Christina Silcox, PhD, and Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

When breast cancer is detected early—before it has spread—it is easier to treat and women have a much better chance of living a long life.  Screening refers to tests that are given to people who have no symptoms, to find out if they might have a disease.  Mammograms are the best way to screen women for breast cancer.

Forty million mammograms are performed each year,2 but the technology is evolving. Depending on where a woman lives, she may be able to choose from among three different types of mammography. Does it matter what kind of mammogram she gets?

A New Type of Digital Test: 3D Mammography

3D mammograms, also known as tomosynthesis or “tomo,” use the same x-ray technology as regular “2D” mammograms. The procedure is the same from the patient’s point-of-view, although it will take a few seconds longer. In both 3D and 2D mammograms, the breast is compressed between two plates. In 2D mammograms, which take images only from the front and side, this may create images with overlapping breast tissue. Because 3D mammography provides images of the breast in “slices” from many different angles, finding abnormalities and determining which abnormalities seem potentially worrisome may be easier with 3D tests. On the other hand, 3D mammography is more expensive than 2D, and your insurance may charge you more if you use 3D.  And it might find abnormalities that are not important.

Since 2013, the FDA has concluded that a low-dose 3D digital mammography is at least as accurate as 2D mammography. 2D digital images can also be obtained from the 3D mammography data.

Differences between 2D and 3D Mammograms

Because it was initially not known how accurate 3D mammograms would be, most research compared 2D mammograms to a combination of 3D mammograms and 2D mammograms.  That was the information that Hologic, the company that developed the first 3D mammography machines, needed to provide to the FDA when they applied for FDA approval.  The studies were funded by Hologic and evaluated the mammograms from their machines.  We do not know if the results would be similar to other companies’ mammography machines.

The results of the studies showed that the combination of 3D and 2D was slightly more accurate than 2D digital or film mammograms, although the difference in accuracy was tiny for each patient.6,7,8,9,10,11  In addition, women who undergo screening with 3D+2D mammography are less likely to be called back for more testing due to a suspicious finding that turns out not to be cancer. This means fewer false alarms caused by inaccurate findings.7,8,12  But, using two tests is not practical and can be harmful because it exposes women to more radiation. The important question is: Do the 3D tests hold up on their own?

An article published in 2017 in the prestigious medical journal JAMA examined the benefits of 3D mammograms. The study compared the number of call backs and the numbers of cancers diagnosed before the next scheduled screening in women who had 3D mammograms vs. standard 2D mammograms. For the more than 23,000 women undergoing an initial 2D mammogram followed by 3 years of annual 3D mammograms, the use of 3D tests slightly reduced the number of women who got called back (10% in the 2D group vs. 9% in the 3D group).  And, following 2D mammography, about 7 out of 10,000 women were diagnosed with cancer before their next annual mammography, compared to 5 out of 10,000 of the women who underwent 3D mammography screening.[16]  Although the differences are very small, they are statistically significant, which means they did not happen by chance.

The researchers, many of whom had financial relationships with Hologic, concluded that 3D tests seem to have a small advantage over 2D tests because they are slightly better at finding dangerous cancers, reducing the number of repeat tests, and reducing the amount of time a woman has to wait to find out.

While the benefits of 3D mammograms appear to be tiny for an individual woman, the benefits of the 3D test could add up for a large population of women.  For example, a study examining over 44,000 screening tests, including over 28,000 3D mammograms, over 5 years found that 3D screening detected significantly smaller invasive breast cancers (about 1.5 cm (about ½ inch) vs. 2.3 cm (about 1 inch). And, the cancers that were detected by 3D tests were less likely to have spread to the lymph nodes (about 15% vs. 31%).[17] Finding a cancer that is smaller and hasn’t spread to the lymph nodes means that a woman would require less aggressive treatment of her cancer, such as less radical surgery and fewer chances of needing chemotherapy.

Even if 3D mammography is more accurate, does it save lives?

Experts used to believe that mammograms reduced breast cancer deaths by about 14% to 32%, based on very old studies.  Newer studies conclude that screening mammography has a smaller impact, decreasing breast cancer deaths by about 2%.[19] It is important to keep in mind that these studies include data up to the year 2005 when it was common practice to recommend mammograms every year. Experts now recommend screening be done every 2 years for women of average risk and believe it will not increase the percentage of women dying from breast cancer, but we don’t yet know exactly what impact this new screening practice will have.

Why would mammography save fewer lives today than in previous years?  It may be because cancer treatments have gotten better, even for more advanced cancers. Also, as mammography has improved, it is detecting abnormalities and cancers that may not be fatal. Even if 3D mammograms can detect invasive cancers when they are smaller and less dangerous, more research is needed to determine if 3D mammography saves more lives.

Harms of 3D screening:

Radiation exposure

The 3D test takes a few seconds longer than 2D digital or film mammography (adding a few seconds of discomfort). The newer, low-dose 3D mammography uses less radiation than a 2D mammography.

Because digital mammography—2D and 3D—is relatively new, no one has figured out exactly what all the health risks and benefits are.

Cost

2D screening mammograms are free for patients covered by healthcare insurance under the Affordable Care Act. Some insurers will not cover 3D mammograms, and others charge women a surcharge. However, Medicare began covering 3D mammography in 2015 and some states are beginning to mandate coverage.13

The Bottom Line

On average, 3D mammography is slightly better at detecting cancer, but it is not clear how much that benefits the average woman.

It is important to remember that experts now agree that most women under 50 or over 75 do not need to undergo screening mammography and that the average woman only needs to undergo screening mammography every two years instead of annually. See our article When should women start regular mammograms? 40? 50? And how often is “regular”? for more information.

Footnotes:

1. National Cancer Institute. “SEER Stat Fact Sheets: Breast Cancer.” http://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html (Accessed October 12, 2015). ▲
2. S. Food and Drug Administration. “Radiation-Emitting Products.” http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/MammographyQualityStandardsActandProgram/FacilityScorecard/ucm113858.htm (Accessed October 12, 2015). ▲
3. Pisano ED, Gatsonis C, Hendrick E, et al. Diagnostic Performance of Digital versus Film Mammography for Breast-Cancer Screening. New England Journal of Medicine, 2005; 353(17): 1773-1783. ▲
4. Rosselli del Turco M, Mantellini P, Ciatto S, Bonardi R, Martinelli F, Lazzari B, Houssami N. Full-field digital versus screen-film mammography: Comparative accuracy in concurrent screening cohorts. American Journal of Roentgenology 2007; 189(4): 860-866. doi: 10.2214/AJR.07.2303. ▲
5. Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, Geller BM, Yankaskas BC, Lehman CD, Taplin SH, & Sickles EA. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011; 155: 493-502. ▲
6. Sharpe RE Jr, Venkataraman S, Phillips J, Dialani V, Fein-Zachary VJ, Prakash S, Slanetz PJ, Mehta TS. Increased Cancer Detection Rate and Variations in the Recall Rate Resulting from Implementation of 3D Digital Breast Tomosynthesis into a Population-based Screening Program. Radiology. 2015 Oct 9:142036 ▲
7. Greenberg JS, Javitt MC, Katzen J, Michael S, Holland AE. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014;203(3):687–693. ▲
8. Friedewald SM, Rafferty EA, Rose SL, et al. Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography. JAMA 2014;311(24):2499–2507. ▲
9. Lei J, Yang P, Zhang L, Wang Y, Yang K. Diagnostic accuracy of digital breast tomosynthesis versus digital mammography for benign and malignant lesions in breasts: a meta-analysis. Eur Radiol 2014;24(3):595–602. ▲
10. S. Food and Drug Administration. “Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED): Selenia Dimensions 3D System.” http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/cdrh_docs/pdf8/P080003S001b.pdf (Accessed November 20, 2013). ▲
11. Rose S, Tidwell AL, Bujnoch LJ, Kushwaha AC, Nordmann AS, & Sexton R. Implementation of breast tomosynthesis in a routine screening practice: An observational study. AJR online; March 22, 2013. doi: 10.2214/AJR.12.9672. ▲
12. Skaane P, Bandos AI, Gullien R, Eben EB, Ekseth U, Haakenaasen U, Izadi M, Jebsen IN, Jahr G, Krager M, Niklason LT, Hofvind S, & Gur D. Comparison of digital mammography alone and digital mammography plus tomosynthesis in a population-based screening program. Radiology 2013; 267(1): 47-56. doi: 10.1148/radiol.12121373. ▲
13. McDonald ES, Oustimov A, Weinstein SP, Synnestvedt MB, Schnall M, Conant EF. Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital MammographyOutcomes Analysis From 3 Years of Breast Cancer Screening. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(6):737–743. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2015.5536
14. Pennsylvania mandates 3-D mammogram coverage. Philadelphia Inquirer. Marie McCullough October 6, 2015 http://www.philly.com/philly/health/20151006_Pa__mandates_3-D_mammogram_coverage.html ▲
15. Esserman LJ, Thompson IM, & Reid B. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment in cancer: An opportunity for improvement. Journal of the American Medical Association 2013: online version, E1-E2. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.108415. ▲
16. McDonald, E., Oustimov, A., Weinstein, S., et al. (2016). Effectiveness of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Compared With Digital Mammography. Journal of the American Medical Association. Accessed from https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/2491465 on June 5, 2018.
17. Neal, C. and Philpotts, L. (2017). Breast Imaging (Multimodality Screening and Breast Density). Accessed from http://archive.rsna.org/2017/17039959.pdf
18. Kalager M, Zelen M, Langmark F, Adami H-O. Effect of screening mammography on breast-cancer mortality in Norway. N Engl J Med. 2010;363(13):1203–1210.
19. Kaunitz, A. (2010). Just How Much Does Screening Mammography Reduce Mortality From Breast Cancer. OBG Manag. Accessed from https://www.mdedge.com/obgmanagement/article/64117/gynecologic-cancer/just-how-much-does-screening-mammography-reduce.
20. Philpotts, L. (2017). Screening for Breast Cancer Breast Imaging. Accessed from http://ctcancerpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Beast-Cancer-Liane-Philpotts.pdf.

Caroline Halsted and Danielle Shapiro, MD, MPH, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

About 12% of women in the United States will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lifetimes.  Although most women survive breast cancer, many women are very afraid of the disease and consider undergoing medical treatments to prevent breast cancer from ever developing.  Hormonal therapy is a popular strategy among women who are afraid of breast cancer and want to reduce the chances of ever developing it.  What are the risks and benefits?

What is Hormonal Therapy?

Hormonal therapy prevents breast cancer by blocking or reducing the level of female hormones that can help breast cancer cells to grow. Approximately 80% of all breast cancers are “estrogen-receptor positive” which means that they need estrogen to grow.^[1] Tamoxifen and raloxifene are two hormonal treatments that block estrogen in the breast but not in other parts of the body.  They are called selective estrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), and they are sometimes prescribed for pre-menopausal and post-menopausal women who have an above-average risk of developing breast cancer.

How Effective Are Tamoxifen and Raloxifine?

A study compared tamoxifen and raloxifene as prevention strategies for post-menopausal women who were at an increased risk of breast cancer.^[2]  The study was called the STAR trial, which is the acronym for “The Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene.” Women were defined as increased risk in this study if they had a higher risk than the average 60-64 year old, which is estimated at 1.67% in the next 5 years.^[3] Factors that determine a woman’s risk include:

• age
• number of first-degree relatives diagnosed with breast cancer
• number of children
• age at first delivery
• number of breast biopsies undergone
• whether there is presence of atypical hyperplasia
• age at first menstrual period
• age at menopause

There are other risk factors you can control, like smoking cigarettes and drinking alcohol. (Click here to read our article on alcohol and cancer). A United Kingdom study involving over 100, 000 women found a significant link between smoking and breast cancer. Over a 7-year period, about 2% of women who ever smoked developed cancer compared to about 1.6% of women who never smoked. This means that smoking causes about 4 in 1000 breast cancers. Even though that number seems small (less than half a percent), it is statistically significant. Starting smoking at a younger age, smoking 15 or more daily cigarettes, and smoking for at least 10 years increase the chances of developing breast cancer. If you smoke, you should talk to your doctor about ways to quit. Quitting decreases the chances of developing breast cancer, but it may take about 20 years to see the full benefits. To read more, click here.^[4]

A tool determining your own risk of breast cancer can be found here.

The initial results of the STAR study found that tamoxifen and raloxifene were equally effective in preventing breast cancer after four years of treatment. However, after 5 years of treatment and 2 years of follow-up after the treatment ended, women taking tamoxifen were 1.1% less likely to develop breast cancer while women taking raloxifene were less than half a percent less likely to develop breast cancer (0.4%).^[5] So, for example, if your 7-year risk of getting breast cancer was 4% (considered an increased risk), taking tamoxifen may decrease your risk to just under 3% and raloxifene to about 3.6%. This decrease in risk for women taking tamoxifen is very similar to the results of studies conducted more than 5 years earlier, which when combined found a 1.2% decreased risk of breast cancer for pre- and post-menopausal women at average or high risk of breast cancer.^[6]

Hormonal therapy is even less beneficial to prevent breast cancer in pre-menopausal women, so it is only recommended for women who have mutations in the “breast cancer genes” (BRCA1 or BRCA2) or if they are older than 35 and have a very high risk of breast cancer.^[7]

Although about 12% of U.S. women will be diagnosed with breast cancer at some point in their lifetime, 88% won’t.  Most women at “higher than average risk” will never develop breast cancer, and there are many things women can do to reduce their risks. Here are 5 ways you can reduce your risk of getting breast cancer. When considering whether to take hormonal therapy to reduce your chances of developing breast cancer, don’t focus on what is called “relative risk” –  make sure you understand the absolute risk.  For example, a woman with a 2% risk of developing breast cancer in the next 5 years can possibly reduce that risk by 50% by taking Tamoxifen, but that is only a reduction from 2% to 1%.  To decide whether that is worth it to you, it is important to consider the side effects and risks of these treatments, and not just the benefits.

Side Effects

Tamoxifen and raloxifene can be harmful. Because estrogen plays an important role in maintaining strong bones and healthy cholesterol, blocking estrogen can put healthy women at greater risk for heart disease and osteoporosis.

Here are the known side effects of tamoxifen:

• endometrial (uterine) cancer- for every 1,000 women, 2 more will develop uterine cancer
• blood clots- for every 1,000 women, 3 more will develop potentially dangerous blood clots
• strokes- for every 100 women, 1 will develop a stroke
• cataracts
• hot flashes
• vaginal discharge
• vaginal bleeding

Known side effects of raloxifene:

• blood clots- for every 1,000 women, 2-3 will develop a potentially dangerous blood clot
• hot flashes
• vaginal dryness
• joint pain
• leg cramps

Sources: [3], [8]

Compared to raloxifene, women taking tamoxifen have a greater risk of developing serious blood clots, but both drugs have about the same increased risk for other heart-related side effects and bone fractures. Women who took tamoxifen had a more than 1% increased risk for developing cataracts compared to women who took raloxifene.

Most important, taking tamoxifen for five years can increase a woman’s lifetime risk of developing endometrial cancer from about 3% to about 7%.^[9] Raloxifene does not.^[9]

For premenopausal women, tamoxifen has significantly worse side effects than raloxifene. However, tamoxifen can be taken by either pre-menopausal or post-menopausal women, while raloxifene is only approved for post-menopausal women.

Bottom Line

If you are afraid of developing breast cancer because of a family history or other reasons, it is important to understand the limited benefits as well as the risks of hormonal therapy.  As noted above, the absolute benefit in terms of lower risks is often only about 1% (for example, lowering your risk from 4% to 3% chances of developing cancer, or from 2% to 1%).

Although research has consistently shown that both tamoxifen and raloxifene can decrease risk for developing breast cancer, these results have only been significant for post-menopausal women with an increased risk of getting breast cancer. The higher your risk of developing breast cancer (because of the BRCA genes, family history, or other reasons) the more likely that the benefits will outweigh the risks for you.  But even that depends on your other health risks.  For example, if you are already at high risk of developing blood clots, you probably don’t want to take a hormone treatment that increases that risk even more.

If you are not impressed by the benefits of hormonal treatment to prevent breast cancer, think about other strategies such as reducing how much alcohol you drink, losing a few pounds, eating more fresh fruit, vegetables, and whole grains, and exercising. Our articles about preventing breast cancer can be found here. These strategies reduce your chances of developing cancer as well as reducing your chances of dying from heart disease – which kills more women every year than breast cancer.

All articles are reviewed and approved by Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff.

References:

1. What Is Hormonal Therapy for Breast Cancer? (2016, July 20). Retrieved from http://www.breastcancer.org/treatment/hormonal/what_is
2. The Study of Tamoxifen and Raloxifene (STAR): Questions and Answers. (2010, April 9). Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/types/breast/research/star-trial-results-qa
3. About the Tool. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://www.cancer.gov/bcrisktool/about-tool.aspx
4. Jones ME. et al. Smoking and risk of breast cancer in the Generations Study cohort. Breast Cancer Research. 2017;19:118. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13058-017-0908-4
5. Vogel, V. G., Costantino, J. P., Wickerham, D. L., & Cronin, W. M. (2010). Re: Tamoxifen for Prevention of Breast Cancer: Report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. Cancer Prevention Research, 3(63), 1504-1504. doi:10.1093/jnci/94.19.1504
6. Tan-Chiu, E., Wang, J., Costantino, J. P., Paik, S., Butch, C., Wickerham, D. L., . . . Wolmark, N. (2003). Effects of Tamoxifen on Benign Breast Disease in Women at High Risk for Breast Cancer. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 95(4), 302-307. doi:10.1093/jnci/95.4.302
7. Vogel, V. G. (2018). Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer. The Breast, 219-236. doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-35955-9.00016-7
8. Bushnell, C. D., & Goldstein, L. B. (2004). Risk of ischemic stroke with tamoxifen treatment for breast cancer: A meta-analysis. Neurology, 63(7), 1230-1233. doi:10.1212/01.wnl.0000140491.54664.50
9. Cancer Stat Facts: Uterine Cancer. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/corp.html
10. Swerdlow, A. J., & Jones, M. E. (2005). Tamoxifen Treatment for Breast Cancer and Risk of Endometrial Cancer: A Case-Control Study. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 97(5), 375-384. doi:10.1093/jnci/dji057

Krista Kleczewski, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

Peanut butter, a favorite food of so many kids and overwhelmed parents, may help ward off abnormal breast conditions linked to cancer, according to researchers from Harvard and Washington University School of Medicine. The study, funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Breast Cancer Research Foundation, found that girls between the ages of 9 and 15 who regularly ate foods high in vegetable protein and fat had a significantly lower risk of developing non-cancerous (benign) breast conditions as young women than those who did not eat these foods.¹ Peanut butter, peanuts and nuts were the main sources of vegetable protein and fat in the girls’ diets.

What is Benign Breast Disease and How is it Related to Breast Cancer?

Benign breast diseases are changes in the breast that sometimes have no symptoms and sometimes can cause pain or discomfort, but are not cancerous. Some benign breast diseases increase a woman’s risk of eventually developing breast cancer only slightly, while others can increase her risks more substantially.²^,³ For example, women with simple cysts or fibrosis (scar-like tissue in the breasts) have almost the same risk of developing breast cancer as women who don’t have these benign breast conditions.⁴ However, women who have fast-growing abnormal cells, called atypical hyperplasia, are 3-4 times more likely to develop breast cancer than women with normal breasts.⁴

Peanut Butter and Benign Breast Disease

The study enrolled 9,039 girls, ages 9 to 15, and kept in touch with them for 14 years. The girls regularly reported to the researchers what they ate and drank, and whether they had been diagnosed at any point between the ages of 18 and 30 with benign breast disease. Adolescent girls who ate peanut butter or any kind of nuts three times a week or more had a nearly 40% lower chance of developing benign breast disease.

Although all the girls who ate peanut butter and nuts were less likely to develop benign breast disease, the girls who benefited the most were those who had a family history of breast cancer. This is important because, in general, benign breast disease is riskier in women with a family history of breast cancer.

Many people think of peanuts as nuts, but they are actually legumes.  For that reason, it is not surprising that the researchers found that consumption of other legumes such as beans, lentils, soybeans, as well as corn, may help shield girls from these breast conditions. Although the researchers did not study the benefits of specific types of nuts, it is believed that regular consumption of most nuts, including tree nuts, such as almonds and walnuts, provide protection against benign breast disease. At least one study in 2011 found that a diet containing walnuts slowed breast cancer tumor growth in mice; more research is needed before we will know if this is true for humans.⁵

Should All Girls Eat More Peanut Butter, Nuts, and Beans?

Although this was a large study of over 9,000 girls living in all 50 states, 95% of the girls were non-Hispanic whites, primarily from middle and upper socioeconomic backgrounds. As a result, it is impossible to say whether the study’s findings would also apply to girls from other races, and ethnicities, or to girls of lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

The study had other limitations. Because the girls filled out questionnaires about their eating habits, the researchers did not observe what the girls actually ate, or how much. This means the researchers had to rely on the girls remembering and reporting their intake accurately.

Another important question is do these foods truly protect against benign breast disease and possibly even breast cancer, or do the girls who eat them eat fewer less nutritious foods that would increase the risk of cancer? Whichever the answer, it’s a good idea—particularly if you have breast cancer in your family— to eat snacks involving peanut butter or a handful of nuts instead of less healthy alternatives like cookies, candy, or chips. Nuts and nut butter are what nutritionists call “nutrient dense” foods. They are rich in protein and nutrients, but they are also high in calories. So eat them in moderation and don’t assume that the new study means you can eat Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups to your heart’s content! They are not a nutritious snack choice! Similarly, it is best to look for low-salt and peanut butter brands without added sugar or oils. Try peanut butter with an apple or banana, peanuts low in salt, or an old classic called “Ants on a Log,” which is a stick of celery with peanut butter and raisins sprinkled on top.

Spread the news, and spread the peanut butter (in moderation, of course)!

Q. My silicone gel breast implant may be leaking. How do I find out if it is leaking, and what should I do if it is?

A. We’re not doctors and we don’t provide medical advice, but I can tell you what we know based on research and from speaking with many experts and with women who have had breast implants.

The best way to tell if a silicone breast implant has ruptured or is leaking is to have an MRI with a breast coil. Unfortunately MRIs are expensive, but necessary because a mammogram can not accurately detect a rupture or leak. And, the squeezing from a mammogram can cause a broken implant to leak. A sonogram can be useful but only if the radiologist is specially trained to detect implant ruptures and leaks — and very few are. That’s why an MRI is the best strategy, although that also needs to be read by someone who has experience looking for a rupture or leak in a silicone breast implant.

FDA scientists found that by the time women have implants for at least 10 years, at least one of them has usually ruptured. However, implants often break sooner, sometimes even within the first year. For women with saline breast implants, a broken implant is obvious because it usually deflates quickly. However, when silicone gel breast implants break, there are often no symptoms at all for a year or more. Years later, there are several symptoms that many women report: the breast changes shape or gets smaller, lumps or bumps may appear on the breast or nearby, some women complain of a burning pain, and some women experience symptoms of autoimmune disease, such as joint pain, memory loss, confusion, or chronic fatigue.

Many plastic surgeons believe that silicone is “perfectly safe.” However, experts who have read the research agree that a ruptured silicone gel breast implant should be removed as soon as possible, especially if it is leaking. The MRI can help the plastic surgeon know where the problem areas are so he or she can avoid leakage during removal. Removing broken implants soon means there is less chance that the silicone will leak outside the scar tissue that surrounds the implant. It is important to have the procedure performed by a plastic surgeon who is very experienced in removing leaking silicone implants. Old or broken silicone gel breast implants should be removed “en bloc,” also called an “en bloc capsulectomy.”  This means that the entire intact scar tissue capsule with the implant still inside it are all removed together. This makes it easier to remove any silicone that may have leaked from the broken gel implant and also helps remove silicone or other chemicals that may have seeped out from the silicone envelope into the scar capsule.

A study conducted by Dr Noreen Aziz from the National Cancer Institute and Dr Frank Vasey from University of South Florida found that most women who had rheumatological symptoms (such as joint pain) felt significantly better after getting their breast implants removed and not replaced. Those who didn’t get their implants removed usually got worse. Those who had them removed and replaced (with silicone implants or saline) implants did not get better.

For examples of women who had less pain and other symptoms after their implants were removed, see the personal stories on our website at http://www.breastimplantinfo.org/. Many felt healthier, happier, and more attractive afterwards.

We hope this information is helpful. For more information, check out http://www.breastimplantinfo.org or feel free to write to us at info@center4research.org / info@stopcancerfund.org

The comments and statements of the National Research Center for Women & Families are believed and intended to be accurate, and where applicable, based on scientific literature. NRC’s statements do not constitute medical diagnoses, medical advice, plans of treatment, or legal opinion, and we are not responsible for the use or application of this information. All medical information should be reviewed with your health care practitioner.

We hope that the information we’ve provided is helpful. In order to maintain this free service to all women and their families, we invite your tax-deductible contributions to NRC (see http://www.center4research.org/contribute/ )