Cancer occurrence after cosmetic breast implantation in Denmark

Citation
L. Mellemkjaer et al., Cancer occurrence after cosmetic breast implantation in Denmark, INT J CANC, 88(2), 2000, pp. 301-306
Citations number
26
Categorie Soggetti
Onconogenesis & Cancer Research
Journal title
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER
ISSN journal
00207136 → ACNP
Volume
88
Issue
2
Year of publication
2000
Pages
301 - 306
Database
ISI
SICI code
0020-7136(20001015)88:2<301:COACBI>2.0.ZU;2-X
Abstract
Most studies on cancer incidence after breast implantation have focused on breast cancer, while the risk of cancers at other sites has been less well investigated. We examined cancer incidence among 1,653 women who underwent cosmetic breast implant surgery at private clinics of plastic surgery in De nmark and 1,736 women attending the same clinics for other reasons during t he period 1973-1995. Furthermore, we updated previously reported results am ong 1,114 women who received implants for cosmetic indications at public ho spitals. All women were followed for cancer through the Danish Cancer Regis try. In comparison with the general female population, the overall standard ized incidence ratio (SIR) for cancer among women who received implants in private clinics was 1.65 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.17-2.27]. This e levated SIR reflected increased incidence ratios for almost all major cance r sites; however, only for non-melanoma skin cancer was there an excess of more than 2 cases. No significant excess of cancer was observed among women who received implants in public hospitals (SIR = 1.10, 95% CI = 0.76-1.52) or among women attending the private clinics for other problems (SIR = 1.1 0, 95% CI = 0.78-1.52). The SIRs for breast cancer after breast implantatio n were 1.1 (95% CI = 0.5-2.2) among private clinic patients and 0.9 (95% CI = 0.4-1.7) among public hospital patients. The overall findings of these 2 implant cohorts and results from other investigations suggest that cancer risk is probably not increased among women receiving cosmetic breast implan ts. The inconsistent results for private clinics and public hospitals are l ikely related to selection bias and confounding among the private clinic pa tients, but our data did not permit exploration of these possibilities. Fur ther research into the determinants of these inconsistencies is warranted. Int. J. Cancer 88:301-306, 2000. (C) 2000 Wiley-Liss, Inc.