Symptom Improvement After Explantation With No Capsulectomy for Systemic Symptoms Associated With Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: Systemic symptoms associated with breast implants (SSBI) is a term used to describe a group of patients who attribute a variety of symptoms to their implants. Previous studies have shown symptom improvement after implant removal in these patients irrespective of whether part or all the implant capsule has been removed. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate implant removal with no capsule removed in symptomatic and control subjects. METHODS: Eligible study subjects were sequentially enrolled at 5 investigator sites. The SSBI Cohort included patients with systemic symptoms they attributed to their implants who requested explantation. The Non-SSBI Cohort included subjects without systemic symptoms attributed to their implants who requested explantation with or without replacement. All subjects agreed to undergo explantation without removal of any capsule. RESULTS: Systemic symptom improvement was noted in SSBI subjects without removal of the implant capsule, comparable to the results of our previously published study. SSBI patients showed a 74% reduction in self-reported symptoms at 6 months with no capsulectomy which was not statistically different from partial or total capsulectomies (P = .23). CONCLUSIONS: Explantation with or without capsulectomy provides symptom improvement in patients with systemic symptoms they associate with their implants.

IL-9 is a Biomarker of BIA-ALCL Detected Rapidly By Lateral Flow Assay.

BACKGROUND: A delayed seroma around breast implants is the most common clinical presentation of BIA-ALCL. However, most seromas are due to benign causes. Therefore, it is essential to distinguish benign seromas from seromas due to BIA-ALCL. In a prior study mean concentrations of IL-9, IL-10 and IL-13 were found to be significantly higher in BIA-ALCL than in benign seromas. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this research was to test the ability to detect high concentrations of IL-9 rapidly with a lateral flow assay (LFA). Because we previously reported that a LFA for CD30 detected BIA-ALCL in seromas we compared CD30 and IL-9 LFAs in distinguishing BIA-ALCL from benign seromas. METHODS: Thirty microliter samples of 26 seromas (15 benign, 11 malignant) were tested on in-house prepared strips for IL-9 and CD30. Nanoparticle-conjugated antibodies specific to IL-9 and CD30 were used for detection. IL-9 was analyzed in undiluted samples and CD30 samples were optimized at 1:3 dilution. The dynamic range of detection was determined by spiking recombinant IL-9 into a benign seroma. Image analysis measured intensity of both test line (TL) and control line (CL) and a TL/CL ratio was calculated. IL-9 protein and IL-9 transcription factor PU.1 were stained in BIA-ALCL lines and clinical samples. RESULTS: The IL-9 LFA was reliable in distinguishing BIA-ALCL from benign seromas when the concentration of IL-9 was greater than 10 ng/ml. The CD30 LFA was positive in all 11 malignant cases. In one case with only faint CD30 and IL-10 test lines, the IL-9 LFA was clearly positive. Immunohistochemistry showed IL-9 and its essential transcription factor PU.1 were present in tumor cells in BIA-ALCL lines and clinical samples. CONCLUSIONS: IL-9 is a tumor cell biomarker of BIA-ALCL that can be detected by lateral flow assay and immunohistochemistry. Concentrations of IL-9 greater than 10 ng/ml reliably distinguished BIA-ALCL from benign seromas. Moreover, IL-9 LFA could detect BIA-ALCL when CD30 LFA was not definitive and IL-10 was of low concentration with a faint IL-10 TL, suggesting a multiplex LFA including IL-9, CD30 and IL-10 might be more effective in detecting BIA-ALCL in selected cases.

The Efficacy and Associated Learning Curve of Office-Based High-Resolution Ultrasound to Detect Shell Failure in Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: High-resolution ultrasound (HRUS) is widely employed in plastic surgery practices to detect implant rupture prior to revisional surgery. Published research has found a good overall accuracy of shell failure detection. The literature often references a learning curve associated with incorporating this imaging technique into a medical practice, but it has yet to be visualized or defined. OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to calculate current testing statistics for use of HRUS to detect shell failure and to define the learning curve associated with the predicted improvement reflected by statistics of test and surgeon proficiency. METHODS: A retrospective review of sequential in-office HRUSs on patients with breast implants was conducted across 2 plastic surgery practices. Preoperative ultrasound reports and intraoperative findings were compared. Test statistics were calculated for each group of 10 subsequent patients, and a regression analysis was performed to define the learning curve. RESULTS: A total of 480 implants were examined and averages for all test statistics were calculated. All were higher than most of the previously reported literature standards. The regression analysis showed a linear improvement for both sensitivity and specificity over time, with significant improvement in sensitivity. CONCLUSION: Results show that HRUS is highly effective in detecting shell failure in breast implants. There is also a calculable linear improvement for all test values of the HRUS over time. Surgeons were able to remain above the literature standard for sensitivity after their 60th HRUS reading. This improvement shows that continued use and practice of the imaging technique allow for more accurate findings.

US FDA Patient Decision Checklist for Breast Implants: Results of a Survey to Members of The Aesthetic Society, April 2022.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in response to concerns that patients undergoing breast implant surgery were not adequately informed about the risks of receiving an implanted medical device, mandated a Patient Decision Checklist (PDC) in October 2021. Breast implant manufactures communicated with plastic surgeons in 2022 regarding the use of the PDC as a condition for the sale of breast implants. Plastic surgeons voiced concerns over the accuracy of the content in the PDC and its confusing statements about the risk of adverse events associated with breast surgery. In April 2022, The Aesthetic Society developed a survey that was sent to its members regarding their experiences with the PDC. This was a 5-question survey, with 1 additional place for comments. The purpose of this survey was to develop data based on the 6-month experience of plastic surgeons with the PDC. A total of 206 Aesthetic Society members (9%) participated in the survey (1849 total active members in the United States). Patients deserve appropriate information prior to breast implant surgery to make an informed decision after reviewing the potential risks and benefits. The authors believe that there is still more work to be done to create an ideal PDC that is fair and balanced, scientifically describes risk incidence in a way that patients understand, and can be updated.

Microbes, Histology, Blood Analysis, Enterotoxins, and Cytokines: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 3.

BACKGROUND: There has been an increasing need to acquire rigorous scientific data to answer the concerns of physicians, patients, and the FDA regarding the self-reported illness identified as breast implant illness (BII). There are no diagnostic tests or specific laboratory values to explain the reported systemic symptoms described by these patients. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine if there are quantifiable laboratory findings that can be identified in blood, capsule tissue pathology, or microbes that differentiate women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants from 2 control groups. METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 subjects into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who did not have symptoms attributed to implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. Capsule tissue underwent detailed analysis and blood was sent from all 3 cohorts to evaluate for markers of inflammation. RESULTS: No significant histologic differences were identified between the cohorts, except there were more capsules with synovial metaplasia in the non-BII cohort. There was no statistical difference in thyroid-stimulating hormone, vitamin D levels, or complete blood count with differential between the cohorts. Next-generation sequencing revealed no statistically significant difference in positivity between Cohort A and B. Of the 12 cytokines measured, 3 cytokines, interleukin (IL)-17A, IL-13, and IL-22, were found to be significantly more often elevated in sera of subjects in Cohort A than in Cohorts B or C. The enterotoxin data demonstrated an elevation in immunoglobulin G (IgG) anti-Staphylococcus aureus enterotoxin A in Cohort A. There was no correlation between the presence of IgE or IgG anti-Staphylococcal antibody and a positive next-generation sequencing result. CONCLUSIONS: This study adds to the current literature by demonstrating few identifiable biomedical markers to explain the systemic symptoms self-reported by patients with BII.

Longevity of Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement and Potential Etiologies: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 4.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII) describes a variety of symptoms reported by patients with breast implants. Biospecimens data revealed minimal statistical differences between BII and non-BII cohorts. Baseline analysis of PROMIS data demonstrated significant differences between the BII cohort and the 2 control cohorts. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to determine if patients in the BII cohort obtained any symptom improvement after explantation, whether symptom improvement was related to the type of capsulectomy, and which symptoms improved. METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive patients divided equally into 3 cohorts. Baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, were obtained at baseline, 3 to 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 150 patients were enrolled between 2019 and 2021. Follow-up at 1 year included 94% of the BII cohort and 77% of non-BII and mastopexy cohorts. At 1 year, 88% of patients showed at least partial symptom improvement, with a reduction of 2 to 20 symptoms. The PROMIS score in the BII cohort decreased at 1 year for anxiety, sleep disturbances, and fatigue. Systemic symptom improvement was noted out to 1 year in the BII cohort regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed. CONCLUSIONS: Parts 1-3 in this series concluded that there were no consistent differences in biospecimen results between the cohorts. Unlike the data observed in the biospecimen analysis, BII patients had heightened symptoms and poorer PROMIS scores at baseline compared to the control cohorts. The reduction of negative expectations and a potential nocebo effect could contribute to this improvement.

A Practical Guide to Managing Patients With Systemic Symptoms and Breast Implants.

Numerous studies have explored the possibility of an association between breast implants and systemic symptoms potentially linked to exposure to silicone. Some studies show no direct association whereas others provide insufficient scientific evidence to prove or disprove an association. Nonetheless, some patients with breast implants remain concerned about the possible role of their implants in systemic symptoms they may be experiencing. This paper provides a practical approach for plastic surgeons in managing patients with breast implants who present with systemic symptoms, including recommendations for patient counseling, clinical and laboratory assessment of symptoms, and/or referral. Integral components of patient counseling include listening attentively, providing unbiased information, and discussing the risks and benefits of options for evaluation and treatment. A thorough history and assessment of symptoms, including appropriate laboratory tests, may identify underlying conditions to expeditiously address patients' health issues through a specialist referral. Diagnosing and treating disorders that are causing a patient's symptoms, if unrelated to their implant, would avoid a potentially unnecessary surgery. Ultimately, better information is needed to reliably guide patients in an evidence-based fashion. Long-term follow-up of patients who are explanted to see what symptoms may or may not improve could be useful in educating patients. Control groups in studies prospectively following women with implants for development of systemic symptoms would also be useful because the symptoms reported are common in women without implants. Cases are presented to illustrate the recommendations for a practical approach toward management of women reporting systemic symptoms with breast implants.

Heavy Metals in Breast Implant Capsules and Breast Tissue: Findings from the Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 2.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII), as described in recent medical literature and by social media, describes a range of symptoms in patients with breast implants for which there are no physical findings or laboratory results that explain their symptoms. OBJECTIVES: Part 2 of this study aims to determine whether heavy metals are present in the capsules around saline and silicone implants and if there are statistical differences in the type or level of these metals between women with or without symptoms. Demographic data was collected to investigate potential alternate sources of metals: inhaled, absorbed, or ingested. METHODS: A prospective, blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into in three cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal, (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants, and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. Capsule tissue was removed from Cohort A and B for analysis of 22 heavy metals. Additionally, breast tissue was obtained from a control group with no previous exposure to any implanted medical device. RESULTS: The study was performed between 2019-2021. Heavy metal content was compared between the capsule tissue from Cohort A and B. The only statistically significant differences identified in Cohort A were higher levels of arsenic and zinc, and lower levels of cobalt, manganese, silver, and tin. There were no elevated levels or statistically significant differences in the other metals tested between Cohorts A and B. CONCLUSIONS: This study analyzes the metal content in capsules surrounding both saline and silicone breast implants. Heavy metals were also detected in the non-implant control group breast tissue, with some metals at numerically higher levels than either breast implant cohort. Smoking, gluten free diets, dietary supplements, and the presence of tattoos were all identified as statistically significant sources of arsenic and zinc in Cohort A. The risk of heavy metal toxicity should not be used as an indication for total capsulectomy if patients elect to remove their breast implants.

Impact of Capsulectomy Type on Post-Explantation Systemic Symptom Improvement: Findings From the ASERF Systemic Symptoms in Women-Biospecimen Analysis Study: Part 1.

BACKGROUND: Breast Implant Illness (BII) is a term used to describe a variety of symptoms by patients with breast implants for which there are no abnormal physical or laboratory findings to explain their symptoms. There currently exists a difference of opinion among clinicians and patients concerning the diagnosis and treatment of patients self-reporting BII. OBJECTIVES: The first aim of this study was to determine if there is a valid indication for "en bloc" capsulectomy in patients self-reporting BII and if the type of capsulectomy performed alters long-term symptom improvement. The second goal was to identify any clinical laboratory differences between the cohorts. This study was funded by the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation (ASERF). METHODS: A prospective blinded study enrolled 150 consecutive subjects divided equally into 3 cohorts: (A) women with systemic symptoms they attribute to their implants who requested implant removal; (B) women with breast implants requesting removal or exchange who do not have symptoms they attribute to their implants; and (C) women undergoing cosmetic mastopexy who have never had any implanted medical device. The subject's baseline demographic data and a systemic symptoms survey, including PROMIS validated questionnaires, was obtained before surgery and at 3-6 weeks, 6 months, and 1 year. Blood was collected from all 3 cohorts and implant capsules were collected from Cohorts A and B. RESULTS: 150 patients were enrolled between 2019-2021. Follow-up at 3-6 weeks for all 3 cohorts was between 98%-100%, 78%-98% at 6-months, and 1 year data is currently at 80%. The type of capsulectomy; intact total, total, or partial all showed similar symptom improvement with no statistical difference in the reduction of symptoms based on the type of capsulectomy. CONCLUSIONS: This study addresses one of the most discussed questions by plastic surgeons, patients, their advocates, and social media. The findings show that patients who self-report BII demonstrate a statistically significant improvement in their symptoms after explantation and that this improvement persists for at least 6 months. This improvement in self-reported systemic symptoms was seen regardless of the type of capsulectomy performed.

A Cautionary Tale and Update on Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) was first recognized by the World Health Organization in 2016. The total number of cases worldwide continues to increase, with >800 cases confirmed through a combination of Food and Drug Administration data, verified reports, and registries. To date, 33 deaths have been reported. Typical presentation includes a late seroma containing monoclonal T cells that are CD30 positive and anaplastic lymphoma kinase negative. We present a review of the current literature and report on 3 cases of BIA-ALCL at our institution, which serve to illustrate our approach to diagnosis and management of this disease. In 2 cases, the diagnosis of BIA-ALCL was not initially confirmed due to an incomplete workup but was recognized upon explantation. The seroma fluid was sent for flow cytometry. Initially, the cells were reported as morphologically suspicious for malignancy with phenotypically normal T cells based on standard CD3+ T-cell gating. Subsequent cytology specimens were reported as consistent with recurrent adenocarcinoma. However, upon regating of flow-cytometry data, a population of CD30+, CD3- T cells was noted and the diagnosis of BIA-ALCL was confirmed by immunohistochemical stains of the excised breast capsule specimen. Given the increasing incidence of this disease, as plastic surgeons we must stay informed to order the correct workup to avoid misdiagnosis and be prepared to appropriately refer affected patients to centers with multidisciplinary teams experienced in the management of BIA-ALCL.

Comparative Analysis of Cytokines of Tumor Cell Lines, Malignant and Benign Effusions Around Breast Implants.

BACKGROUND: More than 700 women have developed an anaplastic large T cell lymphoma (ALCL) surrounding textured surface breast implants, termed breast implant-associated ALCL (BIA-ALCL). Most patients with BIA-ALCL present with an accumulation of fluid (delayed seroma) around the implant. However, benign seromas without malignant cells complicating scar contracture, implant rupture, trauma, infection, and other causes are more common. For proper patient management and to avoid unnecessary surgery, a simple diagnostic test to identify malignant seromas is desirable. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to develop an ancillary test for the diagnosis of malignant seromas and to gain insight into the nature of the malignant cells and their microenvironment. METHODS: We employed an immunologic assay on only 50 µL of aspirated seroma fluid. The assay measures 13 cytokines simultaneously by flow cytometry. To establish a baseline for clinical studies we measured cytokines secreted by BIA-ALCL and cutaneous ALCL lines. RESULTS: Our study of cell line culture supernatants, and 8 malignant compared with 9 benign seromas indicates that interleukin 9 (IL-9), IL-10, IL-13, IL-22, and/or interferon γ concentrations >1000 pg/mL distinguish malignant seromas from benign seromas. IL-6, known to be a driver of malignant cells, is also elevated in benign seromas and does not distinguish them from malignant seromas. CONCLUSIONS: The cytokine assay introduced in this study can be used together with levels of soluble CD30 to identify malignant seromas. Validation of these findings in a larger prospective patient cohort is warranted. The unique pattern of cytokine expression in malignant effusions surrounding breast implants gives further insight into the pathogenesis and cells of origin of BIA-ALCL.Level of Evidence: 5.