Breast Cancer Recurrence after Smooth vs. Textured Implant-Based Breast Reconstruction: A Matched Cohort Study

Abstract

Background: An increasing number of reports on breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma have recently raised concerns about the potential influence of breast implants on carcinogenicity, particularly implants with a textured surface. The authors compared the recurrence outcomes between smooth and textured implant reconstructions for breast cancer.

Methods: All patients who underwent immediate direct-to-implant-based breast reconstruction for primary breast cancer between January of 2010 and December of 2016 were reviewed. A total of 590 patients were included. After propensity score 1:2 matching, 138 patients were included in the smooth implant group and 276 patients in the textured implant group. Locoregional recurrence-free survival, disease-free survival, and distant metastasis-free survival rates were compared between the groups.

Results: After matching, the median follow-up periods were 62 months and 66 months for the smooth and textured groups, respectively. The authors observed no significant differences between the smooth and textured implant groups in terms of locoregional recurrence (10.9 percent versus 11.6 percent; p = 0.827), distant metastasis (3.6 percent versus 4.0 percent; p = 0.547), or first recurrence (12.3 percent versus 13.4 percent; p = 0.757) rates. No significant differences were observed between the groups in 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival (89.5 percent versus 89.4 percent; p = 0.840), disease-free survival (87.7 percent versus 88.1 percent; p = 0.794), or distant metastasis-free survival (98.8 percent versus 96.8 percent; p = 0.741) rates.

Conclusions: No significant differences were observed between the smooth and textured implant groups in this matched cohort analysis of recurrence outcomes in patients with primary breast cancer who underwent immediate direct-to-implant reconstruction. Further larger scale investigations are necessary to validate the authors' results.