Mammography and Breast Implants

Hayes, Harry; Vandergrift, James; Diner, Wilma C.

doi:10.1097/00006534-198807000-00001

Cited by 36 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…10 -12 Several authors have reported that breast implants interfere with mammographic detection of breast cancers. 10,14,15 It is clear that standard compression views are inefficient at visualizing the bulk of the breast tissue in augmented women. In 1988, Eklund 16 described implant displacement views, which allow significantly improved visualization of the native breast tissue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Cancer After Augmentation Mammoplasty

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Cancer After Augmentation Mammoplasty

et al. 2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, implant patients are more likely than other plastic surgery patients to be white, have earlier age at first birth and be thin 39. Furthermore, women with a family history of breast cancer may have elected not to receive breast implants, as these devices may interfere with the detection of breast cancer 40. Therefore, observed differences in breast cancer incidence rates between these two groups may be explained partly by differences in risk factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Canadian breast implant cohort: Extended follow‐up of cancer incidence

Pan

Lavigne

Holowaty

et al. 2012

Intl Journal of Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cosmetic breast implants are not associated with increased breast cancer incidence, but variations of risk according to implant characteristics are still poorly understood. As well, the assessment of cancer risk for sites other than breast needs to be clarified. The purpose of this study was to fill these research gaps. This study presents an extended analysis of 10 more years of follow-up of a large Canadian cohort of women who received either cosmetic breast implants (n 5 24,558) or other cosmetic surgery (15,893). Over 70% of the implant cohort was followed for over 20 years. Cancer incidence among implant women was compared to those of controls using multivariate Poisson models and the general female population using the standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). Women with breast implants had reduced rates of breast and endometrial cancers compared to other surgery women. Subglandular implants were associated to a reduced rate of breast cancer compared to submuscular implants [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 5 0.78, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5 0.63-0.96] and this reduction persisted over time. We observed a sevenfold increased rate (IRR 5 7.36, 95% CI 5 1.86-29.12) of breast cancer in the first 5 years after the date of surgery for polyurethane-coated subglandular implant women but this IRR decreased progressively over time (p value for trend 5 0.02). We also observed no increased risk of rarer forms of cancer among augmented women. A reduction in breast cancer incidence was observed for women with subglandular implants relative to women with submuscular implants. Possible increase of breast cancer incidence shortly after breast augmentation with polyurethane implants needs to be verified.

show abstract

“…Finally, the production of implant‐related artifact that appears on film can confuse its interpretation with carcinoma. Periprosthetic calcifications and scarring of breast parenchyma can mimic the presentation of cancer 45 …”

Section: Mplants and Breast Cancer Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Implants and Breast Cancer Screening

Smalley

2003

J Midwife Womens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Concern about breast prostheses impairing breast cancer detection has become a priority issue. This article provides a review of the literature on the influence of implants on early detection methods of breast cancer, specifically breast self-examination (BSE), clinical breast examination (CBE), and mammography. Background information on implants is presented, including indications for surgery, types of prostheses, location of placement, and associated complications. Conclusions from the literature suggest that the presence of implants may facilitate BSE and CBE, yet challenge interpretation of mammography. However, there is no evidence that these women will have a later stage diagnosis or a poorer prognosis if diagnosed with breast cancer.

show abstract

Mammography and Breast Implants

Cited by 36 publications

References 0 publications

Breast Cancer After Augmentation Mammoplasty

Breast Cancer After Augmentation Mammoplasty

Canadian breast implant cohort: Extended follow‐up of cancer incidence

Breast Implants and Breast Cancer Screening

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About