s contact with other regulatory authorities, scientific experts, and breast implant manufacturers. The document includes the FDA’s analyses of the data and steps we plan to take to better understand and characterize the possible association.
Although ALCL is extremely rare, the FDA believes that women with breast implants may have a very small but increased risk of developing this disease in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant. Based on available information, it is not possible to confirm with statistical certainty that breast implants cause ALCL. At this time, data appear to indicate that the incidence of ALCL is very low, even in breast implant patients. Currently it is not possible to identify a type of implant (silicone versus saline) or a reason for implant (reconstruction versus aesthetic augmentation) associated with a smaller or greater risk.
The FDA is interested in learning more about the actual incidence of ALCL in women with breast implants, the characteristics of breast implants that might increase the risk of ALCL, and the pathological characteristics and clinical features of ALCL in women with breast implants. To this end, FDA is collaborating with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons to establish a registry of cases of women with breast implants who have been diagnosed with ALCL.
Health care providers should be aware ALCL in women with breast implants is a very rare condition; when it occurs, it has been identified most frequently in patients undergoing implant revision operations for late onset, persistent seroma. The FDA does not recommend prophylactic breast implant removal in patients without symptoms or other abnormalities. Current recommendations are described below. As we learn more about ALCL in women with breast implants, these recommendations may change.
Consider the possibility of ALCL when you have a patient with late onset, persistent peri-implant seroma. In some cases, patients presented with capsular contracture or masses adjacent to the breast implant. If you have a patient with suspected ALCL, refer her to an appropriate specialist for evaluation. When testing for ALCL, collect fresh seroma fluid and representative portions of the capsule and send for pathology tests to rule out ALCL. Diagnostic evaluation should include cytological evaluation of seroma fluid with Wright Giemsa stained smears and cell block immunohistochemistry testing for cluster of differentiation (CD) and Anaplastic Lymphoma Kinase (ALK) markers.
Report all confirmed cases of ALCL in women with breast implants to the FDA. In some cases, the FDA may contact you for additional information. The FDA will keep the reporter’s and the patient’s identity confidential.
Develop an individualized treatment plan in coordination with the patient’s multi-disciplinary care team. Because of the small number of cases worldwide and variety of available treatment options, there is no single defined consensus treatment regimen.
Some researchers have suggested that breast implant-associated ALCL may represent a new clinically entity with less-aggressive (indolent) behavior (Li, 2010; Miranda et al, 2009; Thompson et al, 2010). Because of the small number of cases and the short median duration of follow-up, the FDA believes it is premature to draw conclusions regarding the prognosis of ALCL in women with breast implants.
Because the risk of ALCL appears very small, FDA believes that the totality of evidence continues to support a reasonable assurance that FDA-approved breast implants are safe and effective when used as labeled.
More Information
A Shocking Diagnosis: Breast Implants ‘Gave Me Cancer’, NYtimes, MAY 14, 2017.
Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) In Women with Breast Implants: Preliminary FDA Findings and Analyses, FDA, January 2011.
Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), FDA, Last Updated: 03/23/2017.
Questions and Answers about Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL), FDA, Last Updated: 03/21/2017.
Destiny rides again: the reappearance of silicone gel-filled breast implant toxicity
2017 Study Abstract
Background Twenty-five years ago attorneys representing ailing women in class action litigation against silicone breast implant manufacturers made the procedural error of defining silicone-induced toxicity in the courtroom before it was properly studied in the exam room. This aberrant methodology perverted the proper research process, rendered verification of any real disease elusive, and cemented the groundwork for a repeat public health crisis potentially affecting two million women in the USA who possess new silicone gel devices inserted over the past 10 years.
Destiny rides again: the reappearance of silicone gel-filled breast implant toxicity, SAGE Publications, doi/full/10.1177/0961203317690241, January 29, 2017.
Patients and methods Six women, previously well, aged 27 to 53 (mean 42), were recipients of the new generations of cohesive silicone gel-filled breast implants approved for general use by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since December of 2006. They averaged seven years of total implantation time, and none experienced implant rupture.
Results All six became ill on average 3.5 years from the time of implantation. By seven years the women manifested multiple types of skin rashes, polyarthritis, fatigue, protracted AM stiffness, myalgias, headaches, photosensitivity, hair loss, paresthesias, tinnitus, lymphadenopathy, chest pain, cognitive dysfunction, dry eyes, skin pigment changes, itching, muscle twitching, dizziness, nausea, easy bruising, and odor and smell sensitivity. Three of the four who were explanted noted improvement and/or resolution of at least 50% of their total disease manifestations.
Conclusions These six women are representative of over 70,000 other breast implant recipients who, over the past three years, have had their new silicone devices permanently removed because of alleged gel-induced toxicity. The recurrence of this public health crisis has been fueled by manufacturers’ research fraud, FDA ineptness, faulty informed consent, patient abandonment, proprietary manufacturing secrecy, misleading advertising, physician indifference, aberrant research methodology, and lax Congressional oversight.
Small-sized molecules identified as endocrine disrupting chemicals can be part of some breast implants and are capable of affecting developing neurons in vitro at extremely low concentrations
Chemical composition of some breast implants and concerns
The PIP scandal: an analysis of the process of quality control that failed to safeguard women from the health risks, The Royal Society of Medicine, doi: 10.1177/0141076813480994, May 2013.
… “ The significant component of breast implants is silicone (polydimethylsiloxane), not to be confused with the chemical element silicon. Although silicone does contain silicon, the former does not occur in nature and is entirely synthetic. Due to the production method, commercial silicone products will contain variable concentrations of molecular weights and sizes including a subgroup of small-sized molecules referred to as D4, D5, D6.
D4 (octamethylcyclotetrasiloxane) was identified as an endocrine disrupting chemical (EDC) of ‘high concern’ in 2007 by a report commissioned by the European Commission entitled ‘Study on enhancing the Endocrine Disrupter priority list with a focus on low-production chemicals’. The effects of low doses of such chemicals, particularly on the developing fetus, have been well documented. While most regulatory levels of impurities in breast implants are considered acceptable in the range of a few parts per million, studies have showed that EDCs are capable of affecting developing neurons in vitro at concentrations of less than one part per trillion.
In addition, the normal manufacturing process may result in traces of platinum, used as an essential catalyst. Small traces of platinum may be an acceptable find in medical grade silicone, unlike heavy metals such as tin, zinc, chromium, arsenic, lead, antimony, nickel or copper. In addition to specific health concerns associated with these heavy metals, there is also the risk that they may induce platinum toxicity. ” …
Breast reconstruction after a mastectomy has long been an option, but a new study shows that only about 42% of women choose it
Access to Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy and Patient Perspectives on Reconstruction Decision Making
Breast reconstruction after a mastectomy has long been an option, but a new study shows that only about 42 percent of women choose it.
The goal of the study was to look at how many women had the reconstruction, why some decided against it, and whether they were satisfied with their decision.
Abstract
Importance Most women undergoing mastectomy for breast cancer do not undergo breast reconstruction.
Objective To examine correlates of breast reconstruction after mastectomy and to determine if a significant unmet need for reconstruction exists.
Design, Setting, and Participants We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries from Los Angeles, California, and Detroit, Michigan, for rapid case ascertainment to identify a sample of women aged 20 to 79 years diagnosed as having ductal carcinoma in situ or stages I to III invasive breast cancer. Black and Latina women were oversampled to ensure adequate representation of racial/ethnic minorities. Eligible participants were able to complete a survey in English or Spanish. Of 3252 women sent the initial survey a median of 9 months after diagnosis, 2290 completed it. Those who remained disease free were surveyed 4 years later to determine the frequency of immediate and delayed reconstruction and patient attitudes toward the procedure; 1536 completed the follow-up survey. The 485 who remained disease free at follow-up underwent analysis.
Exposures Disease-free survival of breast cancer.
Main Outcomes and Measures Breast reconstruction at any time after mastectomy and patient satisfaction with different aspects of the reconstruction decision-making process.
Results Response rates in the initial and follow-up surveys were 73.1% and 67.7%, respectively (overall, 49.4%). Of 485 patients reporting mastectomy at the initial survey and remaining disease free, 24.8% underwent immediate and 16.8% underwent delayed reconstruction (total, 41.6%). Factors significantly associated with not undergoing reconstruction were black race (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 2.16 [95% CI, 1.11-4.20]; P = .004), lower educational level (AOR, 4.49 [95% CI, 2.31-8.72]; P < .001), increased age (AOR in 10-year increments, 2.53 [95% CI, 1.77-3.61]; P < .001), major comorbidity (AOR, 2.27 [95% CI, 1.01-5.11]; P = .048), and chemotherapy (AOR, 1.82 [95% CI, 0.99-3.31]; P = .05). Only 13.3% of women were dissatisfied with the reconstruction decision-making process, but dissatisfaction was higher among nonwhite patients in the sample (AOR, 2.87 [95% CI, 1.27-6.51]; P = .03). The most common patient-reported reasons for not having reconstruction were the desire to avoid additional surgery (48.5%) and the belief that it was not important (33.8%), but 36.3% expressed fear of implants. Reasons for avoiding reconstruction and systems barriers to care varied by race; barriers were more common among nonwhite participants. Residual demand for reconstruction at 4 years was low, with only 30 of 263 who did not undergo reconstruction still considering the procedure.
Conclusions and Relevance Reconstruction rates largely reflect patient demand; most patients are satisfied with the decision-making process about reconstruction. Specific approaches are needed to address lingering patient-level and system factors with a negative effect on reconstruction among minority women.
More Information:
Many Women Who Have Mastectomy Don’t Get Breast Reconstruction: Study, NewsHealth, August 20, 2014.
Access to Breast Reconstruction After Mastectomy and Patient Perspectives on Reconstruction Decision Making, JAMA Surgery, articleid=1893807, August 20, 2014.
