Women's Health

CHICAGO – An elevated baseline D-dimer level is helpful to women and their physicians in clarifying decision making about oral hormone therapy for troublesome menopausal symptoms, Mary Cushman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She was lead investigator in a nested case-control study embedded in the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which showed that participants who had a baseline D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L – putting them in the top 25% – and were randomized to oral menopausal hormone therapy had a 5-year incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 6%. That’s 500% higher than in women with a lower D-dimer randomized to placebo.

“The number needed to test for D-dimer in advance of prescribing in order to prevent one VTE over 5 years of hormone therapy was only 33. So this is potentially something in the toolbox you can use in counseling women about oral hormone therapy,” said Dr. Cushman, professor of medicine and pathology and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

The biomarker study included 1,082 WHI participants aged 50-79 years randomized to oral conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate or to placebo, 215 of whom experienced VTE during a mean 4.1 years of follow-up. Levels of a variety of biomarkers obtained at baseline were assessed in terms of their associated risk of future VTE. The biomarkers included C-reactive protein and procoagulant, anticoagulant, and fibrinolytic factors.

In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and hysterectomy, the strongest association with VTE was a high D-dimer. That 500% increased risk of VTE with hormone therapy in women with a D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L was comparable in magnitude with the risk Dr. Cushman and her coinvestigators previously reported for the combination of factor V Leiden and hormone therapy.

Dr. Cushman and her associates also took a first step towards developing a multibiomarker risk score. They found that WHI participants randomized to hormone therapy who had abnormal baseline values for any three or more of eight biomarkers had a 1,450% greater risk of future VTE than women with zero or one abnormal biomarker who were assigned to placebo. The eight-biomarker panel described in the recently published study comprised D-dimer, factor V Leiden, protein C, total protein S, free protein S, antithrombin, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, and fragment 1.2. However, the investigators indicated the risk score needs further study before it’s ready for adoption in clinical practice (Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018 Apr 17;2[2]:310-9).

Dr. Cushman noted that, although the main findings of the WHI have largely resulted in abandonment of menopausal hormone therapy for disease prevention, many women still want to take oral hormone therapy for relief of bothersome menopausal symptoms. She tries to steer them instead to safer nonoral formulations. Transdermal estrogen replacement has no associated risk of VTE and doesn’t activate anticoagulation. Neither does vaginal estradiol.

In offering what she called “the 30,000-foot view of the impact of venous thrombosis on women’s health,” Dr. Cushman noted that VTE is the third-most common vascular disease in the United States, with up to 900,000 cases per year. The lifetime risk in women after age 45 is 8.4%. Half of VTEs are provoked and therefore potentially preventable, with common triggers being surgery, cancer, pregnancy, trauma, and immobilization, especially during travel.

In addition, a retrospective study conducted in the Worcester, Mass., area showed that 1-month mortality after VTE remained static in the 5%-10% range during 1999-2009.

“This is a fatal disease, even though we treat it as an outpatient quite a lot,” Dr. Cushman observed.

Common nonfatal complications of VTE include major bleeding in 5%-10% of cases, a recurrence rate of 5%-10% annually, a 20%-40% of the burdensome and not infrequently disabling condition known as postthrombotic syndrome, and a 3%-4% incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Yet despite the seriousness of VTE, awareness about VTE is poor among both patients and physicians, and appropriate prophylaxis is underutilized, she said.

The key to improved primary prevention of VTE, Dr. Cushman continued, is greater attention to modifiable behavioral risk factors, along with more use of prophylactic medication when needed.

The traditional cardiovascular risk factors, like hypertension, smoking, and hyperlipidemia, aren’t relevant to VTE risk. But obesity and sedentary lifestyle have come to be recognized as important modifiable risk factors. In one study of more than 30,000 Americans, the risk of VTE was shown to be reduced by 40% in individuals who exercised at least four times per week, compared with the physically inactive.

And in an analysis led by Dr. Cushman of nearly 21,000 participants over age 45 years with 12.6 years of follow-up in the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE), the investigators found that greater levels of all body size measures – not just body mass index, but calf circumference, waist-hip ratio, hip circumference, and others – were associated with increased VTE risk. These associations weren’t affected by levels of circulating biomarkers for inflammation or hypercoagulability, suggesting that it’s obesity per se, with its associated adverse impact on blood flow caused by physical factors, that explains the mechanism underlying obesity as a risk factor for VTE (Thromb Res. 2016 Aug;144:127-32).

At the meeting’s opening ceremonies, AHA President Ivor Benjamin, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, presented Dr. Cushman with the AHA Population Research Prize. She was honored for her “critically acclaimed research utilizing biomarker assessments in population studies to elucidate pathways of disease etiology for the three most common vascular diseases – coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism – as well as their risk factors,” said Dr. Benjamin.

Dr. Cushman reported having no financial conflicts regarding her D-dimer study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – An elevated baseline D-dimer level is helpful to women and their physicians in clarifying decision making about oral hormone therapy for troublesome menopausal symptoms, Mary Cushman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She was lead investigator in a nested case-control study embedded in the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which showed that participants who had a baseline D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L – putting them in the top 25% – and were randomized to oral menopausal hormone therapy had a 5-year incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 6%. That’s 500% higher than in women with a lower D-dimer randomized to placebo.

“The number needed to test for D-dimer in advance of prescribing in order to prevent one VTE over 5 years of hormone therapy was only 33. So this is potentially something in the toolbox you can use in counseling women about oral hormone therapy,” said Dr. Cushman, professor of medicine and pathology and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

The biomarker study included 1,082 WHI participants aged 50-79 years randomized to oral conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate or to placebo, 215 of whom experienced VTE during a mean 4.1 years of follow-up. Levels of a variety of biomarkers obtained at baseline were assessed in terms of their associated risk of future VTE. The biomarkers included C-reactive protein and procoagulant, anticoagulant, and fibrinolytic factors.

In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and hysterectomy, the strongest association with VTE was a high D-dimer. That 500% increased risk of VTE with hormone therapy in women with a D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L was comparable in magnitude with the risk Dr. Cushman and her coinvestigators previously reported for the combination of factor V Leiden and hormone therapy.

Dr. Cushman and her associates also took a first step towards developing a multibiomarker risk score. They found that WHI participants randomized to hormone therapy who had abnormal baseline values for any three or more of eight biomarkers had a 1,450% greater risk of future VTE than women with zero or one abnormal biomarker who were assigned to placebo. The eight-biomarker panel described in the recently published study comprised D-dimer, factor V Leiden, protein C, total protein S, free protein S, antithrombin, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, and fragment 1.2. However, the investigators indicated the risk score needs further study before it’s ready for adoption in clinical practice (Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018 Apr 17;2[2]:310-9).

Dr. Cushman noted that, although the main findings of the WHI have largely resulted in abandonment of menopausal hormone therapy for disease prevention, many women still want to take oral hormone therapy for relief of bothersome menopausal symptoms. She tries to steer them instead to safer nonoral formulations. Transdermal estrogen replacement has no associated risk of VTE and doesn’t activate anticoagulation. Neither does vaginal estradiol.

In offering what she called “the 30,000-foot view of the impact of venous thrombosis on women’s health,” Dr. Cushman noted that VTE is the third-most common vascular disease in the United States, with up to 900,000 cases per year. The lifetime risk in women after age 45 is 8.4%. Half of VTEs are provoked and therefore potentially preventable, with common triggers being surgery, cancer, pregnancy, trauma, and immobilization, especially during travel.

In addition, a retrospective study conducted in the Worcester, Mass., area showed that 1-month mortality after VTE remained static in the 5%-10% range during 1999-2009.

“This is a fatal disease, even though we treat it as an outpatient quite a lot,” Dr. Cushman observed.

Common nonfatal complications of VTE include major bleeding in 5%-10% of cases, a recurrence rate of 5%-10% annually, a 20%-40% of the burdensome and not infrequently disabling condition known as postthrombotic syndrome, and a 3%-4% incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Yet despite the seriousness of VTE, awareness about VTE is poor among both patients and physicians, and appropriate prophylaxis is underutilized, she said.

The key to improved primary prevention of VTE, Dr. Cushman continued, is greater attention to modifiable behavioral risk factors, along with more use of prophylactic medication when needed.

The traditional cardiovascular risk factors, like hypertension, smoking, and hyperlipidemia, aren’t relevant to VTE risk. But obesity and sedentary lifestyle have come to be recognized as important modifiable risk factors. In one study of more than 30,000 Americans, the risk of VTE was shown to be reduced by 40% in individuals who exercised at least four times per week, compared with the physically inactive.

And in an analysis led by Dr. Cushman of nearly 21,000 participants over age 45 years with 12.6 years of follow-up in the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE), the investigators found that greater levels of all body size measures – not just body mass index, but calf circumference, waist-hip ratio, hip circumference, and others – were associated with increased VTE risk. These associations weren’t affected by levels of circulating biomarkers for inflammation or hypercoagulability, suggesting that it’s obesity per se, with its associated adverse impact on blood flow caused by physical factors, that explains the mechanism underlying obesity as a risk factor for VTE (Thromb Res. 2016 Aug;144:127-32).

At the meeting’s opening ceremonies, AHA President Ivor Benjamin, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, presented Dr. Cushman with the AHA Population Research Prize. She was honored for her “critically acclaimed research utilizing biomarker assessments in population studies to elucidate pathways of disease etiology for the three most common vascular diseases – coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism – as well as their risk factors,” said Dr. Benjamin.

Dr. Cushman reported having no financial conflicts regarding her D-dimer study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

CHICAGO – An elevated baseline D-dimer level is helpful to women and their physicians in clarifying decision making about oral hormone therapy for troublesome menopausal symptoms, Mary Cushman, MD, said at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.

Bruce Jancin/MDedge News

She was lead investigator in a nested case-control study embedded in the landmark Women’s Health Initiative (WHI), which showed that participants who had a baseline D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L – putting them in the top 25% – and were randomized to oral menopausal hormone therapy had a 5-year incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE) of 6%. That’s 500% higher than in women with a lower D-dimer randomized to placebo.

“The number needed to test for D-dimer in advance of prescribing in order to prevent one VTE over 5 years of hormone therapy was only 33. So this is potentially something in the toolbox you can use in counseling women about oral hormone therapy,” said Dr. Cushman, professor of medicine and pathology and medical director of the thrombosis and hemostasis program at the University of Vermont, Burlington.

The biomarker study included 1,082 WHI participants aged 50-79 years randomized to oral conjugated equine estrogen with or without medroxyprogesterone acetate or to placebo, 215 of whom experienced VTE during a mean 4.1 years of follow-up. Levels of a variety of biomarkers obtained at baseline were assessed in terms of their associated risk of future VTE. The biomarkers included C-reactive protein and procoagulant, anticoagulant, and fibrinolytic factors.

In a logistic regression analysis adjusted for age, race, body mass index, and hysterectomy, the strongest association with VTE was a high D-dimer. That 500% increased risk of VTE with hormone therapy in women with a D-dimer greater than 0.54 mg/L was comparable in magnitude with the risk Dr. Cushman and her coinvestigators previously reported for the combination of factor V Leiden and hormone therapy.

Dr. Cushman and her associates also took a first step towards developing a multibiomarker risk score. They found that WHI participants randomized to hormone therapy who had abnormal baseline values for any three or more of eight biomarkers had a 1,450% greater risk of future VTE than women with zero or one abnormal biomarker who were assigned to placebo. The eight-biomarker panel described in the recently published study comprised D-dimer, factor V Leiden, protein C, total protein S, free protein S, antithrombin, plasmin-antiplasmin complex, and fragment 1.2. However, the investigators indicated the risk score needs further study before it’s ready for adoption in clinical practice (Res Pract Thromb Haemost. 2018 Apr 17;2[2]:310-9).

Dr. Cushman noted that, although the main findings of the WHI have largely resulted in abandonment of menopausal hormone therapy for disease prevention, many women still want to take oral hormone therapy for relief of bothersome menopausal symptoms. She tries to steer them instead to safer nonoral formulations. Transdermal estrogen replacement has no associated risk of VTE and doesn’t activate anticoagulation. Neither does vaginal estradiol.

In offering what she called “the 30,000-foot view of the impact of venous thrombosis on women’s health,” Dr. Cushman noted that VTE is the third-most common vascular disease in the United States, with up to 900,000 cases per year. The lifetime risk in women after age 45 is 8.4%. Half of VTEs are provoked and therefore potentially preventable, with common triggers being surgery, cancer, pregnancy, trauma, and immobilization, especially during travel.

In addition, a retrospective study conducted in the Worcester, Mass., area showed that 1-month mortality after VTE remained static in the 5%-10% range during 1999-2009.

“This is a fatal disease, even though we treat it as an outpatient quite a lot,” Dr. Cushman observed.

Common nonfatal complications of VTE include major bleeding in 5%-10% of cases, a recurrence rate of 5%-10% annually, a 20%-40% of the burdensome and not infrequently disabling condition known as postthrombotic syndrome, and a 3%-4% incidence of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Yet despite the seriousness of VTE, awareness about VTE is poor among both patients and physicians, and appropriate prophylaxis is underutilized, she said.

The key to improved primary prevention of VTE, Dr. Cushman continued, is greater attention to modifiable behavioral risk factors, along with more use of prophylactic medication when needed.

The traditional cardiovascular risk factors, like hypertension, smoking, and hyperlipidemia, aren’t relevant to VTE risk. But obesity and sedentary lifestyle have come to be recognized as important modifiable risk factors. In one study of more than 30,000 Americans, the risk of VTE was shown to be reduced by 40% in individuals who exercised at least four times per week, compared with the physically inactive.

And in an analysis led by Dr. Cushman of nearly 21,000 participants over age 45 years with 12.6 years of follow-up in the Longitudinal Investigation of Thromboembolism Etiology (LITE), the investigators found that greater levels of all body size measures – not just body mass index, but calf circumference, waist-hip ratio, hip circumference, and others – were associated with increased VTE risk. These associations weren’t affected by levels of circulating biomarkers for inflammation or hypercoagulability, suggesting that it’s obesity per se, with its associated adverse impact on blood flow caused by physical factors, that explains the mechanism underlying obesity as a risk factor for VTE (Thromb Res. 2016 Aug;144:127-32).

At the meeting’s opening ceremonies, AHA President Ivor Benjamin, MD, of the Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, presented Dr. Cushman with the AHA Population Research Prize. She was honored for her “critically acclaimed research utilizing biomarker assessments in population studies to elucidate pathways of disease etiology for the three most common vascular diseases – coronary heart disease, stroke, and venous thromboembolism – as well as their risk factors,” said Dr. Benjamin.

Dr. Cushman reported having no financial conflicts regarding her D-dimer study, which was funded by the National Institutes of Health.

[email protected]

Here are 5 articles from the February issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Short-term lung function better predicts mortality risk in SSc

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RrRuIY
Expires November 26, 2019

2. Healthier lifestyle in midlife women reduces subclinical carotid atherosclerosis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2TvDH5G
Expires November 28, 2019

3. Three commonly used quick cognitive assessments often yield flawed results

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2G1qkHn
Expires November 28, 2019

4. Missed HIV screening opportunities found among subsequently infected youth

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HGa8Nm
Expires November 29, 2019

5. Aspirin appears underused to prevent preeclampsia in SLE patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2G0dU2v
Expires January 2, 2019

Here are 5 articles from the February issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Short-term lung function better predicts mortality risk in SSc

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RrRuIY
Expires November 26, 2019

2. Healthier lifestyle in midlife women reduces subclinical carotid atherosclerosis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2TvDH5G
Expires November 28, 2019

3. Three commonly used quick cognitive assessments often yield flawed results

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2G1qkHn
Expires November 28, 2019

4. Missed HIV screening opportunities found among subsequently infected youth

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HGa8Nm
Expires November 29, 2019

5. Aspirin appears underused to prevent preeclampsia in SLE patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2G0dU2v
Expires January 2, 2019

Here are 5 articles from the February issue of Clinician Reviews (individual articles are valid for one year from date of publication—expiration dates below):

1. Short-term lung function better predicts mortality risk in SSc

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2RrRuIY
Expires November 26, 2019

2. Healthier lifestyle in midlife women reduces subclinical carotid atherosclerosis

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2TvDH5G
Expires November 28, 2019

3. Three commonly used quick cognitive assessments often yield flawed results

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2G1qkHn
Expires November 28, 2019

4. Missed HIV screening opportunities found among subsequently infected youth

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2HGa8Nm
Expires November 29, 2019

5. Aspirin appears underused to prevent preeclampsia in SLE patients

To take the posttest, go to: https://bit.ly/2G0dU2v
Expires January 2, 2019

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Think of pregnancy as a cardiovascular stress test, Carole A. Warnes, MD, urged at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Pregnancy complications may unmask a predisposition to premature cardiovascular disease. Yet a woman’s reproductive history is often overlooked in this regard, despite the fact that cardiovascular disease is the number-one cause of death in women, observed Dr. Warnes, the Snowmass conference director and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“I think reproductive history is often overlooked as a predictor of cardiovascular and even peripheral vascular events. I suspect many of us don’t routinely ask our patients about miscarriages and stillbirths. We might think about preeclampsia, but these are also hallmarks of trouble to come,” the cardiologist said.

Indeed, this point was underscored in a retrospective Danish national population-based cohort registry study of more than 1 million women followed for nearly 16 million person-years after one or more miscarriages, stillbirths, or live singleton births. Women with stillbirths were 2.69-fold more likely to have an MI, 2.42-fold more likely to develop renovascular hypertension, and 1.74-fold more likely to have a stroke during follow-up than those with no stillbirths.

Moreover, women with miscarriages were 1.13-, 1.2-, and 1.16-fold more likely to have an MI, renovascular hypertension, and stroke, respectively, than women with no miscarriages. And the risks were additive: For each additional miscarriage, the risks of MI, renovascular hypertension, and stroke increased by 9%, 19%, and 13%, respectively (Circulation. 2013;127[17]:1775-82).

The concept of maternal placental syndromes encompasses four events believed to originate from diseased placental blood vessels: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental abruption, and placental infarction. In a population-based retrospective study known as CHAMPS (Cardiovascular Health After Maternal Placental Syndromes), conducted in more than 1 million Ontario women who were free from cardiovascular disease prior to their first delivery, 7% were diagnosed with a maternal placental syndrome. Their incidence of a composite endpoint comprised of hospitalization or revascularization for CAD, peripheral artery disease, or cerebrovascular disease at least 90 days after delivery discharge was double that of women without a maternal placental syndrome.

“These women manifested their first cardiovascular event at an average age of 38, not 50 or 60,” Dr. Warnes said.

The risk of premature cardiovascular disease was magnified 4.4-fold in women with a maternal placental syndrome plus an intrauterine fetal death, compared with those with neither, after adjustment for sociodemographic factors and other potential confounders, and by 3.1-fold in women with a maternal placental syndrome and poor fetal growth (Lancet. 2005;366[9499]:1797-803).

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Think of pregnancy as a cardiovascular stress test, Carole A. Warnes, MD, urged at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Pregnancy complications may unmask a predisposition to premature cardiovascular disease. Yet a woman’s reproductive history is often overlooked in this regard, despite the fact that cardiovascular disease is the number-one cause of death in women, observed Dr. Warnes, the Snowmass conference director and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“I think reproductive history is often overlooked as a predictor of cardiovascular and even peripheral vascular events. I suspect many of us don’t routinely ask our patients about miscarriages and stillbirths. We might think about preeclampsia, but these are also hallmarks of trouble to come,” the cardiologist said.

Indeed, this point was underscored in a retrospective Danish national population-based cohort registry study of more than 1 million women followed for nearly 16 million person-years after one or more miscarriages, stillbirths, or live singleton births. Women with stillbirths were 2.69-fold more likely to have an MI, 2.42-fold more likely to develop renovascular hypertension, and 1.74-fold more likely to have a stroke during follow-up than those with no stillbirths.

Moreover, women with miscarriages were 1.13-, 1.2-, and 1.16-fold more likely to have an MI, renovascular hypertension, and stroke, respectively, than women with no miscarriages. And the risks were additive: For each additional miscarriage, the risks of MI, renovascular hypertension, and stroke increased by 9%, 19%, and 13%, respectively (Circulation. 2013;127[17]:1775-82).

The concept of maternal placental syndromes encompasses four events believed to originate from diseased placental blood vessels: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental abruption, and placental infarction. In a population-based retrospective study known as CHAMPS (Cardiovascular Health After Maternal Placental Syndromes), conducted in more than 1 million Ontario women who were free from cardiovascular disease prior to their first delivery, 7% were diagnosed with a maternal placental syndrome. Their incidence of a composite endpoint comprised of hospitalization or revascularization for CAD, peripheral artery disease, or cerebrovascular disease at least 90 days after delivery discharge was double that of women without a maternal placental syndrome.

“These women manifested their first cardiovascular event at an average age of 38, not 50 or 60,” Dr. Warnes said.

The risk of premature cardiovascular disease was magnified 4.4-fold in women with a maternal placental syndrome plus an intrauterine fetal death, compared with those with neither, after adjustment for sociodemographic factors and other potential confounders, and by 3.1-fold in women with a maternal placental syndrome and poor fetal growth (Lancet. 2005;366[9499]:1797-803).

[email protected]

SNOWMASS, COLO. – Think of pregnancy as a cardiovascular stress test, Carole A. Warnes, MD, urged at the Annual Cardiovascular Conference at Snowmass sponsored by the American College of Cardiology.

Pregnancy complications may unmask a predisposition to premature cardiovascular disease. Yet a woman’s reproductive history is often overlooked in this regard, despite the fact that cardiovascular disease is the number-one cause of death in women, observed Dr. Warnes, the Snowmass conference director and professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

“I think reproductive history is often overlooked as a predictor of cardiovascular and even peripheral vascular events. I suspect many of us don’t routinely ask our patients about miscarriages and stillbirths. We might think about preeclampsia, but these are also hallmarks of trouble to come,” the cardiologist said.

Indeed, this point was underscored in a retrospective Danish national population-based cohort registry study of more than 1 million women followed for nearly 16 million person-years after one or more miscarriages, stillbirths, or live singleton births. Women with stillbirths were 2.69-fold more likely to have an MI, 2.42-fold more likely to develop renovascular hypertension, and 1.74-fold more likely to have a stroke during follow-up than those with no stillbirths.

Moreover, women with miscarriages were 1.13-, 1.2-, and 1.16-fold more likely to have an MI, renovascular hypertension, and stroke, respectively, than women with no miscarriages. And the risks were additive: For each additional miscarriage, the risks of MI, renovascular hypertension, and stroke increased by 9%, 19%, and 13%, respectively (Circulation. 2013;127[17]:1775-82).

The concept of maternal placental syndromes encompasses four events believed to originate from diseased placental blood vessels: preeclampsia, gestational hypertension, placental abruption, and placental infarction. In a population-based retrospective study known as CHAMPS (Cardiovascular Health After Maternal Placental Syndromes), conducted in more than 1 million Ontario women who were free from cardiovascular disease prior to their first delivery, 7% were diagnosed with a maternal placental syndrome. Their incidence of a composite endpoint comprised of hospitalization or revascularization for CAD, peripheral artery disease, or cerebrovascular disease at least 90 days after delivery discharge was double that of women without a maternal placental syndrome.

“These women manifested their first cardiovascular event at an average age of 38, not 50 or 60,” Dr. Warnes said.

The risk of premature cardiovascular disease was magnified 4.4-fold in women with a maternal placental syndrome plus an intrauterine fetal death, compared with those with neither, after adjustment for sociodemographic factors and other potential confounders, and by 3.1-fold in women with a maternal placental syndrome and poor fetal growth (Lancet. 2005;366[9499]:1797-803).

[email protected]

At present, 300,000 US women undergo breast augmentation surgery each year,¹ making this the second most common aesthetic procedure in women (after liposuction),^2–4 and making it extremely likely that clinicians will encounter women who have breast implants. In addition, approximately 110,000 women undergo breast reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, of whom more than 88,000 (81%) receive implants (2016 data).⁵

This review discusses the evolution of breast implants, their complications, and key considerations with regard to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, as the principles are similar.

EVOLUTION OF IMPLANTS

Reports of breast augmentation surgery, also known as augmentation mammoplasty, date back to 1895, when a fatty tumor (lipoma) was successfully transplanted from a patient’s back to a breast defect in a mastectomy patient.^2,3,6,7 In the 1930s, implantation of a glass ball into a patient’s breast marked the first implant-based breast augmentation.⁶ By 1954, attempts at breast augmentation using local dermal-fat flaps, adipose tissue, and even omentum were described.

Alloplastic materials gained popularity throughout the 1950s and 1960s and included polyurethane, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon), and other synthetics. Adverse reactions associated with alloplastic materials were plentiful: local tissue reactions, distortion of the breast mound, increased firmness, and discomfort all contributed to the eventual discontinuation of their use. The history of alloplastic breast augmentation also included epoxy resin, shellac, beeswax, paraffin, rubber, petroleum jelly, and liquefied silicone. Outcomes were not good, and many patients ultimately needed mastectomy.⁷

The first modern breast prosthesis was developed in 1961, and since then, implant composition and design have evolved significantly.⁸

From silicone to saline, and back again

The first silicone gel implants, introduced in the early 1960s,^8–19 had high complication rates—some centers reported an incidence of capsular contracture of up to 70%.^8,11 This is a foreign body reaction in which pathologic scar tissue encases the implant, causing it to distort, appear misshapen, harden, and even become painful.¹¹ Attempts to minimize this reaction led to later generations of silicone implants with polyurethane shells.¹²

Inflatable implants filled with sterile saline solution were originally developed in France in 1965. Unlike silicone implants, saline implants have undergone minimal changes since their inception, and grew in popularity during the 1970s in view of the high rates of capsular contracture with silicone implants.⁸ However, saline implants have their own problems, and as they became increasingly popular, deflation and the unnatural feel of saline sparked a renewed interest in silicone gel.

By the late 1980s, the thinner-shelled generation of silicone implants displayed its own frustrating complications including implant rupture, capsular contracture, infection, and possible systemic and disseminated granulomatous disease. From 1992 to 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a moratorium on silicone implants due to concerns about a possible link with autoimmune and connective tissue diseases and the possible carcinogenic nature of silicone.

While silicone implants were prohibited in the United States, development continued abroad, and eventually the moratorium was lifted after several meta-analyses failed to reveal any link regarding the aforementioned concerns.¹³

Today, silicone gel implants dominate the world market.¹⁴ In the United States, approximately 60% of implants contain silicone gel filler, and trends are similar in Europe.⁷

Table 1 summarizes the evolution of silicone breast implants over the last 50 years.^2,6,11,12Table 2 lists the advantages and disadvantages of silicone and saline breast implants.^2,6,8,15

CURRENT IMPLANT OPTIONS

Currently, 3 companies (Allergan, Mentor, Sientra) manufacture and distribute breast implants and implant-associated products such as tissue expanders and sizers in the US market.⁶

Another company, Motiva, makes an implant that is available in Europe, Asia, and Australia, and the device is currently undergoing a 10-year clinical trial in the United States that began recruiting patients in 16 centers in April 2018.¹⁶ Pending final approval, the Cleveland Clinic Department of Plastic Surgery may be among the centers involved in the clinical trial of the Motiva implant. Innovations in the Motiva implant include a high-performance shell that maintains consistent strength and includes a proprietary barrier layer, improved silicone gel filler, 3-D imprinted surface texturing, and an implant shape that adapts with vertical and horizontal movement. It also contains radio-frequency identification transponders that can transmit data about the implant wirelessly.^17–19

Developed in the 1980s, texturing of the implant surface disrupts capsule formation around the prosthesis. Additionally, texturing stabilizes an anatomically shaped (teardrop) implant within the breast pocket, reducing malrotation.^20,21

The first textured implants were covered with polyurethane foam, but they were ultimately withdrawn from the US market because of concern for in vivo degradation to carcinogenic compounds. The focus subsequently turned to texturing implant shells by mechanically creating pores of different sizes. Smooth implants, by contrast, are manufactured by repeatedly dipping the implant shell into liquid silicone.²

The capsular contraction rate has been shown to be lower with textured silicone than with smooth silicone (number needed to treat = 7–9), and evidence suggests a lower risk of needing a secondary procedure.²¹

Form-stable vs fluid-form

Silicone is a polymer. The physical properties of polymers vary greatly and depend on the length of the individual chains and the degree to which those chains are cross-linked. Liquid silicone contains short chains and sparse cross-linking, resulting in an oily compound well suited for lubrication. Silicone gel contains longer chains and more cross-linking and is therefore more viscous.

In “form-stable” implants, the silicone interior has sufficient chain length and cross-linking to retain the designed shape even at rest,² but they require slightly larger incisions.⁷ “Fluid-form” refers to an implant with silicone filler with shorter chain length, less cross-linking, and more fluidity.⁶

Shell

As with silicone fillers, the properties of silicone implant shells also depend on chain length and cross-linking within the polymer. Silicone elastomer shells (Table 1) contain extensively cross-linked chains that impart a flexible yet rubbery character. Silicone elastomers can also be found in facial implants and tissue expanders.²

Implant shape (round vs anatomic)

The shape of an implant is determined by the gel distribution inside of it. To understand gel distribution and implant shape, one must understand the gel-shell ratio. This ratio increases as cohesivity of the filler increases, and it represents increased bonding of the gel filler to the shell and a preserved implant shape at rest.

The gel-shell ratio varies among manufacturers, and a less-viscous filler may be more prone to rippling or loss of upper pole fullness in some patients. For this reason, careful analysis, patient and implant selection, and discussion of complications remain paramount.²

No anatomically shaped implant is manufactured with a smooth shell, but rather with a textured shell that resists malrotation.^6,15 However, in the United States, 95% of patients receive round implants.¹⁶

PATIENT ASSESSMENT

Before breast augmentation surgery, the surgeon assesses a number of factors—physical and psychosocial—and helps the patient choose a type and size of implant. The surgeon and patient also plan where the implants will be placed—ie, above or beneath the chest wall muscle—and where the incisions will be made. Every decision is made in close consultation with the patient, taking into account the patient’s desires and expectations, as well as what the patient’s anatomy allows. An integral component of this shared decision-making process is a discussion of the possible complications, and often photographs to better illustrate what to expect postoperatively. 

Psychosocial factors

One must consider the patient’s psychology, motivations for surgery, and emotional stability. Here, we look for underlying body dysmorphic disorder; excessive or unusual encouragement to undergo the procedure by a spouse, friends, or others; a history of other aesthetic procedures; unrealistic expectations; and other factors influencing the desire to undergo this surgery.

Choosing an implant

Implant selection must take into account the patient’s height, weight,⁷ and overall body morphology: taller patients and those with wider hips or shoulders usually require larger implants. A reliable method for determining the appropriate implant must include the current breast shape, dimensions, volume, skin elasticity, soft-tissue thickness, and overall body habitus. Ultimately, the most important considerations include breast base diameter, implant volume,²⁰ and soft-tissue envelope.

Preoperative sizing can involve placing sample implants within a brassiere so that the patient can preview possible outcomes. This method is particularly effective in minimizing dissatisfaction because it shares ownership of the decision-making process.¹⁵

A computerized implant selection program available in Europe suggests a “best-fit” implant based on a clinician’s measurements.⁷

Traditionally, plastic surgeons place breast implants either beneath the pectoralis major muscle (submuscular placement) or over the pectoralis⁸ but beneath the glandular breast parenchyma (subglandular placement) (Figure 2).⁷

Advantages of submuscular placement are a smoother transition of the upper breast pole from the chest wall and less rippling visible through the skin, due to the additional muscular coverage of the implant. Another advantage is that capsular contraction rates are lower with submuscular placement, likely due to possible contamination of implants by lactiferous ductal microbes when accessing the subglandular plane.^14,20 Disadvantages are pronounced discomfort after surgery and animation deformities with muscle contraction, particularly in young, highly active patients.

A popular modification of submuscular placement involves creating a surgical dissection plane between the subglandular tissue and the pectoralis major fascia. This “dual­­plane” approach allows the parenchyma to retract superiorly and reduce breast ptosis.⁷

Incisions

Table 3 highlights important considerations with regard to incision location.^15,20,21

ANTIBIOTICS

Many surgeons give a single prophylactic dose of antibiotic before surgery, a practice that some studies have shown to be effective in reducing the risk of infection.¹⁵ However, the benefit of routine postoperative use of antibiotics remains unsubstantiated¹⁵: postoperative antibiotic use does not appear to protect against infection, capsular contracture, or overall complications in primary or secondary breast augmentation surgery.²⁰

PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD

At our institution, breast augmentation surgery is an ambulatory procedure—the patient goes home the same day unless circumstances such as pain control warrant admission. This is, however, according to surgeon preference, and differs on a case-by-case basis. General anesthesia is the standard of care.¹⁵

POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD

In the immediate postoperative period, patients are instructed to wear a surgical bra for up to 6 weeks to allow stable scarring. Early mobilization is encouraged.^7,15 Depending on the patient’s situation, recovery, and healing, she may be out of work for about 1 week, sometimes more, sometimes less. 

Additional instructions are surgeon-specific. However, the patient is instructed to avoid bathing, swimming, immersion in water, and wearing underwire brassieres that could impair healing of an inferior incision; instead, patients are often instructed to wear a surgical bra provided on the day of surgery until cleared in the clinic.

Showering is allowed the next day or the second day after surgery, and of course there is no driving while on narcotics. Additionally, patients are counseled extensively regarding hematoma formation and the signs and symptoms of infection.

Patients are typically seen in clinic 1 week after surgery.

The cost of surgery may be $5,000 to $6,000 but can vary significantly from center to center depending on who the patient sees and where, and whether the patient presents for breast reconstruction after cancer or repair of congenital anomalies, or in certain cases of transgender surgery. The patient is typically responsible for the fee, but again this depends on the patient, indications, and particular insurance concerns.

IMPLANT LONGEVITY AND RUPTURE

In the United States, implant rupture rates range from 1.1% to 17.7% at 6 to 10 years after primary augmentation, 2.9% to 14.7% after revision augmentation, 1.5% to 35.4% after primary breast reconstruction, and 0% to 19.6% after revision reconstruction.¹¹

Unfortunately, the existence of multiple implant manufacturers, numerous implant generations, and poorly standardized screening protocols and reporting systems make the true rate of implant rupture difficult to assess without definitive imaging or implant retrieval.¹¹

Damage from surgical instrumentation during implantation is the most common cause of silicone breast implant rupture (50% to 64% of cases).²² Other causes include underfilling and fold flaw from capsular contracture.

Leakage of silicone gel filler may be confined to the periprosthetic capsule (intracapsular rupture) or extend beyond and into the breast parenchyma (extracapsular rupture). One study reported that only 10% of intracapsular ruptures progressed extracapsularly, while 84% of patients with extracapsular involvement remained stable for up to 2 years,²³ indicating that intracapsular rupture may not portend worsening disease.¹¹

Implant rupture occurs silently in most cases, with no clinically detectable signs or symptoms. In other cases, patients may present with alterations in breast shape and size, sudden asymmetry, firmness, pronounced capsular contracture, contour irregularity, or pain.

Aside from physical examination, comprehensive diagnostic testing includes imaging—ultrasonography, mammography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Of these, MRI is the method of choice, with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% for detecting implant rupture.¹¹ Classic findings on MRI include the “linguine” sign from a deflating implant shell, or the teardrop sign from implant sagging. Classic findings on ultrasonography include the “snowstorm” sign of extracapsular rupture and the “stepladder” sign of intracapsular rupture.

Mammography effectively detects free silicone in breast tissue with extracapsular rupture (25% of ruptures according to some studies)²³; however, it cannot detect rupture within the implant capsule. As an aside, submuscular implant placement may interfere less with screening mammography than subglandular implants do.^14,24

Current FDA recommendations to detect implant rupture encourage women with silicone breast implants to undergo screening 3 years after implantation and then every 2 years thereafter; no long-term monitoring is suggested for saline implants.¹⁵ Many plastic surgeons evaluate silicone breast implant patients every 1 to 2 years for contracture and rupture.⁸ Of note, capsular contracture impairs the effectiveness of ultrasonography and may require MRI confirmation.¹¹

If implant rupture is confirmed, the current recommendation is to remove the implant and the capsule. Another implant may be placed depending on the patient’s preference. Rigorous washout remains a key feature of any surgical intervention for ruptured breast implants; however, in the event of extracapsular rupture, resection of silicone granulomas may also be required.¹¹

Reoperation rates for primary breast augmentation surgery approach 20% and are even higher for secondary augmentation over a patient’s lifetime—the highest rate of all aesthetic procedures.^7,14

Capsular contracture is the most common complication of breast augmentation,²⁵ typically presenting within the first postoperative year,^26,27 and the risk increases over time.²⁸ It occurs with both silicone and saline breast implants.

In some studies, the incidence exceeded 4% in the first 2 years after surgery,²⁹ and nearly 50% by 10 years.³⁰ Other studies found rates of 0% to 20% over 13 years.²⁰

The etiology is not well understood and is presumed to be multifactorial, with proposed mechanisms and factors that include bacterial contamination, surface texturing, the implant pocket selected, the incision type, drain placement, antibiotic use, and smoking.²⁵

A meta-analysis from 17,000 implants found that the risk of capsular contracture was significantly higher when an implant was placed in a subglandular pocket than in a submuscular pocket,^22,26 and that although texturing decreased capsular contracture compared with smooth implants, the effect was modest when a textured or smooth implant was placed in a submuscular location.²⁸ With regard to incision location, studies have reported that the incidence of capsular contracture is highest with transaxillary and periareolar incisions, and lowest with inframammary incisions.^20,21

The leading theory is that contamination of the implant (primarily from the mammary ducts) results in biofilm formation. Subclinical hematoma surrounding the implant may also provide key bacterial nutrients.²⁰

Textured implants induce a greater inflammatory response in the capsular tissue, resulting in a thicker capsule; however, contracture rates remain lower with textured than with smooth implants.^14,31 Interestingly, lower rates of capsular contracture have been observed with later-generation, cohesive-gel, form-stable implants than with those of earlier generations.¹²

Although more research is needed, silicone implants appear to confer a higher risk of capsular contracture than saline implants.^14,20

Irrigating the breast pocket intraoperatively with triple antibiotic solution (bacitracin, cefazolin, and gentamicin) before placing the implant may decrease the capsular contracture rate.^15,20

Treatments for capsular contracture include pocket modifications such as capsulotomy (making releasing, relaxing incisions in the scar capsule encasing the implant), capsulectomy (removing portions of or the entire capsule), and replacing the implant in the other pocket (ie, if the original implant was subglandular, the replacement is placed in the submuscular pocket). Patients who have contractures that fail to respond to these treatments may ultimately benefit from implant removal and autologous reconstruction (autoaugmentation) rather than implant replacement.^32,33

ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS

Other complications include infection, malposition, rippling, seroma, hematoma, and sensory alterations.

Irrigation during the implantation procedure with a triple antibiotic solution consisting of bacitracin, gentamycin, and cephalexin in normal saline decreases infection and seroma rates.^15,20,34

Some surgeons also choose to irrigate the pocket with a betadine solution, or to cleanse the skin with betadine and place sterile towels and redrape before inserting the implant. Additionally, many prefer using a sterile device much like a pastry funnel called a Keller funnel to insert the implant into the breast pocket.³⁵

Infection is less common with cosmetic augmentations than with implant-based breast reconstruction, likely because of healthier, well-vascularized tissue in patients undergoing cosmetic surgery than in those undergoing mastectomy.¹⁴

Seroma is thought to be a consequence of texturing, and more so with macro- vs microtexturing. Though poorly understood, an association between texturing and double capsules has also been reported.^12,20

After primary breast augmentation, 10-year follow-up rates of capsular contracture, seroma, rippling, and malposition vary across the 3 major silicone implant manufacturers.¹² Hematoma and infection occur in less than 1% of primary augmentation patients.¹⁵

Malposition of the implant over time is less frequent with textured implants because of the higher coefficient of friction compared with smooth implants^.6,8,15

Visible skin rippling may be a consequence of texturing and also of thin body habitus, eg, in patients with a body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m². If the soft-tissue layer of the breast is thin, the natural rippling of smooth saline implant shells are more likely to show when placed in the subglandular pocket. Form-stable implants, by contrast, resist rippling.^12,15

Large implants and extensive lateral dissection can cause alterations in nipple sensation and sensory loss within lower breast pole skin. Axillary incisions may traumatize or damage the intercostobrachial nerve, resulting in upper inner arm sensory aberrations.

Ultimately, the 10-year incidence of secondary surgery ranges from 0% to 36% and the 10-year incidence of capsular contracture ranges from 11% to 19%.¹⁵ Additional cosmetic complaints after augmentation with implants include enlargement of the areola and engorgement of breast veins.¹⁴

BREAST CANCER AND DETECTION

Patients with or without implants do not seem to differ with regard to breast cancer stage upon detection, tumor burden, recurrence, or survival. However, more patients with implants may present with palpable masses, invasive tumors, axillary metastasis, and falsely negative mammograms.

Breast implants may actually facilitate cancer detection on physical examination by providing a more dense or stable surface upon which to palpate the breast tissue. Although they do not necessarily impair mastectomy or breast reconstruction, they may result in an increased rate of revision surgery after breast conservation therapy.^24,36 Mammography remains the standard of care for radiologic diagnosis but can be further supported by MRI and ultrasonography if necessary in patients with implants.

Although concerns persist, multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of fourth- and fifth-generation silicone breast implants with regard to autoimmune disease.⁷

In various clinical studies in mastectomy patients who underwent breast reconstruction with either silicone implants or autologous tissue, no difference was found with regard to the incidence of autoimmune diseases.² Additionally, in meta-analyses of data from more than 87,000 women, no association was found between connective tissue disease and silicone breast implants.^2,11 One study^11,23 noted no increase in autoantibodies in patients with undamaged silicone implants vs patients who experienced rupture.

Studies have also demonstrated that in children born to mothers with breast implants, the risk of rheumatic disease, esophageal disorders, congenital malformations, and death during the perinatal period is comparable with that in controls.³⁷ Another study, examining breastfeeding in women with silicone breast implants, showed no significant difference in silicon levels (used as a proxy for silicone) in breast milk compared with controls without implants; silicon levels were found to be significantly higher in cow’s milk and store-bought formulas.³⁸

BREAST IMPLANT-ASSOCIATED ANAPLASTIC LARGE-CELL LYMPHOMA

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a subtype of T-cell lymphoma that develops in tissue adjacent to breast implants. It typically presents as breast swelling 2 to 38 years (mean of 8 years) after implant insertion.^39,40 The swelling may be secondary to periprosthetic seroma formation or, more rarely, palpable disease in the axilla. Patients occasionally complain of pain and, rarely, constitutional symptoms.²⁰ BIA-ALCL is not a disease of the surrounding breast tissue, but rather of the fibrous periprosthetic capsule.²¹

Of note, there is no documented case involving smooth implants,^41–43 but it may be related to fifth-generation textured implants.⁶ At present, it is not possible to definitively state which implant is associated with this condition; hence, more data are needed, and this association is currently under study.

The absolute risk of BIA-ALCL was reported in a Dutch study³⁹ as 1 in 35,000 by age 50, 1 in 12,000 by age 70, and 1 in 7,000 by age 75, with a number needed to harm of 6,920. Overall lifetime risk was estimated at 1 in 30,000 for women with textured implants in a 2015 US study.⁴⁰ In comparison, breast cancer risk is about 1 in 8 women. There is no apparent predilection for patients who underwent cosmetic augmentation vs reconstruction, or who received silicone vs saline implants.

The diagnosis is confirmed by ultrasonographically guided fine-needle aspiration of seroma fluid and subsequent immunohistochemical testing for CD30-positive and ALK-negative T lymphocytes. Other than positron-emission tomography for staging after diagnosis confirmation, imaging is ineffective. Expert opinion does not recommend routine screening unless the aforementioned symptoms arise.

Treatment involves implant removal and total capsulectomy, with samples sent for pathology study with cytokeratin staining.¹² Of note, in all cases of BIA-ALCL in which the disease was limited to the circumscribed scar tissue of the breast capsule, complete surgical excision has proved curative, whereas incomplete capsulectomy portends a greater risk of recurrence and decreased survival.⁴⁴

In cases of advanced or recurrent ALCL, diagnosed late or inappropriately, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends a multidisciplinary approach involving adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation.⁴⁴ Anecdotally, at our institution, we have recently treated several cases of advanced ALCL presenting with invasive chest wall masses with extirpative surgery and subsequent reconstruction with the assistance of our thoracic surgery colleagues, as well as the aforementioned multidisciplinary approach using adjuvant therapy.

The mechanism of this malignancy is currently under investigation, but the current theory implicates an exaggerated lymphoproliferative response to bacterial contamination of the capsule superimposed upon genetic factors in susceptible patients.^42,43

National societies advise plastic surgeons to discuss the risk of BIA-ALCL with all patients at the time of breast augmentation consultation and to report all confirmed cases to the PROFILE registry (Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology).⁴⁵

ARE PATIENTS HAPPIER AFTERWARD?

Studies have shown that after undergoing breast augmentation surgery, patients note improvement in body image, and satisfaction rates range from 85% to 95% with respect to self-confidence and body image.⁴⁶ An evaluation of patient responses on the validated BREAST-Q Augmentation Questionnaire showed the following satisfaction rates: breasts 83%, psychosocial well-being 88%, and sexual functioning 81%.¹⁵

Although epidemiologic studies have reported higher suicide rates in women with cosmetic breast implants, this likely stems from preoperative psychological factors and underscores the role of psychiatric referral in patients with a mental health history or in those whom the surgeon deems it necessary.⁴⁶

Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that quality of life and psychosocial functioning (including depression) markedly improve after breast augmentation surgery.⁴⁷ Among a cohort of Norwegian patients, breast implant surgery resulted in improved motivation to perform daily activities, as well as improved quality of life from both a psychosocial and aesthetic perspective.⁴⁸ Interestingly, a recent study reported that patients who underwent breast implant surgery alone reported greater satisfaction and psychosocial quality of life than patients who underwent combination breast augmentation and mastopexy (breast-lifting) surgery.⁴⁹

Additional data are needed to refine our understanding of the complex interplay between psychosocial factors before and after surgery in patients seeking and undergoing breast augmentation procedures.

At present, 300,000 US women undergo breast augmentation surgery each year,¹ making this the second most common aesthetic procedure in women (after liposuction),^2–4 and making it extremely likely that clinicians will encounter women who have breast implants. In addition, approximately 110,000 women undergo breast reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, of whom more than 88,000 (81%) receive implants (2016 data).⁵

This review discusses the evolution of breast implants, their complications, and key considerations with regard to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, as the principles are similar.

EVOLUTION OF IMPLANTS

Reports of breast augmentation surgery, also known as augmentation mammoplasty, date back to 1895, when a fatty tumor (lipoma) was successfully transplanted from a patient’s back to a breast defect in a mastectomy patient.^2,3,6,7 In the 1930s, implantation of a glass ball into a patient’s breast marked the first implant-based breast augmentation.⁶ By 1954, attempts at breast augmentation using local dermal-fat flaps, adipose tissue, and even omentum were described.

Alloplastic materials gained popularity throughout the 1950s and 1960s and included polyurethane, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon), and other synthetics. Adverse reactions associated with alloplastic materials were plentiful: local tissue reactions, distortion of the breast mound, increased firmness, and discomfort all contributed to the eventual discontinuation of their use. The history of alloplastic breast augmentation also included epoxy resin, shellac, beeswax, paraffin, rubber, petroleum jelly, and liquefied silicone. Outcomes were not good, and many patients ultimately needed mastectomy.⁷

The first modern breast prosthesis was developed in 1961, and since then, implant composition and design have evolved significantly.⁸

From silicone to saline, and back again

The first silicone gel implants, introduced in the early 1960s,^8–19 had high complication rates—some centers reported an incidence of capsular contracture of up to 70%.^8,11 This is a foreign body reaction in which pathologic scar tissue encases the implant, causing it to distort, appear misshapen, harden, and even become painful.¹¹ Attempts to minimize this reaction led to later generations of silicone implants with polyurethane shells.¹²

Inflatable implants filled with sterile saline solution were originally developed in France in 1965. Unlike silicone implants, saline implants have undergone minimal changes since their inception, and grew in popularity during the 1970s in view of the high rates of capsular contracture with silicone implants.⁸ However, saline implants have their own problems, and as they became increasingly popular, deflation and the unnatural feel of saline sparked a renewed interest in silicone gel.

By the late 1980s, the thinner-shelled generation of silicone implants displayed its own frustrating complications including implant rupture, capsular contracture, infection, and possible systemic and disseminated granulomatous disease. From 1992 to 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a moratorium on silicone implants due to concerns about a possible link with autoimmune and connective tissue diseases and the possible carcinogenic nature of silicone.

While silicone implants were prohibited in the United States, development continued abroad, and eventually the moratorium was lifted after several meta-analyses failed to reveal any link regarding the aforementioned concerns.¹³

Today, silicone gel implants dominate the world market.¹⁴ In the United States, approximately 60% of implants contain silicone gel filler, and trends are similar in Europe.⁷

Table 1 summarizes the evolution of silicone breast implants over the last 50 years.^2,6,11,12Table 2 lists the advantages and disadvantages of silicone and saline breast implants.^2,6,8,15

CURRENT IMPLANT OPTIONS

Currently, 3 companies (Allergan, Mentor, Sientra) manufacture and distribute breast implants and implant-associated products such as tissue expanders and sizers in the US market.⁶

Another company, Motiva, makes an implant that is available in Europe, Asia, and Australia, and the device is currently undergoing a 10-year clinical trial in the United States that began recruiting patients in 16 centers in April 2018.¹⁶ Pending final approval, the Cleveland Clinic Department of Plastic Surgery may be among the centers involved in the clinical trial of the Motiva implant. Innovations in the Motiva implant include a high-performance shell that maintains consistent strength and includes a proprietary barrier layer, improved silicone gel filler, 3-D imprinted surface texturing, and an implant shape that adapts with vertical and horizontal movement. It also contains radio-frequency identification transponders that can transmit data about the implant wirelessly.^17–19

Developed in the 1980s, texturing of the implant surface disrupts capsule formation around the prosthesis. Additionally, texturing stabilizes an anatomically shaped (teardrop) implant within the breast pocket, reducing malrotation.^20,21

The first textured implants were covered with polyurethane foam, but they were ultimately withdrawn from the US market because of concern for in vivo degradation to carcinogenic compounds. The focus subsequently turned to texturing implant shells by mechanically creating pores of different sizes. Smooth implants, by contrast, are manufactured by repeatedly dipping the implant shell into liquid silicone.²

The capsular contraction rate has been shown to be lower with textured silicone than with smooth silicone (number needed to treat = 7–9), and evidence suggests a lower risk of needing a secondary procedure.²¹

Form-stable vs fluid-form

Silicone is a polymer. The physical properties of polymers vary greatly and depend on the length of the individual chains and the degree to which those chains are cross-linked. Liquid silicone contains short chains and sparse cross-linking, resulting in an oily compound well suited for lubrication. Silicone gel contains longer chains and more cross-linking and is therefore more viscous.

In “form-stable” implants, the silicone interior has sufficient chain length and cross-linking to retain the designed shape even at rest,² but they require slightly larger incisions.⁷ “Fluid-form” refers to an implant with silicone filler with shorter chain length, less cross-linking, and more fluidity.⁶

Shell

As with silicone fillers, the properties of silicone implant shells also depend on chain length and cross-linking within the polymer. Silicone elastomer shells (Table 1) contain extensively cross-linked chains that impart a flexible yet rubbery character. Silicone elastomers can also be found in facial implants and tissue expanders.²

Implant shape (round vs anatomic)

The shape of an implant is determined by the gel distribution inside of it. To understand gel distribution and implant shape, one must understand the gel-shell ratio. This ratio increases as cohesivity of the filler increases, and it represents increased bonding of the gel filler to the shell and a preserved implant shape at rest.

The gel-shell ratio varies among manufacturers, and a less-viscous filler may be more prone to rippling or loss of upper pole fullness in some patients. For this reason, careful analysis, patient and implant selection, and discussion of complications remain paramount.²

No anatomically shaped implant is manufactured with a smooth shell, but rather with a textured shell that resists malrotation.^6,15 However, in the United States, 95% of patients receive round implants.¹⁶

PATIENT ASSESSMENT

Before breast augmentation surgery, the surgeon assesses a number of factors—physical and psychosocial—and helps the patient choose a type and size of implant. The surgeon and patient also plan where the implants will be placed—ie, above or beneath the chest wall muscle—and where the incisions will be made. Every decision is made in close consultation with the patient, taking into account the patient’s desires and expectations, as well as what the patient’s anatomy allows. An integral component of this shared decision-making process is a discussion of the possible complications, and often photographs to better illustrate what to expect postoperatively. 

Psychosocial factors

One must consider the patient’s psychology, motivations for surgery, and emotional stability. Here, we look for underlying body dysmorphic disorder; excessive or unusual encouragement to undergo the procedure by a spouse, friends, or others; a history of other aesthetic procedures; unrealistic expectations; and other factors influencing the desire to undergo this surgery.

Choosing an implant

Implant selection must take into account the patient’s height, weight,⁷ and overall body morphology: taller patients and those with wider hips or shoulders usually require larger implants. A reliable method for determining the appropriate implant must include the current breast shape, dimensions, volume, skin elasticity, soft-tissue thickness, and overall body habitus. Ultimately, the most important considerations include breast base diameter, implant volume,²⁰ and soft-tissue envelope.

Preoperative sizing can involve placing sample implants within a brassiere so that the patient can preview possible outcomes. This method is particularly effective in minimizing dissatisfaction because it shares ownership of the decision-making process.¹⁵

A computerized implant selection program available in Europe suggests a “best-fit” implant based on a clinician’s measurements.⁷

Traditionally, plastic surgeons place breast implants either beneath the pectoralis major muscle (submuscular placement) or over the pectoralis⁸ but beneath the glandular breast parenchyma (subglandular placement) (Figure 2).⁷

Advantages of submuscular placement are a smoother transition of the upper breast pole from the chest wall and less rippling visible through the skin, due to the additional muscular coverage of the implant. Another advantage is that capsular contraction rates are lower with submuscular placement, likely due to possible contamination of implants by lactiferous ductal microbes when accessing the subglandular plane.^14,20 Disadvantages are pronounced discomfort after surgery and animation deformities with muscle contraction, particularly in young, highly active patients.

A popular modification of submuscular placement involves creating a surgical dissection plane between the subglandular tissue and the pectoralis major fascia. This “dual­­plane” approach allows the parenchyma to retract superiorly and reduce breast ptosis.⁷

Incisions

Table 3 highlights important considerations with regard to incision location.^15,20,21

ANTIBIOTICS

Many surgeons give a single prophylactic dose of antibiotic before surgery, a practice that some studies have shown to be effective in reducing the risk of infection.¹⁵ However, the benefit of routine postoperative use of antibiotics remains unsubstantiated¹⁵: postoperative antibiotic use does not appear to protect against infection, capsular contracture, or overall complications in primary or secondary breast augmentation surgery.²⁰

PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD

At our institution, breast augmentation surgery is an ambulatory procedure—the patient goes home the same day unless circumstances such as pain control warrant admission. This is, however, according to surgeon preference, and differs on a case-by-case basis. General anesthesia is the standard of care.¹⁵

POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD

In the immediate postoperative period, patients are instructed to wear a surgical bra for up to 6 weeks to allow stable scarring. Early mobilization is encouraged.^7,15 Depending on the patient’s situation, recovery, and healing, she may be out of work for about 1 week, sometimes more, sometimes less. 

Additional instructions are surgeon-specific. However, the patient is instructed to avoid bathing, swimming, immersion in water, and wearing underwire brassieres that could impair healing of an inferior incision; instead, patients are often instructed to wear a surgical bra provided on the day of surgery until cleared in the clinic.

Showering is allowed the next day or the second day after surgery, and of course there is no driving while on narcotics. Additionally, patients are counseled extensively regarding hematoma formation and the signs and symptoms of infection.

Patients are typically seen in clinic 1 week after surgery.

The cost of surgery may be $5,000 to $6,000 but can vary significantly from center to center depending on who the patient sees and where, and whether the patient presents for breast reconstruction after cancer or repair of congenital anomalies, or in certain cases of transgender surgery. The patient is typically responsible for the fee, but again this depends on the patient, indications, and particular insurance concerns.

IMPLANT LONGEVITY AND RUPTURE

In the United States, implant rupture rates range from 1.1% to 17.7% at 6 to 10 years after primary augmentation, 2.9% to 14.7% after revision augmentation, 1.5% to 35.4% after primary breast reconstruction, and 0% to 19.6% after revision reconstruction.¹¹

Unfortunately, the existence of multiple implant manufacturers, numerous implant generations, and poorly standardized screening protocols and reporting systems make the true rate of implant rupture difficult to assess without definitive imaging or implant retrieval.¹¹

Damage from surgical instrumentation during implantation is the most common cause of silicone breast implant rupture (50% to 64% of cases).²² Other causes include underfilling and fold flaw from capsular contracture.

Leakage of silicone gel filler may be confined to the periprosthetic capsule (intracapsular rupture) or extend beyond and into the breast parenchyma (extracapsular rupture). One study reported that only 10% of intracapsular ruptures progressed extracapsularly, while 84% of patients with extracapsular involvement remained stable for up to 2 years,²³ indicating that intracapsular rupture may not portend worsening disease.¹¹

Implant rupture occurs silently in most cases, with no clinically detectable signs or symptoms. In other cases, patients may present with alterations in breast shape and size, sudden asymmetry, firmness, pronounced capsular contracture, contour irregularity, or pain.

Aside from physical examination, comprehensive diagnostic testing includes imaging—ultrasonography, mammography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Of these, MRI is the method of choice, with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% for detecting implant rupture.¹¹ Classic findings on MRI include the “linguine” sign from a deflating implant shell, or the teardrop sign from implant sagging. Classic findings on ultrasonography include the “snowstorm” sign of extracapsular rupture and the “stepladder” sign of intracapsular rupture.

Mammography effectively detects free silicone in breast tissue with extracapsular rupture (25% of ruptures according to some studies)²³; however, it cannot detect rupture within the implant capsule. As an aside, submuscular implant placement may interfere less with screening mammography than subglandular implants do.^14,24

Current FDA recommendations to detect implant rupture encourage women with silicone breast implants to undergo screening 3 years after implantation and then every 2 years thereafter; no long-term monitoring is suggested for saline implants.¹⁵ Many plastic surgeons evaluate silicone breast implant patients every 1 to 2 years for contracture and rupture.⁸ Of note, capsular contracture impairs the effectiveness of ultrasonography and may require MRI confirmation.¹¹

If implant rupture is confirmed, the current recommendation is to remove the implant and the capsule. Another implant may be placed depending on the patient’s preference. Rigorous washout remains a key feature of any surgical intervention for ruptured breast implants; however, in the event of extracapsular rupture, resection of silicone granulomas may also be required.¹¹

Reoperation rates for primary breast augmentation surgery approach 20% and are even higher for secondary augmentation over a patient’s lifetime—the highest rate of all aesthetic procedures.^7,14

Capsular contracture is the most common complication of breast augmentation,²⁵ typically presenting within the first postoperative year,^26,27 and the risk increases over time.²⁸ It occurs with both silicone and saline breast implants.

In some studies, the incidence exceeded 4% in the first 2 years after surgery,²⁹ and nearly 50% by 10 years.³⁰ Other studies found rates of 0% to 20% over 13 years.²⁰

The etiology is not well understood and is presumed to be multifactorial, with proposed mechanisms and factors that include bacterial contamination, surface texturing, the implant pocket selected, the incision type, drain placement, antibiotic use, and smoking.²⁵

A meta-analysis from 17,000 implants found that the risk of capsular contracture was significantly higher when an implant was placed in a subglandular pocket than in a submuscular pocket,^22,26 and that although texturing decreased capsular contracture compared with smooth implants, the effect was modest when a textured or smooth implant was placed in a submuscular location.²⁸ With regard to incision location, studies have reported that the incidence of capsular contracture is highest with transaxillary and periareolar incisions, and lowest with inframammary incisions.^20,21

The leading theory is that contamination of the implant (primarily from the mammary ducts) results in biofilm formation. Subclinical hematoma surrounding the implant may also provide key bacterial nutrients.²⁰

Textured implants induce a greater inflammatory response in the capsular tissue, resulting in a thicker capsule; however, contracture rates remain lower with textured than with smooth implants.^14,31 Interestingly, lower rates of capsular contracture have been observed with later-generation, cohesive-gel, form-stable implants than with those of earlier generations.¹²

Although more research is needed, silicone implants appear to confer a higher risk of capsular contracture than saline implants.^14,20

Irrigating the breast pocket intraoperatively with triple antibiotic solution (bacitracin, cefazolin, and gentamicin) before placing the implant may decrease the capsular contracture rate.^15,20

Treatments for capsular contracture include pocket modifications such as capsulotomy (making releasing, relaxing incisions in the scar capsule encasing the implant), capsulectomy (removing portions of or the entire capsule), and replacing the implant in the other pocket (ie, if the original implant was subglandular, the replacement is placed in the submuscular pocket). Patients who have contractures that fail to respond to these treatments may ultimately benefit from implant removal and autologous reconstruction (autoaugmentation) rather than implant replacement.^32,33

ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS

Other complications include infection, malposition, rippling, seroma, hematoma, and sensory alterations.

Irrigation during the implantation procedure with a triple antibiotic solution consisting of bacitracin, gentamycin, and cephalexin in normal saline decreases infection and seroma rates.^15,20,34

Some surgeons also choose to irrigate the pocket with a betadine solution, or to cleanse the skin with betadine and place sterile towels and redrape before inserting the implant. Additionally, many prefer using a sterile device much like a pastry funnel called a Keller funnel to insert the implant into the breast pocket.³⁵

Infection is less common with cosmetic augmentations than with implant-based breast reconstruction, likely because of healthier, well-vascularized tissue in patients undergoing cosmetic surgery than in those undergoing mastectomy.¹⁴

Seroma is thought to be a consequence of texturing, and more so with macro- vs microtexturing. Though poorly understood, an association between texturing and double capsules has also been reported.^12,20

After primary breast augmentation, 10-year follow-up rates of capsular contracture, seroma, rippling, and malposition vary across the 3 major silicone implant manufacturers.¹² Hematoma and infection occur in less than 1% of primary augmentation patients.¹⁵

Malposition of the implant over time is less frequent with textured implants because of the higher coefficient of friction compared with smooth implants^.6,8,15

Visible skin rippling may be a consequence of texturing and also of thin body habitus, eg, in patients with a body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m². If the soft-tissue layer of the breast is thin, the natural rippling of smooth saline implant shells are more likely to show when placed in the subglandular pocket. Form-stable implants, by contrast, resist rippling.^12,15

Large implants and extensive lateral dissection can cause alterations in nipple sensation and sensory loss within lower breast pole skin. Axillary incisions may traumatize or damage the intercostobrachial nerve, resulting in upper inner arm sensory aberrations.

Ultimately, the 10-year incidence of secondary surgery ranges from 0% to 36% and the 10-year incidence of capsular contracture ranges from 11% to 19%.¹⁵ Additional cosmetic complaints after augmentation with implants include enlargement of the areola and engorgement of breast veins.¹⁴

BREAST CANCER AND DETECTION

Patients with or without implants do not seem to differ with regard to breast cancer stage upon detection, tumor burden, recurrence, or survival. However, more patients with implants may present with palpable masses, invasive tumors, axillary metastasis, and falsely negative mammograms.

Breast implants may actually facilitate cancer detection on physical examination by providing a more dense or stable surface upon which to palpate the breast tissue. Although they do not necessarily impair mastectomy or breast reconstruction, they may result in an increased rate of revision surgery after breast conservation therapy.^24,36 Mammography remains the standard of care for radiologic diagnosis but can be further supported by MRI and ultrasonography if necessary in patients with implants.

Although concerns persist, multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of fourth- and fifth-generation silicone breast implants with regard to autoimmune disease.⁷

In various clinical studies in mastectomy patients who underwent breast reconstruction with either silicone implants or autologous tissue, no difference was found with regard to the incidence of autoimmune diseases.² Additionally, in meta-analyses of data from more than 87,000 women, no association was found between connective tissue disease and silicone breast implants.^2,11 One study^11,23 noted no increase in autoantibodies in patients with undamaged silicone implants vs patients who experienced rupture.

Studies have also demonstrated that in children born to mothers with breast implants, the risk of rheumatic disease, esophageal disorders, congenital malformations, and death during the perinatal period is comparable with that in controls.³⁷ Another study, examining breastfeeding in women with silicone breast implants, showed no significant difference in silicon levels (used as a proxy for silicone) in breast milk compared with controls without implants; silicon levels were found to be significantly higher in cow’s milk and store-bought formulas.³⁸

BREAST IMPLANT-ASSOCIATED ANAPLASTIC LARGE-CELL LYMPHOMA

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a subtype of T-cell lymphoma that develops in tissue adjacent to breast implants. It typically presents as breast swelling 2 to 38 years (mean of 8 years) after implant insertion.^39,40 The swelling may be secondary to periprosthetic seroma formation or, more rarely, palpable disease in the axilla. Patients occasionally complain of pain and, rarely, constitutional symptoms.²⁰ BIA-ALCL is not a disease of the surrounding breast tissue, but rather of the fibrous periprosthetic capsule.²¹

Of note, there is no documented case involving smooth implants,^41–43 but it may be related to fifth-generation textured implants.⁶ At present, it is not possible to definitively state which implant is associated with this condition; hence, more data are needed, and this association is currently under study.

The absolute risk of BIA-ALCL was reported in a Dutch study³⁹ as 1 in 35,000 by age 50, 1 in 12,000 by age 70, and 1 in 7,000 by age 75, with a number needed to harm of 6,920. Overall lifetime risk was estimated at 1 in 30,000 for women with textured implants in a 2015 US study.⁴⁰ In comparison, breast cancer risk is about 1 in 8 women. There is no apparent predilection for patients who underwent cosmetic augmentation vs reconstruction, or who received silicone vs saline implants.

The diagnosis is confirmed by ultrasonographically guided fine-needle aspiration of seroma fluid and subsequent immunohistochemical testing for CD30-positive and ALK-negative T lymphocytes. Other than positron-emission tomography for staging after diagnosis confirmation, imaging is ineffective. Expert opinion does not recommend routine screening unless the aforementioned symptoms arise.

Treatment involves implant removal and total capsulectomy, with samples sent for pathology study with cytokeratin staining.¹² Of note, in all cases of BIA-ALCL in which the disease was limited to the circumscribed scar tissue of the breast capsule, complete surgical excision has proved curative, whereas incomplete capsulectomy portends a greater risk of recurrence and decreased survival.⁴⁴

In cases of advanced or recurrent ALCL, diagnosed late or inappropriately, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends a multidisciplinary approach involving adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation.⁴⁴ Anecdotally, at our institution, we have recently treated several cases of advanced ALCL presenting with invasive chest wall masses with extirpative surgery and subsequent reconstruction with the assistance of our thoracic surgery colleagues, as well as the aforementioned multidisciplinary approach using adjuvant therapy.

The mechanism of this malignancy is currently under investigation, but the current theory implicates an exaggerated lymphoproliferative response to bacterial contamination of the capsule superimposed upon genetic factors in susceptible patients.^42,43

National societies advise plastic surgeons to discuss the risk of BIA-ALCL with all patients at the time of breast augmentation consultation and to report all confirmed cases to the PROFILE registry (Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology).⁴⁵

ARE PATIENTS HAPPIER AFTERWARD?

Studies have shown that after undergoing breast augmentation surgery, patients note improvement in body image, and satisfaction rates range from 85% to 95% with respect to self-confidence and body image.⁴⁶ An evaluation of patient responses on the validated BREAST-Q Augmentation Questionnaire showed the following satisfaction rates: breasts 83%, psychosocial well-being 88%, and sexual functioning 81%.¹⁵

Although epidemiologic studies have reported higher suicide rates in women with cosmetic breast implants, this likely stems from preoperative psychological factors and underscores the role of psychiatric referral in patients with a mental health history or in those whom the surgeon deems it necessary.⁴⁶

Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that quality of life and psychosocial functioning (including depression) markedly improve after breast augmentation surgery.⁴⁷ Among a cohort of Norwegian patients, breast implant surgery resulted in improved motivation to perform daily activities, as well as improved quality of life from both a psychosocial and aesthetic perspective.⁴⁸ Interestingly, a recent study reported that patients who underwent breast implant surgery alone reported greater satisfaction and psychosocial quality of life than patients who underwent combination breast augmentation and mastopexy (breast-lifting) surgery.⁴⁹

Additional data are needed to refine our understanding of the complex interplay between psychosocial factors before and after surgery in patients seeking and undergoing breast augmentation procedures.

At present, 300,000 US women undergo breast augmentation surgery each year,¹ making this the second most common aesthetic procedure in women (after liposuction),^2–4 and making it extremely likely that clinicians will encounter women who have breast implants. In addition, approximately 110,000 women undergo breast reconstructive surgery after mastectomy, of whom more than 88,000 (81%) receive implants (2016 data).⁵

This review discusses the evolution of breast implants, their complications, and key considerations with regard to aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery, as the principles are similar.

EVOLUTION OF IMPLANTS

Reports of breast augmentation surgery, also known as augmentation mammoplasty, date back to 1895, when a fatty tumor (lipoma) was successfully transplanted from a patient’s back to a breast defect in a mastectomy patient.^2,3,6,7 In the 1930s, implantation of a glass ball into a patient’s breast marked the first implant-based breast augmentation.⁶ By 1954, attempts at breast augmentation using local dermal-fat flaps, adipose tissue, and even omentum were described.

Alloplastic materials gained popularity throughout the 1950s and 1960s and included polyurethane, polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon), and other synthetics. Adverse reactions associated with alloplastic materials were plentiful: local tissue reactions, distortion of the breast mound, increased firmness, and discomfort all contributed to the eventual discontinuation of their use. The history of alloplastic breast augmentation also included epoxy resin, shellac, beeswax, paraffin, rubber, petroleum jelly, and liquefied silicone. Outcomes were not good, and many patients ultimately needed mastectomy.⁷

The first modern breast prosthesis was developed in 1961, and since then, implant composition and design have evolved significantly.⁸

From silicone to saline, and back again

The first silicone gel implants, introduced in the early 1960s,^8–19 had high complication rates—some centers reported an incidence of capsular contracture of up to 70%.^8,11 This is a foreign body reaction in which pathologic scar tissue encases the implant, causing it to distort, appear misshapen, harden, and even become painful.¹¹ Attempts to minimize this reaction led to later generations of silicone implants with polyurethane shells.¹²

Inflatable implants filled with sterile saline solution were originally developed in France in 1965. Unlike silicone implants, saline implants have undergone minimal changes since their inception, and grew in popularity during the 1970s in view of the high rates of capsular contracture with silicone implants.⁸ However, saline implants have their own problems, and as they became increasingly popular, deflation and the unnatural feel of saline sparked a renewed interest in silicone gel.

By the late 1980s, the thinner-shelled generation of silicone implants displayed its own frustrating complications including implant rupture, capsular contracture, infection, and possible systemic and disseminated granulomatous disease. From 1992 to 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a moratorium on silicone implants due to concerns about a possible link with autoimmune and connective tissue diseases and the possible carcinogenic nature of silicone.

While silicone implants were prohibited in the United States, development continued abroad, and eventually the moratorium was lifted after several meta-analyses failed to reveal any link regarding the aforementioned concerns.¹³

Today, silicone gel implants dominate the world market.¹⁴ In the United States, approximately 60% of implants contain silicone gel filler, and trends are similar in Europe.⁷

Table 1 summarizes the evolution of silicone breast implants over the last 50 years.^2,6,11,12Table 2 lists the advantages and disadvantages of silicone and saline breast implants.^2,6,8,15

CURRENT IMPLANT OPTIONS

Currently, 3 companies (Allergan, Mentor, Sientra) manufacture and distribute breast implants and implant-associated products such as tissue expanders and sizers in the US market.⁶

Another company, Motiva, makes an implant that is available in Europe, Asia, and Australia, and the device is currently undergoing a 10-year clinical trial in the United States that began recruiting patients in 16 centers in April 2018.¹⁶ Pending final approval, the Cleveland Clinic Department of Plastic Surgery may be among the centers involved in the clinical trial of the Motiva implant. Innovations in the Motiva implant include a high-performance shell that maintains consistent strength and includes a proprietary barrier layer, improved silicone gel filler, 3-D imprinted surface texturing, and an implant shape that adapts with vertical and horizontal movement. It also contains radio-frequency identification transponders that can transmit data about the implant wirelessly.^17–19

Developed in the 1980s, texturing of the implant surface disrupts capsule formation around the prosthesis. Additionally, texturing stabilizes an anatomically shaped (teardrop) implant within the breast pocket, reducing malrotation.^20,21

The first textured implants were covered with polyurethane foam, but they were ultimately withdrawn from the US market because of concern for in vivo degradation to carcinogenic compounds. The focus subsequently turned to texturing implant shells by mechanically creating pores of different sizes. Smooth implants, by contrast, are manufactured by repeatedly dipping the implant shell into liquid silicone.²

The capsular contraction rate has been shown to be lower with textured silicone than with smooth silicone (number needed to treat = 7–9), and evidence suggests a lower risk of needing a secondary procedure.²¹

Form-stable vs fluid-form

Silicone is a polymer. The physical properties of polymers vary greatly and depend on the length of the individual chains and the degree to which those chains are cross-linked. Liquid silicone contains short chains and sparse cross-linking, resulting in an oily compound well suited for lubrication. Silicone gel contains longer chains and more cross-linking and is therefore more viscous.

In “form-stable” implants, the silicone interior has sufficient chain length and cross-linking to retain the designed shape even at rest,² but they require slightly larger incisions.⁷ “Fluid-form” refers to an implant with silicone filler with shorter chain length, less cross-linking, and more fluidity.⁶

Shell

As with silicone fillers, the properties of silicone implant shells also depend on chain length and cross-linking within the polymer. Silicone elastomer shells (Table 1) contain extensively cross-linked chains that impart a flexible yet rubbery character. Silicone elastomers can also be found in facial implants and tissue expanders.²

Implant shape (round vs anatomic)

The shape of an implant is determined by the gel distribution inside of it. To understand gel distribution and implant shape, one must understand the gel-shell ratio. This ratio increases as cohesivity of the filler increases, and it represents increased bonding of the gel filler to the shell and a preserved implant shape at rest.

The gel-shell ratio varies among manufacturers, and a less-viscous filler may be more prone to rippling or loss of upper pole fullness in some patients. For this reason, careful analysis, patient and implant selection, and discussion of complications remain paramount.²

No anatomically shaped implant is manufactured with a smooth shell, but rather with a textured shell that resists malrotation.^6,15 However, in the United States, 95% of patients receive round implants.¹⁶

PATIENT ASSESSMENT

Before breast augmentation surgery, the surgeon assesses a number of factors—physical and psychosocial—and helps the patient choose a type and size of implant. The surgeon and patient also plan where the implants will be placed—ie, above or beneath the chest wall muscle—and where the incisions will be made. Every decision is made in close consultation with the patient, taking into account the patient’s desires and expectations, as well as what the patient’s anatomy allows. An integral component of this shared decision-making process is a discussion of the possible complications, and often photographs to better illustrate what to expect postoperatively. 

Psychosocial factors

One must consider the patient’s psychology, motivations for surgery, and emotional stability. Here, we look for underlying body dysmorphic disorder; excessive or unusual encouragement to undergo the procedure by a spouse, friends, or others; a history of other aesthetic procedures; unrealistic expectations; and other factors influencing the desire to undergo this surgery.

Choosing an implant

Implant selection must take into account the patient’s height, weight,⁷ and overall body morphology: taller patients and those with wider hips or shoulders usually require larger implants. A reliable method for determining the appropriate implant must include the current breast shape, dimensions, volume, skin elasticity, soft-tissue thickness, and overall body habitus. Ultimately, the most important considerations include breast base diameter, implant volume,²⁰ and soft-tissue envelope.

Preoperative sizing can involve placing sample implants within a brassiere so that the patient can preview possible outcomes. This method is particularly effective in minimizing dissatisfaction because it shares ownership of the decision-making process.¹⁵

A computerized implant selection program available in Europe suggests a “best-fit” implant based on a clinician’s measurements.⁷

Traditionally, plastic surgeons place breast implants either beneath the pectoralis major muscle (submuscular placement) or over the pectoralis⁸ but beneath the glandular breast parenchyma (subglandular placement) (Figure 2).⁷

Advantages of submuscular placement are a smoother transition of the upper breast pole from the chest wall and less rippling visible through the skin, due to the additional muscular coverage of the implant. Another advantage is that capsular contraction rates are lower with submuscular placement, likely due to possible contamination of implants by lactiferous ductal microbes when accessing the subglandular plane.^14,20 Disadvantages are pronounced discomfort after surgery and animation deformities with muscle contraction, particularly in young, highly active patients.

A popular modification of submuscular placement involves creating a surgical dissection plane between the subglandular tissue and the pectoralis major fascia. This “dual­­plane” approach allows the parenchyma to retract superiorly and reduce breast ptosis.⁷

Incisions

Table 3 highlights important considerations with regard to incision location.^15,20,21

ANTIBIOTICS

Many surgeons give a single prophylactic dose of antibiotic before surgery, a practice that some studies have shown to be effective in reducing the risk of infection.¹⁵ However, the benefit of routine postoperative use of antibiotics remains unsubstantiated¹⁵: postoperative antibiotic use does not appear to protect against infection, capsular contracture, or overall complications in primary or secondary breast augmentation surgery.²⁰

PERIOPERATIVE PERIOD

At our institution, breast augmentation surgery is an ambulatory procedure—the patient goes home the same day unless circumstances such as pain control warrant admission. This is, however, according to surgeon preference, and differs on a case-by-case basis. General anesthesia is the standard of care.¹⁵

POSTOPERATIVE PERIOD

In the immediate postoperative period, patients are instructed to wear a surgical bra for up to 6 weeks to allow stable scarring. Early mobilization is encouraged.^7,15 Depending on the patient’s situation, recovery, and healing, she may be out of work for about 1 week, sometimes more, sometimes less. 

Additional instructions are surgeon-specific. However, the patient is instructed to avoid bathing, swimming, immersion in water, and wearing underwire brassieres that could impair healing of an inferior incision; instead, patients are often instructed to wear a surgical bra provided on the day of surgery until cleared in the clinic.

Showering is allowed the next day or the second day after surgery, and of course there is no driving while on narcotics. Additionally, patients are counseled extensively regarding hematoma formation and the signs and symptoms of infection.

Patients are typically seen in clinic 1 week after surgery.

The cost of surgery may be $5,000 to $6,000 but can vary significantly from center to center depending on who the patient sees and where, and whether the patient presents for breast reconstruction after cancer or repair of congenital anomalies, or in certain cases of transgender surgery. The patient is typically responsible for the fee, but again this depends on the patient, indications, and particular insurance concerns.

IMPLANT LONGEVITY AND RUPTURE

In the United States, implant rupture rates range from 1.1% to 17.7% at 6 to 10 years after primary augmentation, 2.9% to 14.7% after revision augmentation, 1.5% to 35.4% after primary breast reconstruction, and 0% to 19.6% after revision reconstruction.¹¹

Unfortunately, the existence of multiple implant manufacturers, numerous implant generations, and poorly standardized screening protocols and reporting systems make the true rate of implant rupture difficult to assess without definitive imaging or implant retrieval.¹¹

Damage from surgical instrumentation during implantation is the most common cause of silicone breast implant rupture (50% to 64% of cases).²² Other causes include underfilling and fold flaw from capsular contracture.

Leakage of silicone gel filler may be confined to the periprosthetic capsule (intracapsular rupture) or extend beyond and into the breast parenchyma (extracapsular rupture). One study reported that only 10% of intracapsular ruptures progressed extracapsularly, while 84% of patients with extracapsular involvement remained stable for up to 2 years,²³ indicating that intracapsular rupture may not portend worsening disease.¹¹

Implant rupture occurs silently in most cases, with no clinically detectable signs or symptoms. In other cases, patients may present with alterations in breast shape and size, sudden asymmetry, firmness, pronounced capsular contracture, contour irregularity, or pain.

Aside from physical examination, comprehensive diagnostic testing includes imaging—ultrasonography, mammography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Of these, MRI is the method of choice, with sensitivity and specificity exceeding 90% for detecting implant rupture.¹¹ Classic findings on MRI include the “linguine” sign from a deflating implant shell, or the teardrop sign from implant sagging. Classic findings on ultrasonography include the “snowstorm” sign of extracapsular rupture and the “stepladder” sign of intracapsular rupture.

Mammography effectively detects free silicone in breast tissue with extracapsular rupture (25% of ruptures according to some studies)²³; however, it cannot detect rupture within the implant capsule. As an aside, submuscular implant placement may interfere less with screening mammography than subglandular implants do.^14,24

Current FDA recommendations to detect implant rupture encourage women with silicone breast implants to undergo screening 3 years after implantation and then every 2 years thereafter; no long-term monitoring is suggested for saline implants.¹⁵ Many plastic surgeons evaluate silicone breast implant patients every 1 to 2 years for contracture and rupture.⁸ Of note, capsular contracture impairs the effectiveness of ultrasonography and may require MRI confirmation.¹¹

If implant rupture is confirmed, the current recommendation is to remove the implant and the capsule. Another implant may be placed depending on the patient’s preference. Rigorous washout remains a key feature of any surgical intervention for ruptured breast implants; however, in the event of extracapsular rupture, resection of silicone granulomas may also be required.¹¹

Reoperation rates for primary breast augmentation surgery approach 20% and are even higher for secondary augmentation over a patient’s lifetime—the highest rate of all aesthetic procedures.^7,14

Capsular contracture is the most common complication of breast augmentation,²⁵ typically presenting within the first postoperative year,^26,27 and the risk increases over time.²⁸ It occurs with both silicone and saline breast implants.

In some studies, the incidence exceeded 4% in the first 2 years after surgery,²⁹ and nearly 50% by 10 years.³⁰ Other studies found rates of 0% to 20% over 13 years.²⁰

The etiology is not well understood and is presumed to be multifactorial, with proposed mechanisms and factors that include bacterial contamination, surface texturing, the implant pocket selected, the incision type, drain placement, antibiotic use, and smoking.²⁵

A meta-analysis from 17,000 implants found that the risk of capsular contracture was significantly higher when an implant was placed in a subglandular pocket than in a submuscular pocket,^22,26 and that although texturing decreased capsular contracture compared with smooth implants, the effect was modest when a textured or smooth implant was placed in a submuscular location.²⁸ With regard to incision location, studies have reported that the incidence of capsular contracture is highest with transaxillary and periareolar incisions, and lowest with inframammary incisions.^20,21

The leading theory is that contamination of the implant (primarily from the mammary ducts) results in biofilm formation. Subclinical hematoma surrounding the implant may also provide key bacterial nutrients.²⁰

Textured implants induce a greater inflammatory response in the capsular tissue, resulting in a thicker capsule; however, contracture rates remain lower with textured than with smooth implants.^14,31 Interestingly, lower rates of capsular contracture have been observed with later-generation, cohesive-gel, form-stable implants than with those of earlier generations.¹²

Although more research is needed, silicone implants appear to confer a higher risk of capsular contracture than saline implants.^14,20

Irrigating the breast pocket intraoperatively with triple antibiotic solution (bacitracin, cefazolin, and gentamicin) before placing the implant may decrease the capsular contracture rate.^15,20

Treatments for capsular contracture include pocket modifications such as capsulotomy (making releasing, relaxing incisions in the scar capsule encasing the implant), capsulectomy (removing portions of or the entire capsule), and replacing the implant in the other pocket (ie, if the original implant was subglandular, the replacement is placed in the submuscular pocket). Patients who have contractures that fail to respond to these treatments may ultimately benefit from implant removal and autologous reconstruction (autoaugmentation) rather than implant replacement.^32,33

ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS

Other complications include infection, malposition, rippling, seroma, hematoma, and sensory alterations.

Irrigation during the implantation procedure with a triple antibiotic solution consisting of bacitracin, gentamycin, and cephalexin in normal saline decreases infection and seroma rates.^15,20,34

Some surgeons also choose to irrigate the pocket with a betadine solution, or to cleanse the skin with betadine and place sterile towels and redrape before inserting the implant. Additionally, many prefer using a sterile device much like a pastry funnel called a Keller funnel to insert the implant into the breast pocket.³⁵

Infection is less common with cosmetic augmentations than with implant-based breast reconstruction, likely because of healthier, well-vascularized tissue in patients undergoing cosmetic surgery than in those undergoing mastectomy.¹⁴

Seroma is thought to be a consequence of texturing, and more so with macro- vs microtexturing. Though poorly understood, an association between texturing and double capsules has also been reported.^12,20

After primary breast augmentation, 10-year follow-up rates of capsular contracture, seroma, rippling, and malposition vary across the 3 major silicone implant manufacturers.¹² Hematoma and infection occur in less than 1% of primary augmentation patients.¹⁵

Malposition of the implant over time is less frequent with textured implants because of the higher coefficient of friction compared with smooth implants^.6,8,15

Visible skin rippling may be a consequence of texturing and also of thin body habitus, eg, in patients with a body mass index less than 18.5 kg/m². If the soft-tissue layer of the breast is thin, the natural rippling of smooth saline implant shells are more likely to show when placed in the subglandular pocket. Form-stable implants, by contrast, resist rippling.^12,15

Large implants and extensive lateral dissection can cause alterations in nipple sensation and sensory loss within lower breast pole skin. Axillary incisions may traumatize or damage the intercostobrachial nerve, resulting in upper inner arm sensory aberrations.

Ultimately, the 10-year incidence of secondary surgery ranges from 0% to 36% and the 10-year incidence of capsular contracture ranges from 11% to 19%.¹⁵ Additional cosmetic complaints after augmentation with implants include enlargement of the areola and engorgement of breast veins.¹⁴

BREAST CANCER AND DETECTION

Patients with or without implants do not seem to differ with regard to breast cancer stage upon detection, tumor burden, recurrence, or survival. However, more patients with implants may present with palpable masses, invasive tumors, axillary metastasis, and falsely negative mammograms.

Breast implants may actually facilitate cancer detection on physical examination by providing a more dense or stable surface upon which to palpate the breast tissue. Although they do not necessarily impair mastectomy or breast reconstruction, they may result in an increased rate of revision surgery after breast conservation therapy.^24,36 Mammography remains the standard of care for radiologic diagnosis but can be further supported by MRI and ultrasonography if necessary in patients with implants.

Although concerns persist, multiple studies have demonstrated the safety of fourth- and fifth-generation silicone breast implants with regard to autoimmune disease.⁷

In various clinical studies in mastectomy patients who underwent breast reconstruction with either silicone implants or autologous tissue, no difference was found with regard to the incidence of autoimmune diseases.² Additionally, in meta-analyses of data from more than 87,000 women, no association was found between connective tissue disease and silicone breast implants.^2,11 One study^11,23 noted no increase in autoantibodies in patients with undamaged silicone implants vs patients who experienced rupture.

Studies have also demonstrated that in children born to mothers with breast implants, the risk of rheumatic disease, esophageal disorders, congenital malformations, and death during the perinatal period is comparable with that in controls.³⁷ Another study, examining breastfeeding in women with silicone breast implants, showed no significant difference in silicon levels (used as a proxy for silicone) in breast milk compared with controls without implants; silicon levels were found to be significantly higher in cow’s milk and store-bought formulas.³⁸

BREAST IMPLANT-ASSOCIATED ANAPLASTIC LARGE-CELL LYMPHOMA

Breast implant-associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) is a subtype of T-cell lymphoma that develops in tissue adjacent to breast implants. It typically presents as breast swelling 2 to 38 years (mean of 8 years) after implant insertion.^39,40 The swelling may be secondary to periprosthetic seroma formation or, more rarely, palpable disease in the axilla. Patients occasionally complain of pain and, rarely, constitutional symptoms.²⁰ BIA-ALCL is not a disease of the surrounding breast tissue, but rather of the fibrous periprosthetic capsule.²¹

Of note, there is no documented case involving smooth implants,^41–43 but it may be related to fifth-generation textured implants.⁶ At present, it is not possible to definitively state which implant is associated with this condition; hence, more data are needed, and this association is currently under study.

The absolute risk of BIA-ALCL was reported in a Dutch study³⁹ as 1 in 35,000 by age 50, 1 in 12,000 by age 70, and 1 in 7,000 by age 75, with a number needed to harm of 6,920. Overall lifetime risk was estimated at 1 in 30,000 for women with textured implants in a 2015 US study.⁴⁰ In comparison, breast cancer risk is about 1 in 8 women. There is no apparent predilection for patients who underwent cosmetic augmentation vs reconstruction, or who received silicone vs saline implants.

The diagnosis is confirmed by ultrasonographically guided fine-needle aspiration of seroma fluid and subsequent immunohistochemical testing for CD30-positive and ALK-negative T lymphocytes. Other than positron-emission tomography for staging after diagnosis confirmation, imaging is ineffective. Expert opinion does not recommend routine screening unless the aforementioned symptoms arise.

Treatment involves implant removal and total capsulectomy, with samples sent for pathology study with cytokeratin staining.¹² Of note, in all cases of BIA-ALCL in which the disease was limited to the circumscribed scar tissue of the breast capsule, complete surgical excision has proved curative, whereas incomplete capsulectomy portends a greater risk of recurrence and decreased survival.⁴⁴

In cases of advanced or recurrent ALCL, diagnosed late or inappropriately, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network recommends a multidisciplinary approach involving adjuvant chemotherapy and radiation.⁴⁴ Anecdotally, at our institution, we have recently treated several cases of advanced ALCL presenting with invasive chest wall masses with extirpative surgery and subsequent reconstruction with the assistance of our thoracic surgery colleagues, as well as the aforementioned multidisciplinary approach using adjuvant therapy.

The mechanism of this malignancy is currently under investigation, but the current theory implicates an exaggerated lymphoproliferative response to bacterial contamination of the capsule superimposed upon genetic factors in susceptible patients.^42,43

National societies advise plastic surgeons to discuss the risk of BIA-ALCL with all patients at the time of breast augmentation consultation and to report all confirmed cases to the PROFILE registry (Patient Registry and Outcomes for Breast Implants and Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma Etiology and Epidemiology).⁴⁵

ARE PATIENTS HAPPIER AFTERWARD?

Studies have shown that after undergoing breast augmentation surgery, patients note improvement in body image, and satisfaction rates range from 85% to 95% with respect to self-confidence and body image.⁴⁶ An evaluation of patient responses on the validated BREAST-Q Augmentation Questionnaire showed the following satisfaction rates: breasts 83%, psychosocial well-being 88%, and sexual functioning 81%.¹⁵

Although epidemiologic studies have reported higher suicide rates in women with cosmetic breast implants, this likely stems from preoperative psychological factors and underscores the role of psychiatric referral in patients with a mental health history or in those whom the surgeon deems it necessary.⁴⁶

Several high-quality studies have demonstrated that quality of life and psychosocial functioning (including depression) markedly improve after breast augmentation surgery.⁴⁷ Among a cohort of Norwegian patients, breast implant surgery resulted in improved motivation to perform daily activities, as well as improved quality of life from both a psychosocial and aesthetic perspective.⁴⁸ Interestingly, a recent study reported that patients who underwent breast implant surgery alone reported greater satisfaction and psychosocial quality of life than patients who underwent combination breast augmentation and mastopexy (breast-lifting) surgery.⁴⁹

Additional data are needed to refine our understanding of the complex interplay between psychosocial factors before and after surgery in patients seeking and undergoing breast augmentation procedures.

The last decade has brought appropriate attention to the high prevalence of postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, with postpartum depression (PPD) constituting the most common complication in modern obstetrics.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

There have been very substantial efforts in more than 40 states in the United States to enhance screening for PPD and to increase support groups for women with postpartum depressive or anxiety symptoms. However, less focus has been paid to the outcomes of these screening initiatives.

A question that comes to mind is whether patients who are screened actually get referred for treatment, and if they do receive treatment, whether they recover and become well. One study referenced previously in this column noted that even in settings where women are screened for PPD, the vast majority of women are not referred, and of those who are referred, even fewer of those are treated or become well.¹

It is noteworthy, then, that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended screening for perinatal depression (just before and after birth) and issued draft recommendations regarding prevention of perinatal depression where it is suggested that patients at risk for perinatal depression be referred for appropriate “counseling interventions” – specifically, either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT).²

The recommendation is a striking one because of the volume of patients who would be included. For example, the USPSTF recommends patients with histories of depression, depression during pregnancy, a history of child abuse, or even a family history of depression should receive preventive interventions with CBT or IPT. The recommendation is puzzling because of the data on risk for perinatal depression in those populations and the lack of available resources for patients who would be deemed “at risk.” Women with histories of depression are at a threefold increased risk for PPD (25%-30%). Depression during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of PPD and risk for PPD among these patients is as high as 75%.

So, there are a vast number of women who may be “at risk” for perinatal depression. But even with some data suggesting that IPT and CBT may be able to prevent perinatal depression, the suggestion that resources be made available to patients who are at risk is naive, because counseling interventions such as IPT or CBT, or even simply referrals to psychiatrists are not available even to patients who screen in for perinatal depression in real time during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I have previously written that the follow-up of women post partum who suffer from PPD is still far from meeting the needs who suffer from the disorder, and early detection and referrals to appropriate clinicians who are facile with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions seem the most effective way to manage these patients and to see that they receive treatment.

The question then becomes: If the numbers or scale of the prevention initiative suggested in this draft recommendation from the USPSTF is an overreach, is there a group of patients for whom a preventive intervention could be pursued? The patients at highest risk for PPD include those with a history of PPD (50%), bipolar disorder (50%-60%), or postpartum psychosis (80%). And while there is not substantial literature for specifically using IPT, CBT, or other counseling interventions to mitigate risk for recurrence in women with histories of PPD, bipolar disorder, or postpartum psychosis, there are ways of identifying this population at risk and following them closely to mitigate the risk for recurrence.

To make this recommendation feasible, an infrastructure needs to be in place in both low resource settings and in all communities so that these patients can be referred and effectively treated. If we move to prevention, we ought to start with the populations that we already know are at greatest risk and that we can inquire about, and there are very easy-to-use screens that screen for bipolar disorder or that screen for past history of depression with which these women can be identified.

In committee opinion 757, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends women be screened at least once during the perinatal period for depression and anxiety symptoms and highlighted several validated tools, such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.³ We also need a better system of early detection and early intervention so that women at less-considerable risk for perinatal depression would have the opportunity for early identification, treatment, and referral, which we do not have at the current time.

An update of the ACOG committee opinion also states, “It is recommended that all obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers complete a full assessment of mood and emotional well-being (including screening for PPD and anxiety with a validated instrument) during the comprehensive postpartum visit for each patient.” This is recommended in addition to any screening for depression and anxiety during the pregnancy.

It is exciting that after decades of failing to attend to such a common complication of modern obstetrics, we finally have seen a recent increased appreciation for the need to aggressively identify and treat PPD, particularly now that we understand the adverse effects of PPD as it affects child development, family functioning, and risk for later childhood psychopathology. But in addition to recognizing the problem, we must come up with methods to carefully identify a navigable route for the women suffering from PPD to get their needs met. The route includes publicly identifying the illness, understanding which treatments are most effective and can be scaled for delivery to large numbers of women, and then, most critically, configuring social systems to absorb, effectively manage, and monitor the women we identify as needing treatment.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-200.

2. Draft Recommendation Statement: Perinatal Depression: Preventive Interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Aug 2018.

3. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:e208-12.

The last decade has brought appropriate attention to the high prevalence of postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, with postpartum depression (PPD) constituting the most common complication in modern obstetrics.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

There have been very substantial efforts in more than 40 states in the United States to enhance screening for PPD and to increase support groups for women with postpartum depressive or anxiety symptoms. However, less focus has been paid to the outcomes of these screening initiatives.

A question that comes to mind is whether patients who are screened actually get referred for treatment, and if they do receive treatment, whether they recover and become well. One study referenced previously in this column noted that even in settings where women are screened for PPD, the vast majority of women are not referred, and of those who are referred, even fewer of those are treated or become well.¹

It is noteworthy, then, that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended screening for perinatal depression (just before and after birth) and issued draft recommendations regarding prevention of perinatal depression where it is suggested that patients at risk for perinatal depression be referred for appropriate “counseling interventions” – specifically, either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT).²

The recommendation is a striking one because of the volume of patients who would be included. For example, the USPSTF recommends patients with histories of depression, depression during pregnancy, a history of child abuse, or even a family history of depression should receive preventive interventions with CBT or IPT. The recommendation is puzzling because of the data on risk for perinatal depression in those populations and the lack of available resources for patients who would be deemed “at risk.” Women with histories of depression are at a threefold increased risk for PPD (25%-30%). Depression during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of PPD and risk for PPD among these patients is as high as 75%.

So, there are a vast number of women who may be “at risk” for perinatal depression. But even with some data suggesting that IPT and CBT may be able to prevent perinatal depression, the suggestion that resources be made available to patients who are at risk is naive, because counseling interventions such as IPT or CBT, or even simply referrals to psychiatrists are not available even to patients who screen in for perinatal depression in real time during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I have previously written that the follow-up of women post partum who suffer from PPD is still far from meeting the needs who suffer from the disorder, and early detection and referrals to appropriate clinicians who are facile with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions seem the most effective way to manage these patients and to see that they receive treatment.

The question then becomes: If the numbers or scale of the prevention initiative suggested in this draft recommendation from the USPSTF is an overreach, is there a group of patients for whom a preventive intervention could be pursued? The patients at highest risk for PPD include those with a history of PPD (50%), bipolar disorder (50%-60%), or postpartum psychosis (80%). And while there is not substantial literature for specifically using IPT, CBT, or other counseling interventions to mitigate risk for recurrence in women with histories of PPD, bipolar disorder, or postpartum psychosis, there are ways of identifying this population at risk and following them closely to mitigate the risk for recurrence.

To make this recommendation feasible, an infrastructure needs to be in place in both low resource settings and in all communities so that these patients can be referred and effectively treated. If we move to prevention, we ought to start with the populations that we already know are at greatest risk and that we can inquire about, and there are very easy-to-use screens that screen for bipolar disorder or that screen for past history of depression with which these women can be identified.

In committee opinion 757, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends women be screened at least once during the perinatal period for depression and anxiety symptoms and highlighted several validated tools, such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.³ We also need a better system of early detection and early intervention so that women at less-considerable risk for perinatal depression would have the opportunity for early identification, treatment, and referral, which we do not have at the current time.

An update of the ACOG committee opinion also states, “It is recommended that all obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers complete a full assessment of mood and emotional well-being (including screening for PPD and anxiety with a validated instrument) during the comprehensive postpartum visit for each patient.” This is recommended in addition to any screening for depression and anxiety during the pregnancy.

It is exciting that after decades of failing to attend to such a common complication of modern obstetrics, we finally have seen a recent increased appreciation for the need to aggressively identify and treat PPD, particularly now that we understand the adverse effects of PPD as it affects child development, family functioning, and risk for later childhood psychopathology. But in addition to recognizing the problem, we must come up with methods to carefully identify a navigable route for the women suffering from PPD to get their needs met. The route includes publicly identifying the illness, understanding which treatments are most effective and can be scaled for delivery to large numbers of women, and then, most critically, configuring social systems to absorb, effectively manage, and monitor the women we identify as needing treatment.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-200.

2. Draft Recommendation Statement: Perinatal Depression: Preventive Interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Aug 2018.

3. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:e208-12.

The last decade has brought appropriate attention to the high prevalence of postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, with postpartum depression (PPD) constituting the most common complication in modern obstetrics.

monkeybusinessimages/Thinkstock

There have been very substantial efforts in more than 40 states in the United States to enhance screening for PPD and to increase support groups for women with postpartum depressive or anxiety symptoms. However, less focus has been paid to the outcomes of these screening initiatives.

A question that comes to mind is whether patients who are screened actually get referred for treatment, and if they do receive treatment, whether they recover and become well. One study referenced previously in this column noted that even in settings where women are screened for PPD, the vast majority of women are not referred, and of those who are referred, even fewer of those are treated or become well.¹

It is noteworthy, then, that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has recommended screening for perinatal depression (just before and after birth) and issued draft recommendations regarding prevention of perinatal depression where it is suggested that patients at risk for perinatal depression be referred for appropriate “counseling interventions” – specifically, either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) or interpersonal psychotherapy (IPT).²

The recommendation is a striking one because of the volume of patients who would be included. For example, the USPSTF recommends patients with histories of depression, depression during pregnancy, a history of child abuse, or even a family history of depression should receive preventive interventions with CBT or IPT. The recommendation is puzzling because of the data on risk for perinatal depression in those populations and the lack of available resources for patients who would be deemed “at risk.” Women with histories of depression are at a threefold increased risk for PPD (25%-30%). Depression during pregnancy is the strongest predictor of PPD and risk for PPD among these patients is as high as 75%.

So, there are a vast number of women who may be “at risk” for perinatal depression. But even with some data suggesting that IPT and CBT may be able to prevent perinatal depression, the suggestion that resources be made available to patients who are at risk is naive, because counseling interventions such as IPT or CBT, or even simply referrals to psychiatrists are not available even to patients who screen in for perinatal depression in real time during pregnancy and the postpartum period. I have previously written that the follow-up of women post partum who suffer from PPD is still far from meeting the needs who suffer from the disorder, and early detection and referrals to appropriate clinicians who are facile with both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions seem the most effective way to manage these patients and to see that they receive treatment.

The question then becomes: If the numbers or scale of the prevention initiative suggested in this draft recommendation from the USPSTF is an overreach, is there a group of patients for whom a preventive intervention could be pursued? The patients at highest risk for PPD include those with a history of PPD (50%), bipolar disorder (50%-60%), or postpartum psychosis (80%). And while there is not substantial literature for specifically using IPT, CBT, or other counseling interventions to mitigate risk for recurrence in women with histories of PPD, bipolar disorder, or postpartum psychosis, there are ways of identifying this population at risk and following them closely to mitigate the risk for recurrence.

To make this recommendation feasible, an infrastructure needs to be in place in both low resource settings and in all communities so that these patients can be referred and effectively treated. If we move to prevention, we ought to start with the populations that we already know are at greatest risk and that we can inquire about, and there are very easy-to-use screens that screen for bipolar disorder or that screen for past history of depression with which these women can be identified.

In committee opinion 757, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends women be screened at least once during the perinatal period for depression and anxiety symptoms and highlighted several validated tools, such as the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale.³ We also need a better system of early detection and early intervention so that women at less-considerable risk for perinatal depression would have the opportunity for early identification, treatment, and referral, which we do not have at the current time.

An update of the ACOG committee opinion also states, “It is recommended that all obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers complete a full assessment of mood and emotional well-being (including screening for PPD and anxiety with a validated instrument) during the comprehensive postpartum visit for each patient.” This is recommended in addition to any screening for depression and anxiety during the pregnancy.

It is exciting that after decades of failing to attend to such a common complication of modern obstetrics, we finally have seen a recent increased appreciation for the need to aggressively identify and treat PPD, particularly now that we understand the adverse effects of PPD as it affects child development, family functioning, and risk for later childhood psychopathology. But in addition to recognizing the problem, we must come up with methods to carefully identify a navigable route for the women suffering from PPD to get their needs met. The route includes publicly identifying the illness, understanding which treatments are most effective and can be scaled for delivery to large numbers of women, and then, most critically, configuring social systems to absorb, effectively manage, and monitor the women we identify as needing treatment.

Dr. Cohen is the director of the Ammon-Pinizzotto Center for Women’s Mental Health at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, which provides information resources and conducts clinical care and research in reproductive mental health. He has been a consultant to manufacturers of psychiatric medications. Email him at [email protected].

References

1. J Clin Psychiatry. 2016 Sep;77[9]:1189-200.

2. Draft Recommendation Statement: Perinatal Depression: Preventive Interventions. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Aug 2018.

3. Obstet Gynecol. 2018;132:e208-12.

LAS VEGAS – Gynecologist Michael S. Baggish, MD, offered tips about diagnosis and treatment of vulvar conditions at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

Pubic lice

Treat with malathion 0.5% lotion (Ovide), permethrin 1%-5% (Nix), or lindane 1% (Kwell). Be aware that the U.S. Library of Medicine cautions that lindane can cause serious side effects, and patients should use it only “if there is some reason you cannot use the other medications or if you have tried the other medications and they have not worked.”

Pruritus (itchy skin)

Eliminate possible contact allergens such as soaps, detergents, and undergarments. Swabs with 2% acetic acid solution can assist with general hygiene. It’s important to address secondary infections, and control of diet and stress may be helpful.

Folliculitis (inflammation of hair follicles)

A salt water bath can be helpful. Try 2 cups of “Instant Ocean” – a sea salt product for aquariums – in a shallow bath twice daily.

It can be treated with silver sulfadiazine (Silvadene) cream (three times daily and at bedtime) or clindamycin (Cleocin) cream (three times daily and at bedtime).

Consider a systemic drug after culture results come back if needed.
 

Lichen sclerosus (a skin inflammation also known as white spot disease)

“I see a lot of lichen sclerosus,” Dr. Baggish said. “Every single practice day, I’m seeing two or three [cases].”

Topical treatments include testosterone cream (which has low efficacy) and topical corticosteroid creams and ointments (the standard treatment).

Other treatments provide better and more consistent results: Etretinate (Tegison), a retinoid that is expensive and can produce serious side effects, and injectable dexamethasone (Decadron), which can stop progression.

Be aware that 10% of patients with this condition may develop squamous cell carcinoma. Monitor for any changes in appearance and biopsy if needed.

Behçet’s disease (a blood vessel inflammation disorder also known as silk road disease)

This rare condition can cause mouth and genital ulcers and uveitis (eye inflammation). For treatment, start 40 mg prednisone for 2-3 days, then 20 mg for 2 days, then 10 mg for 4 days, then stop. Start treatment immediately if there are signs of an oral lesion.

Fox-Fordyce disease (an inflammatory response that blocks sweat ducts and causes intense itching)

Treatment includes estrogen (2.5 mg per day) and tretinoin (Retin-A, apply once daily), usually given together. Suggest that patients try the Instant Ocean salt water treatment in the bath once daily (see details above under folliculitis entry).

Genital warts

Vaporize the warts via laser. “If they look like they’re recurring, I put them on interferon for 3 months because otherwise they just keep recurring,” Dr. Baggish said. “You could put topical treatments on them, but they’ll recur.”

Dr. Baggish, of the University of California, San Francisco, had no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Gynecologist Michael S. Baggish, MD, offered tips about diagnosis and treatment of vulvar conditions at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

Pubic lice

Treat with malathion 0.5% lotion (Ovide), permethrin 1%-5% (Nix), or lindane 1% (Kwell). Be aware that the U.S. Library of Medicine cautions that lindane can cause serious side effects, and patients should use it only “if there is some reason you cannot use the other medications or if you have tried the other medications and they have not worked.”

Pruritus (itchy skin)

Eliminate possible contact allergens such as soaps, detergents, and undergarments. Swabs with 2% acetic acid solution can assist with general hygiene. It’s important to address secondary infections, and control of diet and stress may be helpful.

Folliculitis (inflammation of hair follicles)

A salt water bath can be helpful. Try 2 cups of “Instant Ocean” – a sea salt product for aquariums – in a shallow bath twice daily.

It can be treated with silver sulfadiazine (Silvadene) cream (three times daily and at bedtime) or clindamycin (Cleocin) cream (three times daily and at bedtime).

Consider a systemic drug after culture results come back if needed.
 

Lichen sclerosus (a skin inflammation also known as white spot disease)

“I see a lot of lichen sclerosus,” Dr. Baggish said. “Every single practice day, I’m seeing two or three [cases].”

Topical treatments include testosterone cream (which has low efficacy) and topical corticosteroid creams and ointments (the standard treatment).

Other treatments provide better and more consistent results: Etretinate (Tegison), a retinoid that is expensive and can produce serious side effects, and injectable dexamethasone (Decadron), which can stop progression.

Be aware that 10% of patients with this condition may develop squamous cell carcinoma. Monitor for any changes in appearance and biopsy if needed.

Behçet’s disease (a blood vessel inflammation disorder also known as silk road disease)

This rare condition can cause mouth and genital ulcers and uveitis (eye inflammation). For treatment, start 40 mg prednisone for 2-3 days, then 20 mg for 2 days, then 10 mg for 4 days, then stop. Start treatment immediately if there are signs of an oral lesion.

Fox-Fordyce disease (an inflammatory response that blocks sweat ducts and causes intense itching)

Treatment includes estrogen (2.5 mg per day) and tretinoin (Retin-A, apply once daily), usually given together. Suggest that patients try the Instant Ocean salt water treatment in the bath once daily (see details above under folliculitis entry).

Genital warts

Vaporize the warts via laser. “If they look like they’re recurring, I put them on interferon for 3 months because otherwise they just keep recurring,” Dr. Baggish said. “You could put topical treatments on them, but they’ll recur.”

Dr. Baggish, of the University of California, San Francisco, had no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

LAS VEGAS – Gynecologist Michael S. Baggish, MD, offered tips about diagnosis and treatment of vulvar conditions at the Pelvic Anatomy and Gynecologic Surgery Symposium.

Pubic lice

Treat with malathion 0.5% lotion (Ovide), permethrin 1%-5% (Nix), or lindane 1% (Kwell). Be aware that the U.S. Library of Medicine cautions that lindane can cause serious side effects, and patients should use it only “if there is some reason you cannot use the other medications or if you have tried the other medications and they have not worked.”

Pruritus (itchy skin)

Eliminate possible contact allergens such as soaps, detergents, and undergarments. Swabs with 2% acetic acid solution can assist with general hygiene. It’s important to address secondary infections, and control of diet and stress may be helpful.

Folliculitis (inflammation of hair follicles)

A salt water bath can be helpful. Try 2 cups of “Instant Ocean” – a sea salt product for aquariums – in a shallow bath twice daily.

It can be treated with silver sulfadiazine (Silvadene) cream (three times daily and at bedtime) or clindamycin (Cleocin) cream (three times daily and at bedtime).

Consider a systemic drug after culture results come back if needed.
 

Lichen sclerosus (a skin inflammation also known as white spot disease)

“I see a lot of lichen sclerosus,” Dr. Baggish said. “Every single practice day, I’m seeing two or three [cases].”

Topical treatments include testosterone cream (which has low efficacy) and topical corticosteroid creams and ointments (the standard treatment).

Other treatments provide better and more consistent results: Etretinate (Tegison), a retinoid that is expensive and can produce serious side effects, and injectable dexamethasone (Decadron), which can stop progression.

Be aware that 10% of patients with this condition may develop squamous cell carcinoma. Monitor for any changes in appearance and biopsy if needed.

Behçet’s disease (a blood vessel inflammation disorder also known as silk road disease)

This rare condition can cause mouth and genital ulcers and uveitis (eye inflammation). For treatment, start 40 mg prednisone for 2-3 days, then 20 mg for 2 days, then 10 mg for 4 days, then stop. Start treatment immediately if there are signs of an oral lesion.

Fox-Fordyce disease (an inflammatory response that blocks sweat ducts and causes intense itching)

Treatment includes estrogen (2.5 mg per day) and tretinoin (Retin-A, apply once daily), usually given together. Suggest that patients try the Instant Ocean salt water treatment in the bath once daily (see details above under folliculitis entry).

Genital warts

Vaporize the warts via laser. “If they look like they’re recurring, I put them on interferon for 3 months because otherwise they just keep recurring,” Dr. Baggish said. “You could put topical treatments on them, but they’ll recur.”

Dr. Baggish, of the University of California, San Francisco, had no relevant financial disclosures. The meeting was jointly provided by Global Academy for Medical Education and the University of Cincinnati. Global Academy and this news organization are owned by the same company.

Insulin may be toxic to the placenta during early pregnancy, causing DNA damage, decreased cell survival, and apoptosis, but the toxic effects appear to be prevented with metformin, according to findings from an experimental in vitro study published in Fertility and Sterility.

iStock/ThinkStock

“Collectively these results demonstrate that insulin itself may be directly toxic to the early human placenta but that metformin can prevent these deleterious effects,” wrote Mario Vega, MD, of Columbia University Fertility Center, New York, and his colleagues. “If confirmed in animal and human studies, this would indicate that screening and treatment for insulin resistance should focus on hyperinsulinemia.”

Dr. Vega and his colleagues cultivated trophoblast cells from three healthy women scheduled for manual vacuum aspiration during the first trimester of pregnancy to study the effects of insulin exposure alone, while trophoblast cells were cultured from a different set of women for the insulin and metformin follow-up experiments. The researchers tested each experiment against a control group of cultivated lung fibroblast cells. Insulin was measured in doses of 0.2 nmol, 1 nmol, and 5 nmol, while metformin was measured at 10 micromol. The primary outcome measures examined were gamma-H2AX for DNA damage, cell proliferation assay for cell survival, and cleaved caspase-3 for apoptosis.

Within 48 hours, the cultures showed DNA damage and induction of apoptosis when exposed to 1 nmol of insulin, but researchers said pretreatment with metformin prevented these effects. Exposing cells to metformin after insulin reduced but did not eliminate the effects of insulin.

The researchers noted the study is limited because the effects of insulin and metformin have not been examined in vivo, and it is not known at what level insulin causes damage. In addition, they suggested downregulation of genes in trophoblasts caused by insulin could cause apoptosis and DNA damage to trophoblast cells.

“Although studies performed on kidney and colon cells suggest that one possible mechanism of action for insulin-mediated genotoxicity is through AKT activation of mitochondria and subsequent reactive oxygen species production, the exact mechanism is poorly understood,” Dr. Vega and colleagues said. “Future studies will be necessary to determine variability among subjects, as well as mechanisms of action through which insulin exerts its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Human Placenta Project. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Vega M et al. Fertil Steril. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.032.

Insulin may be toxic to the placenta during early pregnancy, causing DNA damage, decreased cell survival, and apoptosis, but the toxic effects appear to be prevented with metformin, according to findings from an experimental in vitro study published in Fertility and Sterility.

iStock/ThinkStock

“Collectively these results demonstrate that insulin itself may be directly toxic to the early human placenta but that metformin can prevent these deleterious effects,” wrote Mario Vega, MD, of Columbia University Fertility Center, New York, and his colleagues. “If confirmed in animal and human studies, this would indicate that screening and treatment for insulin resistance should focus on hyperinsulinemia.”

Dr. Vega and his colleagues cultivated trophoblast cells from three healthy women scheduled for manual vacuum aspiration during the first trimester of pregnancy to study the effects of insulin exposure alone, while trophoblast cells were cultured from a different set of women for the insulin and metformin follow-up experiments. The researchers tested each experiment against a control group of cultivated lung fibroblast cells. Insulin was measured in doses of 0.2 nmol, 1 nmol, and 5 nmol, while metformin was measured at 10 micromol. The primary outcome measures examined were gamma-H2AX for DNA damage, cell proliferation assay for cell survival, and cleaved caspase-3 for apoptosis.

Within 48 hours, the cultures showed DNA damage and induction of apoptosis when exposed to 1 nmol of insulin, but researchers said pretreatment with metformin prevented these effects. Exposing cells to metformin after insulin reduced but did not eliminate the effects of insulin.

The researchers noted the study is limited because the effects of insulin and metformin have not been examined in vivo, and it is not known at what level insulin causes damage. In addition, they suggested downregulation of genes in trophoblasts caused by insulin could cause apoptosis and DNA damage to trophoblast cells.

“Although studies performed on kidney and colon cells suggest that one possible mechanism of action for insulin-mediated genotoxicity is through AKT activation of mitochondria and subsequent reactive oxygen species production, the exact mechanism is poorly understood,” Dr. Vega and colleagues said. “Future studies will be necessary to determine variability among subjects, as well as mechanisms of action through which insulin exerts its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Human Placenta Project. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Vega M et al. Fertil Steril. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.032.

Insulin may be toxic to the placenta during early pregnancy, causing DNA damage, decreased cell survival, and apoptosis, but the toxic effects appear to be prevented with metformin, according to findings from an experimental in vitro study published in Fertility and Sterility.

iStock/ThinkStock

“Collectively these results demonstrate that insulin itself may be directly toxic to the early human placenta but that metformin can prevent these deleterious effects,” wrote Mario Vega, MD, of Columbia University Fertility Center, New York, and his colleagues. “If confirmed in animal and human studies, this would indicate that screening and treatment for insulin resistance should focus on hyperinsulinemia.”

Dr. Vega and his colleagues cultivated trophoblast cells from three healthy women scheduled for manual vacuum aspiration during the first trimester of pregnancy to study the effects of insulin exposure alone, while trophoblast cells were cultured from a different set of women for the insulin and metformin follow-up experiments. The researchers tested each experiment against a control group of cultivated lung fibroblast cells. Insulin was measured in doses of 0.2 nmol, 1 nmol, and 5 nmol, while metformin was measured at 10 micromol. The primary outcome measures examined were gamma-H2AX for DNA damage, cell proliferation assay for cell survival, and cleaved caspase-3 for apoptosis.

Within 48 hours, the cultures showed DNA damage and induction of apoptosis when exposed to 1 nmol of insulin, but researchers said pretreatment with metformin prevented these effects. Exposing cells to metformin after insulin reduced but did not eliminate the effects of insulin.

The researchers noted the study is limited because the effects of insulin and metformin have not been examined in vivo, and it is not known at what level insulin causes damage. In addition, they suggested downregulation of genes in trophoblasts caused by insulin could cause apoptosis and DNA damage to trophoblast cells.

“Although studies performed on kidney and colon cells suggest that one possible mechanism of action for insulin-mediated genotoxicity is through AKT activation of mitochondria and subsequent reactive oxygen species production, the exact mechanism is poorly understood,” Dr. Vega and colleagues said. “Future studies will be necessary to determine variability among subjects, as well as mechanisms of action through which insulin exerts its cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.”

This study was funded by a grant from the National Institutes of Health Human Placenta Project. The authors reported no relevant financial disclosures.
 

SOURCE: Vega M et al. Fertil Steril. 2019. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.11.032.

In pregnant women with arthritis, discontinuing tumor necrosis factor inhibitors prior to gestational week 20 seems feasible without an increased risk of disease worsening, particularly in those with well-controlled disease, according to authors of a recent analysis of a prospective cohort study.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Stopping tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment at that point in the second trimester was not linked to any clinically important worsening of patient-reported outcomes later in pregnancy for women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the researchers said.

However, continuing a TNFi past gestational week 20 may also be warranted for some patients, according to the researchers, led by Frauke Förger, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).

“In case of active disease, the continuation of TNF inhibitors beyond gestational week 20 seems reasonable from the standpoint of improved disease activity in the third trimester, which may in turn lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Förger and her coinvestigators wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

These findings stand in contrast to those of another recent study, in which stopping a TNF inhibitor after a positive pregnancy test was linked to disease flares in women with RA, according to the authors.

“The timing of drug discontinuation during pregnancy may be of importance,” they said in their report.

Beyond these studies, there are very limited data on the effects of discontinuing TNF inhibitors in pregnant women with rheumatoid arthritis, and “a lack of any data” in pregnant women with JIA, they said.

The current investigation by Dr. Förger and her colleagues included 490 pregnant women in the United States or Canada who were enrolled in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Project, a prospective cohort study. Of those women, 397 had RA and 93 had JIA.

About one-quarter of the women (122, or 24.9%) discontinued TNF inhibitor therapy prior to gestational week 20, while 41% continued on TNF inhibitors beyond that point, and 34.1% did not use a TNF inhibitor in pregnancy.

For those women who discontinued TNF inhibitors before gestational week 20, scores on the Patient Activity Scale (PAS) were stable over time, Dr. Förger and her colleagues reported.

Women who continued TNF inhibitor treatment past gestational week 20 had improved PAS scores in the third trimester, according to results of a univariate analysis (P = .02). However, the improvement appeared to be attenuated after adjustment for factors including race, smoking, use of prednisone or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and gestational age, the investigators said.

They were unable to analyze the effects of ongoing TNFi treatment or discontinuation on patients with JIA separately because of the limited number of such patients in each group.

Another limitation of the study is that a high proportion of women – nearly three-quarters – had low disease activity at the start of pregnancy, according to the investigators, who said that group of women might expect some degree of improvement in the third trimester with or without TNF inhibitor discontinuation.

“In this context, the ameliorating effect of pregnancy on RA and JIA, which is most pronounced in the third trimester, may play a role,” they explained.

A certain proportion of women choose to discontinue certain arthritis treatments during pregnancy because of concerns that the medication may lead to fetal harm, but that may be changing, the investigators noted in their report.

“In recent years, more patients requiring treatment have been continuing on effective TNF inhibitors beyond conception as the available data on the safety of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has increased,” they wrote.

Dr. Förger and her coauthors reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Financial support for the OTIS Collaborative Research Group comes from industry sources including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hoffman La Roche-Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, and UCB, among others.

SOURCE: Förger F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/art.40821

In pregnant women with arthritis, discontinuing tumor necrosis factor inhibitors prior to gestational week 20 seems feasible without an increased risk of disease worsening, particularly in those with well-controlled disease, according to authors of a recent analysis of a prospective cohort study.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Stopping tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment at that point in the second trimester was not linked to any clinically important worsening of patient-reported outcomes later in pregnancy for women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the researchers said.

However, continuing a TNFi past gestational week 20 may also be warranted for some patients, according to the researchers, led by Frauke Förger, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).

“In case of active disease, the continuation of TNF inhibitors beyond gestational week 20 seems reasonable from the standpoint of improved disease activity in the third trimester, which may in turn lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Förger and her coinvestigators wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

These findings stand in contrast to those of another recent study, in which stopping a TNF inhibitor after a positive pregnancy test was linked to disease flares in women with RA, according to the authors.

“The timing of drug discontinuation during pregnancy may be of importance,” they said in their report.

Beyond these studies, there are very limited data on the effects of discontinuing TNF inhibitors in pregnant women with rheumatoid arthritis, and “a lack of any data” in pregnant women with JIA, they said.

The current investigation by Dr. Förger and her colleagues included 490 pregnant women in the United States or Canada who were enrolled in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Project, a prospective cohort study. Of those women, 397 had RA and 93 had JIA.

About one-quarter of the women (122, or 24.9%) discontinued TNF inhibitor therapy prior to gestational week 20, while 41% continued on TNF inhibitors beyond that point, and 34.1% did not use a TNF inhibitor in pregnancy.

For those women who discontinued TNF inhibitors before gestational week 20, scores on the Patient Activity Scale (PAS) were stable over time, Dr. Förger and her colleagues reported.

Women who continued TNF inhibitor treatment past gestational week 20 had improved PAS scores in the third trimester, according to results of a univariate analysis (P = .02). However, the improvement appeared to be attenuated after adjustment for factors including race, smoking, use of prednisone or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and gestational age, the investigators said.

They were unable to analyze the effects of ongoing TNFi treatment or discontinuation on patients with JIA separately because of the limited number of such patients in each group.

Another limitation of the study is that a high proportion of women – nearly three-quarters – had low disease activity at the start of pregnancy, according to the investigators, who said that group of women might expect some degree of improvement in the third trimester with or without TNF inhibitor discontinuation.

“In this context, the ameliorating effect of pregnancy on RA and JIA, which is most pronounced in the third trimester, may play a role,” they explained.

A certain proportion of women choose to discontinue certain arthritis treatments during pregnancy because of concerns that the medication may lead to fetal harm, but that may be changing, the investigators noted in their report.

“In recent years, more patients requiring treatment have been continuing on effective TNF inhibitors beyond conception as the available data on the safety of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has increased,” they wrote.

Dr. Förger and her coauthors reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Financial support for the OTIS Collaborative Research Group comes from industry sources including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hoffman La Roche-Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, and UCB, among others.

SOURCE: Förger F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/art.40821

In pregnant women with arthritis, discontinuing tumor necrosis factor inhibitors prior to gestational week 20 seems feasible without an increased risk of disease worsening, particularly in those with well-controlled disease, according to authors of a recent analysis of a prospective cohort study.

digitalskillet/Thinkstock

Stopping tumor necrosis factor inhibitor (TNFi) treatment at that point in the second trimester was not linked to any clinically important worsening of patient-reported outcomes later in pregnancy for women with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), the researchers said.

However, continuing a TNFi past gestational week 20 may also be warranted for some patients, according to the researchers, led by Frauke Förger, MD, of the University of Bern (Switzerland).

“In case of active disease, the continuation of TNF inhibitors beyond gestational week 20 seems reasonable from the standpoint of improved disease activity in the third trimester, which may in turn lead to improved pregnancy outcomes,” Dr. Förger and her coinvestigators wrote in Arthritis & Rheumatology.

These findings stand in contrast to those of another recent study, in which stopping a TNF inhibitor after a positive pregnancy test was linked to disease flares in women with RA, according to the authors.

“The timing of drug discontinuation during pregnancy may be of importance,” they said in their report.

Beyond these studies, there are very limited data on the effects of discontinuing TNF inhibitors in pregnant women with rheumatoid arthritis, and “a lack of any data” in pregnant women with JIA, they said.

The current investigation by Dr. Förger and her colleagues included 490 pregnant women in the United States or Canada who were enrolled in the Organization of Teratology Information Specialists (OTIS) Autoimmune Diseases in Pregnancy Project, a prospective cohort study. Of those women, 397 had RA and 93 had JIA.

About one-quarter of the women (122, or 24.9%) discontinued TNF inhibitor therapy prior to gestational week 20, while 41% continued on TNF inhibitors beyond that point, and 34.1% did not use a TNF inhibitor in pregnancy.

For those women who discontinued TNF inhibitors before gestational week 20, scores on the Patient Activity Scale (PAS) were stable over time, Dr. Förger and her colleagues reported.

Women who continued TNF inhibitor treatment past gestational week 20 had improved PAS scores in the third trimester, according to results of a univariate analysis (P = .02). However, the improvement appeared to be attenuated after adjustment for factors including race, smoking, use of prednisone or disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, and gestational age, the investigators said.

They were unable to analyze the effects of ongoing TNFi treatment or discontinuation on patients with JIA separately because of the limited number of such patients in each group.

Another limitation of the study is that a high proportion of women – nearly three-quarters – had low disease activity at the start of pregnancy, according to the investigators, who said that group of women might expect some degree of improvement in the third trimester with or without TNF inhibitor discontinuation.

“In this context, the ameliorating effect of pregnancy on RA and JIA, which is most pronounced in the third trimester, may play a role,” they explained.

A certain proportion of women choose to discontinue certain arthritis treatments during pregnancy because of concerns that the medication may lead to fetal harm, but that may be changing, the investigators noted in their report.

“In recent years, more patients requiring treatment have been continuing on effective TNF inhibitors beyond conception as the available data on the safety of TNF inhibitors during pregnancy has increased,” they wrote.

Dr. Förger and her coauthors reported no financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Financial support for the OTIS Collaborative Research Group comes from industry sources including AbbVie, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Celgene, Hoffman La Roche-Genentech, Janssen, Pfizer, Regeneron, Sandoz, and UCB, among others.

SOURCE: Förger F et al. Arthritis Rheumatol. 2019 Jan 21. doi: 10.1002/art.40821

Pap tests have the reputation of being a simple, noninvasive, low-cost test to offer patients, and, therefore, it is understandable to believe there is no harm in offering it in all situations. However, if inappropriately applied in isolation, performing the Pap test may do more harm than good.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

I recently saw a patient in consultation for cervical cancer. Her story was similar to one I’ve seen many times before. She was a 30-year-old non–English-speaking Hispanic woman who received regular care from the health department clinics.

In April of the prior year, she had noticed abnormal bleeding symptoms including intermenstrual and postcoital bleeding. She visited the health department and reported these symptoms to the provider who performed an examination. According to the provider’s notes, the cervix appeared “abnormal” and a Pap test was done. The result of this Pap test was high-grade dysplasia. The patient was promptly notified of the result and an appointment was arranged with the local ob.gyn. for a consultation, presumably for colposcopy and subsequent appropriate excisional procedure. Unfortunately, the patient did not attend that scheduled appointment. She later recounted to me that it was because she had not understood that it was important. She had a long history of abnormal Pap tests which, in the past, had only required repeat testing or minor interventions such as “freezing.”

Her bleeding symptoms became worse, and she developed abnormal discharge and pain. In November, she presented again for evaluation to the same provider. Now her cervix appeared very abnormal and was described as a “crater.” Again a Pap test was done. This time the Pap test showed “carcinoma,” and the patient was informed that she had cancer and was referred to gynecologic oncology. When I examined this unfortunate young woman, I discovered a 10 cm, stage IIB very locally advanced tumor. She is currently receiving primary chemotherapy/radiation with an approximately 60% probability of cure, and a high likelihood of lifelong sequelae of this toxic therapy.

This case highlights that, even when patients are engaged within our health care system, we can miss the opportunity to diagnose early-stage cancers if we are not utilizing screening versus diagnostic tests appropriately.

The purpose of a Pap test is as a screening test, which are designed to detect disease in asymptomatic individuals. The accuracy of these tests is determined in low-risk (asymptomatic) populations, which influences the pretest probability of disease. In asymptomatic patients with a normal screening test, it is safe to wait out the interval of time for the repeat screening test, because the combination of a low pretest probability and a high sensitivity of the test in finding disease means that there is a very low chance of missing disease.

Dysplasia rarely causes bleeding. However, invasive cervical cancer does. If a patient has a symptom such as abnormal bleeding, they no longer fit into the population with a low pretest probability for having cervical cancer. This same sensitivity of the Pap test in finding disease, combined with the now-higher pretest probability can raise the level of false-negative results to unacceptably high levels.

Patients with symptoms of cervical cancer should not receive screening tests exclusively; they should receive diagnostic tests. For example, Pap tests should not be used in isolation to diagnose pathology in patients with abnormal bleeding or discharge, just as screening mammograms should not be ordered in patients with symptomatic breast lumps, nipple discharge, retraction, etc. (these women should be referred for diagnostic mammography and ultrasound). It is not unusual for gynecologic oncologists to see patients with visible invasive cervical cancer who have only cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 on the preceding Pap test. There is a 34% positive predictive value that a cervical cancer will be found with a high-grade dysplastic Pap test.¹ Cytology is an inferior diagnostic tool, compared with histology, in determining invasive cancer from preinvasive lesions. Cytology is an inferior diagnostic tool, compared with histology, in determining invasive cancer from preinvasive lesions. It analyzes individual cells rather than a piece of tissue with intercellular relationships.

The take-home message for this column is that, if a provider sees an abnormal lesion on a cervix, they should biopsy the visible lesion to obtain a histologic diagnosis. Simply performing a Pap test alone may result in false reassurance and in underestimating the severity of disease.

Some providers will tell me that they have concerns about performing a biopsy on a grossly abnormal cervix for fear that the subsequent bleeding will be difficult to manage in the outpatient setting. This is understandable, although it is unlikely that an office equipped with the ability to perform colposcopy or excisional procedures would not have the necessary equipment to manage this. Prolonged pressure applied to the cervix with topical hemostatic agents or – in extreme cases – vaginal packing with gauze always has been effective for me in these circumstances.

The additional benefit of establishing histologic confirmation prior to referral is expediting care, including additional imaging and referrals to treating providers. If the diagnosis is inadequately established prior to their appointment with a gynecologic oncologist, it can add further delays before definitive surgical or nonsurgical management can be initiated, which is particularly problematic if the patient is experiencing severe bleeding. If the provider feels uncomfortable with proceeding with biopsy, they should inform the patient very clearly that they suspect that there is a cancer of the cervix, and it needs attention from a cancer specialist to confirm the diagnosis. This clear communication will minimize the likelihood that the patient may not show up for the subsequent appointments before her diagnosis is definitively established.

Another common scenario in which Pap tests are inappropriately applied is in the surveillance of endometrial cancer. In 2013, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology released its five “Choosing Wisely” recommendations. This included the recommendation to not perform Pap tests in the surveillance of endometrial cancer. This recommendation was based on a body of evidence that demonstrates screening for endometrial cancer recurrence with Pap smears does not detect vaginal mucosal recurrences any sooner than visualization of lesions on speculum examination.^2,3 These Pap-positive recurrences almost always are visible on exam. Additionally, false positives are common in this population, particularly among women who have had radiation or have atrophic tissues.

Using Pap tests for the surveillance of cervical cancer is somewhat more complicated. Similarly, they do not detect cervical cancer recurrence any sooner than comprehensive examination does. However, this population may suffer from chronic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and there remains a role of the Pap test in screening for future, new HPV-related preinvasive vaginal disease. Therefore, Pap tests, and/or HPV testing can be offered to cervical cancer survivors in accordance with the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines for noncervical cancer patients, with the caveat that, if radiation has been given, false positives are more likely.²

Pap tests clearly have an important role as a screening test in asymptomatic individuals. However, when the patient has a symptom that might be cervical cancer or a visibly suspicious lesion, she should receive a diagnostic test, and Pap tests are not designed for that purpose.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. Cytopathology. 2016 Jun;27(3):201-9.

2. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):3-10.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Nov;123(2):205-7.

Pap tests have the reputation of being a simple, noninvasive, low-cost test to offer patients, and, therefore, it is understandable to believe there is no harm in offering it in all situations. However, if inappropriately applied in isolation, performing the Pap test may do more harm than good.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

I recently saw a patient in consultation for cervical cancer. Her story was similar to one I’ve seen many times before. She was a 30-year-old non–English-speaking Hispanic woman who received regular care from the health department clinics.

In April of the prior year, she had noticed abnormal bleeding symptoms including intermenstrual and postcoital bleeding. She visited the health department and reported these symptoms to the provider who performed an examination. According to the provider’s notes, the cervix appeared “abnormal” and a Pap test was done. The result of this Pap test was high-grade dysplasia. The patient was promptly notified of the result and an appointment was arranged with the local ob.gyn. for a consultation, presumably for colposcopy and subsequent appropriate excisional procedure. Unfortunately, the patient did not attend that scheduled appointment. She later recounted to me that it was because she had not understood that it was important. She had a long history of abnormal Pap tests which, in the past, had only required repeat testing or minor interventions such as “freezing.”

Her bleeding symptoms became worse, and she developed abnormal discharge and pain. In November, she presented again for evaluation to the same provider. Now her cervix appeared very abnormal and was described as a “crater.” Again a Pap test was done. This time the Pap test showed “carcinoma,” and the patient was informed that she had cancer and was referred to gynecologic oncology. When I examined this unfortunate young woman, I discovered a 10 cm, stage IIB very locally advanced tumor. She is currently receiving primary chemotherapy/radiation with an approximately 60% probability of cure, and a high likelihood of lifelong sequelae of this toxic therapy.

This case highlights that, even when patients are engaged within our health care system, we can miss the opportunity to diagnose early-stage cancers if we are not utilizing screening versus diagnostic tests appropriately.

The purpose of a Pap test is as a screening test, which are designed to detect disease in asymptomatic individuals. The accuracy of these tests is determined in low-risk (asymptomatic) populations, which influences the pretest probability of disease. In asymptomatic patients with a normal screening test, it is safe to wait out the interval of time for the repeat screening test, because the combination of a low pretest probability and a high sensitivity of the test in finding disease means that there is a very low chance of missing disease.

Dysplasia rarely causes bleeding. However, invasive cervical cancer does. If a patient has a symptom such as abnormal bleeding, they no longer fit into the population with a low pretest probability for having cervical cancer. This same sensitivity of the Pap test in finding disease, combined with the now-higher pretest probability can raise the level of false-negative results to unacceptably high levels.

Patients with symptoms of cervical cancer should not receive screening tests exclusively; they should receive diagnostic tests. For example, Pap tests should not be used in isolation to diagnose pathology in patients with abnormal bleeding or discharge, just as screening mammograms should not be ordered in patients with symptomatic breast lumps, nipple discharge, retraction, etc. (these women should be referred for diagnostic mammography and ultrasound). It is not unusual for gynecologic oncologists to see patients with visible invasive cervical cancer who have only cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 on the preceding Pap test. There is a 34% positive predictive value that a cervical cancer will be found with a high-grade dysplastic Pap test.¹ Cytology is an inferior diagnostic tool, compared with histology, in determining invasive cancer from preinvasive lesions. Cytology is an inferior diagnostic tool, compared with histology, in determining invasive cancer from preinvasive lesions. It analyzes individual cells rather than a piece of tissue with intercellular relationships.

The take-home message for this column is that, if a provider sees an abnormal lesion on a cervix, they should biopsy the visible lesion to obtain a histologic diagnosis. Simply performing a Pap test alone may result in false reassurance and in underestimating the severity of disease.

Some providers will tell me that they have concerns about performing a biopsy on a grossly abnormal cervix for fear that the subsequent bleeding will be difficult to manage in the outpatient setting. This is understandable, although it is unlikely that an office equipped with the ability to perform colposcopy or excisional procedures would not have the necessary equipment to manage this. Prolonged pressure applied to the cervix with topical hemostatic agents or – in extreme cases – vaginal packing with gauze always has been effective for me in these circumstances.

The additional benefit of establishing histologic confirmation prior to referral is expediting care, including additional imaging and referrals to treating providers. If the diagnosis is inadequately established prior to their appointment with a gynecologic oncologist, it can add further delays before definitive surgical or nonsurgical management can be initiated, which is particularly problematic if the patient is experiencing severe bleeding. If the provider feels uncomfortable with proceeding with biopsy, they should inform the patient very clearly that they suspect that there is a cancer of the cervix, and it needs attention from a cancer specialist to confirm the diagnosis. This clear communication will minimize the likelihood that the patient may not show up for the subsequent appointments before her diagnosis is definitively established.

Another common scenario in which Pap tests are inappropriately applied is in the surveillance of endometrial cancer. In 2013, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology released its five “Choosing Wisely” recommendations. This included the recommendation to not perform Pap tests in the surveillance of endometrial cancer. This recommendation was based on a body of evidence that demonstrates screening for endometrial cancer recurrence with Pap smears does not detect vaginal mucosal recurrences any sooner than visualization of lesions on speculum examination.^2,3 These Pap-positive recurrences almost always are visible on exam. Additionally, false positives are common in this population, particularly among women who have had radiation or have atrophic tissues.

Using Pap tests for the surveillance of cervical cancer is somewhat more complicated. Similarly, they do not detect cervical cancer recurrence any sooner than comprehensive examination does. However, this population may suffer from chronic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and there remains a role of the Pap test in screening for future, new HPV-related preinvasive vaginal disease. Therefore, Pap tests, and/or HPV testing can be offered to cervical cancer survivors in accordance with the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines for noncervical cancer patients, with the caveat that, if radiation has been given, false positives are more likely.²

Pap tests clearly have an important role as a screening test in asymptomatic individuals. However, when the patient has a symptom that might be cervical cancer or a visibly suspicious lesion, she should receive a diagnostic test, and Pap tests are not designed for that purpose.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. Cytopathology. 2016 Jun;27(3):201-9.

2. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):3-10.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Nov;123(2):205-7.

Pap tests have the reputation of being a simple, noninvasive, low-cost test to offer patients, and, therefore, it is understandable to believe there is no harm in offering it in all situations. However, if inappropriately applied in isolation, performing the Pap test may do more harm than good.

monkeybusinessimages/iStock/Getty Images

I recently saw a patient in consultation for cervical cancer. Her story was similar to one I’ve seen many times before. She was a 30-year-old non–English-speaking Hispanic woman who received regular care from the health department clinics.

In April of the prior year, she had noticed abnormal bleeding symptoms including intermenstrual and postcoital bleeding. She visited the health department and reported these symptoms to the provider who performed an examination. According to the provider’s notes, the cervix appeared “abnormal” and a Pap test was done. The result of this Pap test was high-grade dysplasia. The patient was promptly notified of the result and an appointment was arranged with the local ob.gyn. for a consultation, presumably for colposcopy and subsequent appropriate excisional procedure. Unfortunately, the patient did not attend that scheduled appointment. She later recounted to me that it was because she had not understood that it was important. She had a long history of abnormal Pap tests which, in the past, had only required repeat testing or minor interventions such as “freezing.”

Her bleeding symptoms became worse, and she developed abnormal discharge and pain. In November, she presented again for evaluation to the same provider. Now her cervix appeared very abnormal and was described as a “crater.” Again a Pap test was done. This time the Pap test showed “carcinoma,” and the patient was informed that she had cancer and was referred to gynecologic oncology. When I examined this unfortunate young woman, I discovered a 10 cm, stage IIB very locally advanced tumor. She is currently receiving primary chemotherapy/radiation with an approximately 60% probability of cure, and a high likelihood of lifelong sequelae of this toxic therapy.

This case highlights that, even when patients are engaged within our health care system, we can miss the opportunity to diagnose early-stage cancers if we are not utilizing screening versus diagnostic tests appropriately.

The purpose of a Pap test is as a screening test, which are designed to detect disease in asymptomatic individuals. The accuracy of these tests is determined in low-risk (asymptomatic) populations, which influences the pretest probability of disease. In asymptomatic patients with a normal screening test, it is safe to wait out the interval of time for the repeat screening test, because the combination of a low pretest probability and a high sensitivity of the test in finding disease means that there is a very low chance of missing disease.

Dysplasia rarely causes bleeding. However, invasive cervical cancer does. If a patient has a symptom such as abnormal bleeding, they no longer fit into the population with a low pretest probability for having cervical cancer. This same sensitivity of the Pap test in finding disease, combined with the now-higher pretest probability can raise the level of false-negative results to unacceptably high levels.

Patients with symptoms of cervical cancer should not receive screening tests exclusively; they should receive diagnostic tests. For example, Pap tests should not be used in isolation to diagnose pathology in patients with abnormal bleeding or discharge, just as screening mammograms should not be ordered in patients with symptomatic breast lumps, nipple discharge, retraction, etc. (these women should be referred for diagnostic mammography and ultrasound). It is not unusual for gynecologic oncologists to see patients with visible invasive cervical cancer who have only cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 3 on the preceding Pap test. There is a 34% positive predictive value that a cervical cancer will be found with a high-grade dysplastic Pap test.¹ Cytology is an inferior diagnostic tool, compared with histology, in determining invasive cancer from preinvasive lesions. Cytology is an inferior diagnostic tool, compared with histology, in determining invasive cancer from preinvasive lesions. It analyzes individual cells rather than a piece of tissue with intercellular relationships.

The take-home message for this column is that, if a provider sees an abnormal lesion on a cervix, they should biopsy the visible lesion to obtain a histologic diagnosis. Simply performing a Pap test alone may result in false reassurance and in underestimating the severity of disease.

Some providers will tell me that they have concerns about performing a biopsy on a grossly abnormal cervix for fear that the subsequent bleeding will be difficult to manage in the outpatient setting. This is understandable, although it is unlikely that an office equipped with the ability to perform colposcopy or excisional procedures would not have the necessary equipment to manage this. Prolonged pressure applied to the cervix with topical hemostatic agents or – in extreme cases – vaginal packing with gauze always has been effective for me in these circumstances.

The additional benefit of establishing histologic confirmation prior to referral is expediting care, including additional imaging and referrals to treating providers. If the diagnosis is inadequately established prior to their appointment with a gynecologic oncologist, it can add further delays before definitive surgical or nonsurgical management can be initiated, which is particularly problematic if the patient is experiencing severe bleeding. If the provider feels uncomfortable with proceeding with biopsy, they should inform the patient very clearly that they suspect that there is a cancer of the cervix, and it needs attention from a cancer specialist to confirm the diagnosis. This clear communication will minimize the likelihood that the patient may not show up for the subsequent appointments before her diagnosis is definitively established.

Another common scenario in which Pap tests are inappropriately applied is in the surveillance of endometrial cancer. In 2013, the Society of Gynecologic Oncology released its five “Choosing Wisely” recommendations. This included the recommendation to not perform Pap tests in the surveillance of endometrial cancer. This recommendation was based on a body of evidence that demonstrates screening for endometrial cancer recurrence with Pap smears does not detect vaginal mucosal recurrences any sooner than visualization of lesions on speculum examination.^2,3 These Pap-positive recurrences almost always are visible on exam. Additionally, false positives are common in this population, particularly among women who have had radiation or have atrophic tissues.

Using Pap tests for the surveillance of cervical cancer is somewhat more complicated. Similarly, they do not detect cervical cancer recurrence any sooner than comprehensive examination does. However, this population may suffer from chronic human papillomavirus (HPV) infection, and there remains a role of the Pap test in screening for future, new HPV-related preinvasive vaginal disease. Therefore, Pap tests, and/or HPV testing can be offered to cervical cancer survivors in accordance with the American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology guidelines for noncervical cancer patients, with the caveat that, if radiation has been given, false positives are more likely.²

Pap tests clearly have an important role as a screening test in asymptomatic individuals. However, when the patient has a symptom that might be cervical cancer or a visibly suspicious lesion, she should receive a diagnostic test, and Pap tests are not designed for that purpose.

Dr. Rossi is assistant professor in the division of gynecologic oncology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She said she had no conflicts of interest. Email Dr. Rossi at [email protected].

References

1. Cytopathology. 2016 Jun;27(3):201-9.

2. Gynecol Oncol. 2017 Jul;146(1):3-10.

3. Gynecol Oncol. 2011 Nov;123(2):205-7.

Physicians who are also mothers have a higher risk of burnout and mood and anxiety disorders if they are also caring for someone with a serious illness or disability outside of work, according to a cross-sectional survey reported in a letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

“Our findings highlight the additional caregiving responsibilities of some women physicians and the potential consequences of these additional responsibilities for their behavioral health and careers,” wrote Veronica Yank, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues.

“To reduce burnout and improve workforce retention, health care systems should develop new approaches to identify and address the needs of these physician mothers,” they wrote.

The researchers used data from a June-July 2016 online survey of respondents from the Physicians Moms Group online community. Approximately 16,059 members saw the posting for the survey, and 5,613 United States–based mothers participated.

Among the questions was one on non–work related caregiving responsibilities that asked whether the respondent provided “regular care or assistance to a friend or family member with a serious health problem, long-term illness or disability” during the last year. Other questions assessed alcohol and drug use, history of a mood or anxiety disorder, career satisfaction and burnout.

Among the 16.4% of respondents who had additional caregiving responsibilities outside of work for someone chronically or seriously ill or disabled, nearly half (48.3%) said they cared for ill parents, 16.9% for children or infants, 7.7% for a partner, and 28.6% for another relative. In addition, 16.7% of respondents had such caregiving responsibilities for more than one person.

The women with these extra caregiving responsibilities were 21% more likely to have a mood or anxiety disorder (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; P = .02) and 25% more likely to report burnout (aRR, 1.25; P = .007), compared with those who did not have such extra responsibilities.

There were no significant differences, however, on rates of career satisfaction, risky drinking behaviors, or substance abuse between physician mothers who did have additional caregiving responsibilities and those who did not.

Among the study’s limitations were its cross-sectional nature, use of a convenience sample that may not be generalizable or representative, and lack of data on fathers or non-parent physicians for comparison.

SOURCE: Yank V et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6411.

Physicians who are also mothers have a higher risk of burnout and mood and anxiety disorders if they are also caring for someone with a serious illness or disability outside of work, according to a cross-sectional survey reported in a letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

“Our findings highlight the additional caregiving responsibilities of some women physicians and the potential consequences of these additional responsibilities for their behavioral health and careers,” wrote Veronica Yank, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues.

“To reduce burnout and improve workforce retention, health care systems should develop new approaches to identify and address the needs of these physician mothers,” they wrote.

The researchers used data from a June-July 2016 online survey of respondents from the Physicians Moms Group online community. Approximately 16,059 members saw the posting for the survey, and 5,613 United States–based mothers participated.

Among the questions was one on non–work related caregiving responsibilities that asked whether the respondent provided “regular care or assistance to a friend or family member with a serious health problem, long-term illness or disability” during the last year. Other questions assessed alcohol and drug use, history of a mood or anxiety disorder, career satisfaction and burnout.

Among the 16.4% of respondents who had additional caregiving responsibilities outside of work for someone chronically or seriously ill or disabled, nearly half (48.3%) said they cared for ill parents, 16.9% for children or infants, 7.7% for a partner, and 28.6% for another relative. In addition, 16.7% of respondents had such caregiving responsibilities for more than one person.

The women with these extra caregiving responsibilities were 21% more likely to have a mood or anxiety disorder (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; P = .02) and 25% more likely to report burnout (aRR, 1.25; P = .007), compared with those who did not have such extra responsibilities.

There were no significant differences, however, on rates of career satisfaction, risky drinking behaviors, or substance abuse between physician mothers who did have additional caregiving responsibilities and those who did not.

Among the study’s limitations were its cross-sectional nature, use of a convenience sample that may not be generalizable or representative, and lack of data on fathers or non-parent physicians for comparison.

SOURCE: Yank V et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6411.

Physicians who are also mothers have a higher risk of burnout and mood and anxiety disorders if they are also caring for someone with a serious illness or disability outside of work, according to a cross-sectional survey reported in a letter in JAMA Internal Medicine.

PeopleImages/E+/Getty Images

“Our findings highlight the additional caregiving responsibilities of some women physicians and the potential consequences of these additional responsibilities for their behavioral health and careers,” wrote Veronica Yank, MD, of the department of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco, and her colleagues.

“To reduce burnout and improve workforce retention, health care systems should develop new approaches to identify and address the needs of these physician mothers,” they wrote.

The researchers used data from a June-July 2016 online survey of respondents from the Physicians Moms Group online community. Approximately 16,059 members saw the posting for the survey, and 5,613 United States–based mothers participated.

Among the questions was one on non–work related caregiving responsibilities that asked whether the respondent provided “regular care or assistance to a friend or family member with a serious health problem, long-term illness or disability” during the last year. Other questions assessed alcohol and drug use, history of a mood or anxiety disorder, career satisfaction and burnout.

Among the 16.4% of respondents who had additional caregiving responsibilities outside of work for someone chronically or seriously ill or disabled, nearly half (48.3%) said they cared for ill parents, 16.9% for children or infants, 7.7% for a partner, and 28.6% for another relative. In addition, 16.7% of respondents had such caregiving responsibilities for more than one person.

The women with these extra caregiving responsibilities were 21% more likely to have a mood or anxiety disorder (adjusted relative risk, 1.21; P = .02) and 25% more likely to report burnout (aRR, 1.25; P = .007), compared with those who did not have such extra responsibilities.

There were no significant differences, however, on rates of career satisfaction, risky drinking behaviors, or substance abuse between physician mothers who did have additional caregiving responsibilities and those who did not.

Among the study’s limitations were its cross-sectional nature, use of a convenience sample that may not be generalizable or representative, and lack of data on fathers or non-parent physicians for comparison.

SOURCE: Yank V et al. JAMA Intern Med. 2019 Jan 28. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.6411.