Jonathan Spoor,Marc A M Mureau,Renaud L M Tissier,Juliëtte Hommes,Hinne Rakhorst,Mintsje De Boer,Hester S A Oldenburg,Esther M Heuts,Yvonne L J Vissers,Anneriet E Dassen,Daniel J Evers,Linetta B Koppert,Laura H Zaal,Sabine C Linn,Daphne De Jong,Rene R W J Van Der Hulst,Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters,Eveline M A Bleiker,Flora E Van Leeuwen
{"title":"Breast implant illness after reconstruction with silicone breast implants.","authors":"Jonathan Spoor,Marc A M Mureau,Renaud L M Tissier,Juliëtte Hommes,Hinne Rakhorst,Mintsje De Boer,Hester S A Oldenburg,Esther M Heuts,Yvonne L J Vissers,Anneriet E Dassen,Daniel J Evers,Linetta B Koppert,Laura H Zaal,Sabine C Linn,Daphne De Jong,Rene R W J Van Der Hulst,Marie-Jeanne T F D Vrancken Peeters,Eveline M A Bleiker,Flora E Van Leeuwen","doi":"10.1093/jnci/djaf136","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\r\n'Breast implant illness' (BII) is a constellation of non-specific constitutional, rheumatologic, mental and cognitive symptoms, reported increasingly by women carrying silicone breast implants (SBIs). The impact of BII on the well-being of breast cancer patients with SBI-based breast reconstructions is a subject of debate.\r\n\r\nMETHODS\r\nIn a multicenter cohort of breast cancer survivors (n = 9,590) treated between 2000 and 2015 in six major regional hospitals in the Netherlands, we performed a health survey (response rate 64.7%). The presence of eighteen BII-associated symptoms was compared between patients with and without SBIs in multivariable logistic regression models. In a latent class analysis (LCA), distinct symptom patterns were identified in the study population.\r\n\r\nRESULTS\r\nMedian follow-up time was 13.7 (IQR, 6.8) years. Of all SBI-exposed patients (n = 1,821), 20.7% reported ≥4 BII-associated symptoms, vs 21.2% of non-exposed patients (Risk Ratio 0.98, 95% CI [0.88-1.09]). Joint pain, sicca, sleep impairment, morning stiffness and shoulder pain were reported most frequently. Patients with SBIs did not have a significantly increased risk of any of the individual BII-associated symptoms. The LCA identified five distinct symptom clusters. Patients with SBI-exposure had a lower risk of falling in the most severe symptom cluster (Odds Ratio 0.64, 95% CI [0.43-0.96]). The other symptom clusters were not significantly associated with SBI-exposure.\r\n\r\nCONCLUSIONS\r\nOur results indicate that breast cancer survivors with SBI-based reconstructions do not experience more BII-associated symptoms than breast cancer survivors without SBIs, challenging the notion of BII as a distinct clinical entity based on a generic silicone-induced biomechanical pathophysiological mechanism.\r\n\r\nTRIAL REGISTRATION\r\nThis study was preregistered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2nd 2022 (NCT05400954).","PeriodicalId":501635,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the National Cancer Institute","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djaf136","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
BACKGROUND
'Breast implant illness' (BII) is a constellation of non-specific constitutional, rheumatologic, mental and cognitive symptoms, reported increasingly by women carrying silicone breast implants (SBIs). The impact of BII on the well-being of breast cancer patients with SBI-based breast reconstructions is a subject of debate.
METHODS
In a multicenter cohort of breast cancer survivors (n = 9,590) treated between 2000 and 2015 in six major regional hospitals in the Netherlands, we performed a health survey (response rate 64.7%). The presence of eighteen BII-associated symptoms was compared between patients with and without SBIs in multivariable logistic regression models. In a latent class analysis (LCA), distinct symptom patterns were identified in the study population.
RESULTS
Median follow-up time was 13.7 (IQR, 6.8) years. Of all SBI-exposed patients (n = 1,821), 20.7% reported ≥4 BII-associated symptoms, vs 21.2% of non-exposed patients (Risk Ratio 0.98, 95% CI [0.88-1.09]). Joint pain, sicca, sleep impairment, morning stiffness and shoulder pain were reported most frequently. Patients with SBIs did not have a significantly increased risk of any of the individual BII-associated symptoms. The LCA identified five distinct symptom clusters. Patients with SBI-exposure had a lower risk of falling in the most severe symptom cluster (Odds Ratio 0.64, 95% CI [0.43-0.96]). The other symptom clusters were not significantly associated with SBI-exposure.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results indicate that breast cancer survivors with SBI-based reconstructions do not experience more BII-associated symptoms than breast cancer survivors without SBIs, challenging the notion of BII as a distinct clinical entity based on a generic silicone-induced biomechanical pathophysiological mechanism.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
This study was preregistered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 2nd 2022 (NCT05400954).