Association of the Implant Surface Texture Used in Reconstruction With Breast Cancer Recurrence.

Importance The potential association between breast implant-related anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) and implant texture has raised concerns about the additional unexpected adverse effects of textured implants, including potentially adverse outcomes for other cancers. In addition to the risk of developing BIA-ALCL, breast cancer survivors may worry about whether the type of implant inserted is associated with recurrence of their original cancer-an issue for which little evidence currently exists. Objective To evaluate the oncologic outcomes of breast cancer according to the surface type of implants used for reconstruction and to identify the independent factors associated with breast cancer recurrence and survival, including implant surface type. Design, Setting, and Participants This cohort study was conducted at Samsung Medical Center, a single tertiary referral center in Seoul, South Korea. Patients with breast cancer who underwent total mastectomy and immediate 2-stage tissue expander/implant reconstruction between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016, were identified from a prospectively maintained database. Patients were categorized into 2 groups according to the surface type of implant used for their reconstruction (smooth or textured implant). These patients were followed up for at least 2 years after insertion of the implant. Data analysis was performed from February 15, 2020, to March 5, 2020. Exposures Use of smooth implants vs textured implants at the second-stage operation. Main Outcomes and Measures The main outcomes of interest were local and regional recurrence-free survival (LRRFS) and disease-free survival (DFS) rates. Cumulative incidence of oncologic events in the smooth implant and textured implant groups and their respective hazard ratios (HRs) were collected and updated regularly. Results In total, 650 patients (all women, with a mean [SD] age of 43.5 [7.4] years), representing 687 cases, met the inclusion criteria and were followed up for a median (range) duration of 52 (31-106) months. Of the 687 cases, 274 (39.9%) received a smooth implant and 413 (60.1%) received a textured implant. Patients in these 2 surface texture groups had similar characteristics, including tumor staging (stage I: 102 [37.2%] vs 173 [41.9%]; stage II: 93 [33.9%] vs 119 [28.8%]; stage III: 14 [5.1%] vs 20 [4.8%]; P = .50) and rates of adjuvant radiotherapy (42 [15.3%] vs 49 [11.9%]; P = .19) and chemotherapy (113 [41.2%] vs 171 [41.4%]; P = .97). The 5-year LRRFS was 96.7%, and the 5-year DFS was 95.2%. Compared with the use of a smooth implant, textured implant use was statistically significantly associated with lower DFS, and this difference remained significant after adjusting for estrogen receptor (ER) status and tumor stage (HR, 3.054; 95% CI, 1.158-8.051; P = .02). Similar statistically significant associations were observed on multivariable analysis of patients with ER-positive cancer (HR, 3.130; 95% CI, 1.053-9.307; P = .04) and those with invasive cancer (HR, 3.044; 95% CI, 1.152-8.039; P = .03). The association of textured implant use with recurrence (lower DFS) was more prominent in cases with late-stage (stage II or III) tumor (HR, 8.874; 95% CI, 1.146-68.748; P = .04). The LRRFS did not differ statistically significantly according to implant surface texture. Conclusions and Relevance This cohort study found that use of textured implants in reconstruction appears to be associated with recurrence of breast cancer. Further investigation is required to verify these results.