by Diana Zuckerman, Ph.D.
February 22, 2013

Cross-posted from Fem2.0 with permission.

Do you like your body?   If there was a simple way to change it, with no risks, would you do it?

If making that change meant you would put your health at risk and have multiple surgeries for the rest of your life, would you hesitate?

Most women say they don’t like their bodies, and research shows that dissatisfaction usually starts during the middle school years and may never go away.  For many of us, it eases up a little in young adulthood as we come to appreciate our attributes and accept any “flaws,” but insecurities rev up again as aging takes its toll.  It seems ironic that we long to regain the body that seemed so imperfect when we were younger.

In the U.S., there are thousands of products and procedures that feed on women’s insecurities.  Most are ineffective – the pills and products that promise to melt fat away without diet or exercise, or to make cellulite or wrinkles disappear.  But only a few are actually dangerous to our health.  Breast implants are one of those.

The FDA just approved a new kind of breast implant, which many plastic surgeons promise will be safer and better than other kinds of breast implants.  It is made of thick silicone gel (nicknamed “gummy bear implants” for its consistency), which is supposed to prevent it from breaking, leaking, or wrecking havoc with your body.

What’s the proof that this product is safer, or even safe at all?  Apparently, that’s a secret.

When breast implants were first sold in the U.S. in the 1960s, no testing was required to make sure they were safe.  For the next 30 years, more than a million women in the U.S. got breast implants, not realizing that studies on women had never been done to prove they were safe or to determine how many months or years they would last.

In 1990, I was working as an investigator in the U.S. House of Representatives when a Senate staffer called me.  She told me that her mom had gotten breast implants after a mastectomy, which had resulted in terrible problems including silicone leaking out of her nipples.  Her mom was cured of cancer but the implants had put her through hell.  I was sure that the FDA had very strict rules about safety testing, but I promised I’d look into it.

I found out that I was wrong: the FDA had never required clinical trials for breast implants.  We held a Congressional hearing, I continued my investigation, and soon my office – and the media – was full of horror stories about women whose health had been ruined by breast implants.

Thanks to Congressional and media pressure, the FDA changed their policies.  They eventually required breast implant companies to conduct studies on hundreds of women with breast implants, to find out how safe their products were.  Public meetings were held so that women could testify about their experiences, scientists could openly discuss the research, and the media could report what was said.  Some companies failed to do the newly required research and their implants were no longer allowed to be sold in the U.S.  And, although all breast implants were found to have high complication rates, the FDA, under tremendous pressure from implant companies and plastic surgeons, decided that women were capable of making an informed choice about the risks they were willing to take.

I have no doubt that women are capable of making an informed choice.  But the FDA is still not providing the full information that women need to make an informed choice, and neither are the plastic surgeons.

In a giant step backwards, some FDA officials are reverting to their old ways.  They approved “gummy bear” implants with no public meeting and they have not made the study findings public.  Instead, in a press release that the agency quietly released on February 20, they report that the new breast implants have the same kind of complications as other types of implants – such as hard, painful, or lopsided breasts and the need for additional surgery – but don’t say how often those complications occur.  They also reported a new complication: the silicone gel in these new implants can crack.  What happens to women when that happens?  The FDA isn’t saying.

Since I did my investigation in 1990, I have been one of the FDA’s strongest critics and biggest fans.  I have often been horrified by some of the decisions FDA makes to approve unsafe or inadequately tested medical products, but I also know that when the FDA does its job well, it can save millions of lives.

When I did the Congressional hearing on breast implants, I was 7 months pregnant.  My son is now a college senior.  In those 22 years, the FDA regained and is now again at risk of weakening its public health focus, as Congressional pressure on the FDA to protect patients has been replaced by Congressional pressure to get products to market as quickly as possible and thus “create jobs.”  Whether it is breast implants, riskier birth control pills, TB drugs that do more harm than good, or sleeping pills with questionable benefits, the FDA is allowing drugs to be sold that do a lot of harm.  And when the FDA fails to hold medical products to a high standard, it is women – the consumers of most medical products – who are harmed the most.

For more information about the FDA’s recent decision on Allergan breast implants, see http://center4research.org/nrc-in-the-news/press-releases/statement-of-dr-diana-zuckerman-on-fda-approval-of-new-silicone-gel-filled-breast-implant-natrelle-410/.

This article was published in the New York Times, December 23, 2008
By Natasha Singer

For many cancer patients undergoing mastectomies, reconstructive breast surgery can seem like a first step to reclaiming their bodies.

But even as promising new operations are gaining traction at academic medical centers, plastic surgeons often fail to tell patients about them. One reason is that not all surgeons have trained to perform the latest procedures. Another reason is money: some complex surgeries are less profitable for doctors and hospitals, so they have less of an incentive to offer them, doctors say.

“It is clear that many reconstruction patients are not being given the full picture of their options,” said Diana Zuckerman, the president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, a nonprofit group in Washington.

One patient, Felicia Hodges, a 41-year-old magazine publisher in Newburgh, N.Y., chose a double mastectomy after she was found to have cancer of the right breast in 2004. She consulted a plastic surgeon, who offered her only reconstruction with breast implants, she said.

Ms. Hodges chose implants filled with saline, a procedure for which more than a third of reconstruction patients underwent a follow-up operation, studies show.

Ms. Hodges developed wound-healing problems that required her surgeon to remove her right implant, and she was left with a concave chest with a quarter-size hole in it, she said; she described the experience as “worse than the mastectomy.”

Then Ms. Hodges discovered a chat room on the patient-information Web site breastcancer.org, where women share detailed information about breast reconstruction beyond what they may have heard from their doctors.

Ms. Hodges learned of newer, more complex procedures that involve transplanting a wedge of fat and blood vessels from the abdomen or buttocks, which would be refashioned to form new breasts.

“It’s unfortunate that a lot of general surgeons, breast surgeons and plastic surgeons don’t mention it,” said Ms. Hodges, who underwent one of the surgeries, known as a GAP flap, last year. A lifelong athlete and a karate enthusiast, she is now back at her dojo.

To raise awareness of breast reconstruction and to market it to patients, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons has adopted the vocabulary of the movement to support a woman’s freedom to choose an abortion, adjusting it for women with breast cancer. Although women “don’t choose their diagnosis, they can choose to go ahead with reconstruction or not, and with the aid of a knowledgeable plastic surgeon they can choose what their options might be,” Dr. Linda G. Phillips, a plastic surgeon in Galveston, Tex., said in a telephone news conference organized by the plastic surgery society to mark Breast Cancer Awareness Month in October. “Then they have that much more power over their lives if they have that power to choose.”

But for many patients, the options may be limited because their doctors are not proficient in the latest procedures. Dr. Michael F. McGuire, the president-elect of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, said it is not unusual for surgeons to omit telling patients about operations they do not perform. He compared the rise of more complex breast reconstruction to the advent in the late 1980s of minimally invasive laparoscopic surgery of the gallbladder.

“At the time, only a small percentage of surgeons were doing them and doing them well,” said Dr. McGuire, who is chief of plastic surgery at St. Johns Hospital in Santa Monica, Calif. “If you were not familiar with laparoscopic gallbladder surgery, you were still doing it the traditional way with an open great big scar across the abdomen.”

Uneven information about reconstructive options is a subset of a larger problem, said Dr. Amy K. Alderman, an assistant professor of plastic surgery at the University of Michigan Medical School in Ann Arbor. Only one third of women undergoing operations for breast cancer said their general surgeons had discussed reconstruction at all, according to a study by Dr. Alderman of 1,844 women in Los Angeles and Detroit that was published in February in the journal Cancer.

“In the big picture, it would be great if we could just get doctors to tell people they have an option of reconstruction,” Dr. Alderman said.

Once patients are so informed, she added, plastic surgeons should tell them of options beyond implants. “The next hurdle would be letting them know that using their own tissue is an option, because my guess is that they are not even getting that far in the discussion,” Dr. Alderman said.

About 66,000 women in the United States had mastectomies in 2006, the latest figures available, according to the federal government. And about 57,000 women had reconstructive breast surgery last year, according to estimates from the plastic surgery society.

For many of these women, the operations were more about feeling whole again than about restoring their appearance.

Implant surgery is the most popular reconstruction method in the United States. Often performed immediately after a mastectomy, it initially involves the least surgery ­ usually a short procedure to insert a temporary balloonlike device called an expander and the shortest recovery time.

But implants come with the likelihood of future operations. Within four years of implant reconstruction, more than one third of reconstruction patients in clinical studies had undergone a second operation, primarily to fix problems like ruptures and infections, and a few for cosmetic reasons, according to studies submitted by implant makers to the Food and Drug Administration. (Reconstructive patients are more likely to develop complications after implant surgery than cosmetic patients with healthy breast tissue.)

Complication rates for newer flap procedures like the one Ms. Hodges had have not been well studied, though many surgeons say they are less likely to require follow-up operations. The most common flap procedure, named a TRAM flap, for the rectus abdominis muscle, cuts away a portion of abdominal fat, as well as underlying muscle containing blood vessels, and uses the tissue to rebuild a breast. The vessels provide a blood supply for the new breast mound. The procedure promises a more lifelike look and feel, but it carries a risk of a weaker abdominal wall and hernia.

Another flap method, the DIEP free flap, is the newest and most intricate, named for the abdomen’s deep inferior epigastric perforator vessels. It involves moving abdominal fat and blood vessels, but no muscle. The DIEP flap theoretically holds out the promise of a reduced likelihood of abdominal problems. But Dr. Alderman cautioned that researchers have not yet conducted rigorous national studies that would establish a complication rate. Sometimes the flaps fail and need to be surgically removed.

All breast reconstructions involve a tradeoff, said Dr. Scott L. Spear, the chief of plastic surgery at Georgetown University Hospital in Washington. “The implants have a lower investment in the short term and a longer-term higher risk of having to redo it,” said Dr. Spear, who is a paid consultant to the implant maker Allergan. “The flaps have a bigger investment in the short run, but you are less likely to revise it in the long run.”

Dr. Spear said plastic surgeons sometimes fail to mention the flap options for the simple reason that implant surgery can be more profitable. “It’s really embarrassing to say so, but, from a purely selfish point of view, if you are looking at insurance reimbursement for TRAM and DIEP flaps, it’s a loss leader,” Dr. Spear said. “They really require so much time and effort that a surgeon thinks, ‘Man, I can’t afford to do this.’ ”

Nevertheless, Georgetown, long a center of expertise for implant reconstruction, recently hired a plastic surgeon who specializes in the more complicated tissue flaps.

A typical surgeon in Manhattan charges insurers about $7,000 for a one-hour implant reconstruction, but for a DIEP procedure that takes 6 to 12 hours, the going rate is $15,500.

Although health insurers are required by federal law to cover reconstructive breast surgery after mastectomies, the government does not set private insurance rates. Flap reconstruction typically requires a higher out-of-pocket co-payment than implant surgery.

“In certain geographical areas where it is badly reimbursed, it’s a disincentive for plastic surgeons even to do the work,” said Dr. Richard A. D’Amico, a past president of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons, speaking of the flap procedures.

Dr. Stephen R. Colen, the chairman of plastic surgery at Hackensack University Medical Center in New Jersey, said plastic surgeons might also not inform patients about the flap procedures because they lacked the advanced training in microvascular surgery needed to perform them.

“A lot of patients are offered implants because the surgeon does not know how to do the flap, and then the implant fails and they need the flap anyway,” Dr. Colen said.

To counter doctors who might routinely steer patients to implants, Dr. Colen started a program at his hospital in which women can meet directly with an impartial physician’s assistant, who goes over the benefits and drawbacks of reconstruction methods.

“We sort of wanted to take the flow of the patient out of the control of the physician and put it in the hands of a medical person who has no personal or financial interest,” Dr. Colen said.

Dotti Campbell, a retired nurse in Crossville, Tenn., said the plastic surgeon who performed her breast reconstruction after a mastectomy offered her only an implant. “That was his procedure,” said Ms. Campbell. Her first implant developed hardened scar tissue and required replacement. Her replacement implant ruptured. Now she is going to have an operation to replace the second implant, she said.

The DIEP flap was developed by Dr. Robert J. Allen, a plastic surgeon in New York, New Orleans and Charleston, S.C., in 1992. Now surgeons at hospitals including the University of Pennsylvania Health System in Philadelphia and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston specialize in the procedure.

Dr. Allen and Dr. Joshua L. Levine, who operate together in Manhattan, often recommend a prospective patient talk at length with patients of theirs who have had a successful flap procedure, like Ms. Hodges, the magazine publisher and karate student, as well as with those whose first flap reconstructions failed and required a second procedure.

“Patients should not necessarily accept the first thing they hear as the end-all, because that is not necessarily the full story,” Dr. Allen said.

This article was published in the New York Times, January 13, 2009.

In F.D.A. Files, Claims of Rush to Approve Devices

By Gardiner Harris

An official at the Food and Drug Administration overruled front-line agency scientists and approved the sale of an imaging device for breast cancer after receiving a phone call from a Connecticut congressman, according to internal agency documents.

The legislator’s call and its effect on what is supposed to be a science-based approval process is only one of many of accusations in a trove of documents regarding disputes within the agency’s office of device evaluation.

Nine agency scientists complained in May to Andrew C. von Eschenbach, the F.D.A. commissioner, and the agency began an internal review. Dissatisfied with the pace and results of that review, the scientists wrote a letter to Congress in October pleading for an investigation, and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce announced in November that it would begin one. Last week, the scientists wrote a similar letter to President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team.

Agency documents that are part of the internal investigation, including e-mail messages, were provided to The New York Times. Details of the investigations have not previously been made public.

The documents show that front-line agency scientists, like many outside critics of the agency, believe that F.D.A. managers have become too lenient with the industry. In medical reviews and e-mail messages, the scientists criticize the process by which many medical devices gain approval without extensive testing. And in e-mail correspondence, they contend that an agency supervisor improperly forced them to alter reviews of the breast imaging device and others.

William McConagha, the agency’s assistant commissioner for integrity and accountability, said he was continuing to investigate the scientists’ claims. Mr. McConagha said that Dr. von Eschenbach had offered to meet with the nine scientists before Friday, his last day in office.

“We in the Office of Commissioner are extremely concerned about allegations like this,” Mr. McConagha said.

In the documents, Representative Christopher Shays, a Connecticut Republican who lost re-election in November, is described as having called an agency supervisor a year ago to express concern about the fate of a computer device that is supposed to help radiologists detect breast tumors.

The device, the iCAD SecondLook Digital Computer-Aided Detection System for Mammography, is used with screening equipment made by Fujifilm Medical Systems.

Fujifilm Medical is based in Stamford, Conn., the heart of Mr. Shays’s former district. In the documents, Mr. Shays is referred to as “Congressman Fuji.”

“I am the Fuji congressman because I represented that district,” Mr. Shays said in an interview Friday.

Mr. Shays said he had called the agency supervisor only to demand that the agency make a final decision, not that it approve the product.

He scoffed at suggestions in the documents that his call led the supervisor to overrule scientists and approve the device. “That would be idiotic for someone to approve something they don’t think should be approved,” he said.

A spokeswoman for Fujifilm Medical, Courtney A. Kraemer, said the company had called its “local Congressional offices to ask them to help us get clarification on the F.D.A. process.”

The dissenting scientists protested, according to the internal documents, that “iCAD never tested the device by the intended users (i.e. radiologists) under the intended conditions of use. This is the most basic and fundamental requirement of all F.D.A. submissions.”

An internal review said the risks of the iCAD device include missed cancers, “unnecessary biopsy or even surgery (by placing false positive marks) and unnecessary additional radiation.”

Ken Ferry, iCAD’s chief executive, said, “We have done all the appropriate testing to get the product approved.”

Mr. Ferry said that F.D.A. scientists were increasingly asking for more rigorous testing of devices, and that his company complied with those demands.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women and Families, said the Bush administration had “finally made the device approval process so meaningless that it’s intolerable to the scientists who work there.” Ms. Zuckermen, a longtime critic of the agency’s device approval process, particularly as it relates to breast implants, added, “Virtually everything gets approved, no matter what.”

The F.D.A. has a three-tiered approval process for medical devices that, depending on their newness or complexity, requires varying amounts of proof.

A growing chorus of critics contends that the agency requires few devices to complete the most rigorous of these reviews and instead allows most devices to be cleared with minimal oversight. In 2007, 41 devices went through the most rigorous process, compared with 3,052 that had abbreviated reviews.

According to internal documents, some scientists in the agency’s device division seem to agree with these critics. One extensive memorandum argued that F.D.A. managers had encouraged agency reviewers to use the abbreviated process even to approve devices that are so complex or novel that extensive clinical trials should be required.

For instance, Shina Systems, an Israeli company, applied for approval for AngioCt, a device that combines CT images with X-rays to help guide cardiac surgeons during angioplasty and stenting procedures. The company sought an abbreviated review, according to the documents.

An F.D.A. reviewer said the company should conduct a clinical trial to prove that the device works since it is novel and risky.

“Should the images be misleading,” Dr. Brian Lewis, an agency cardiologist, wrote in a memorandum, “F.D.A. could expect immediate misguidance of catheters and possibly puncture of coronary vessels or overaggressive, inappropriate or inadequate stent or balloon use.”

Nonetheless, an F.D.A. supervisor — after meeting with Shina representatives — pressed scientists to consider allowing an abbreviated review, according to the documents. The agency’s decision on the device is pending, according to the documents. Dr. John Smith, a lawyer for Shina, wrote in an e-mail message that he would not comment on “ongoing regulatory matters.”

This news release was published on the FDA website January 26, 2011.

FDA review indicates possible association between breast implants and a rare cancer
Agency requesting health care professionals to report confirmed cases

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today announced a possible association between saline and silicone gel-filled breast implants and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL), a very rare type of cancer. Data reviewed by the FDA suggest that patients with breast implants may have a very small but significant risk of ALCL in the scar capsule adjacent to the implant.

The FDA is requesting that health care professionals report any confirmed cases of ALCL in women with breast implants.

In an effort to ensure that patients receiving breast implants are informed of the possible risk, FDA will be working with breast implant manufacturers in the coming months to update their product labeling materials for patients and health care professionals.

“We need more data and are asking that health care professionals tell us about any confirmed cases they identify,” said William Maisel, M.D., M.P.H., chief scientist and deputy director for science in FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health. “We are working with the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and other experts in the field to establish a breast implant patient registry, which should help us better understand the development of ALCL in women with breast implants.”

According to the National Cancer Institute, ALCL appears in different parts of the body including the lymph nodes and skin. Each year ALCL is diagnosed in about 1 out of 500,000 women in the United States. ALCL located in breast tissue is found in only about 3 out of every 100 million women nationwide without breast implants.

In total, the agency is aware of about 60 cases of ALCL in women with breast implants worldwide. This number is difficult to verify because not all cases were published in the scientific literature and some may be duplicate reports. An estimated 5 million to 10 million women worldwide have breast implants.

The FDA notification is based on a review of scientific literature published between January 1997 and May 2010 and information from other international regulators, scientists, and breast implant manufacturers. The literature review identified 34 unique cases of ALCL in women with both saline and silicone breast implants.

Most cases reviewed by the FDA were diagnosed when patients sought medical treatment for implant-related symptoms such as pain, lumps, swelling, or asymmetry that developed after their initial surgical sites were fully healed. These symptoms were due to collection of fluid (peri-implant seroma), hardening of breast area around the implant (capsular contracture), or masses surrounding the breast implant. Examination of the fluid and capsule surrounding the breast implant led to the ALCL diagnosis.

The FDA is recommending that health care professionals and women pay close attention to breast implants and do the following:

 

• Health care professionals are requested to report all confirmed cases of ALCL in women with breast implants to Medwatch, the FDA’s safety information and adverse event reporting program. Report online or by calling 800-332-1088.
• Health care professionals should consider the possibility of ALCL if a patient has late onset, persistent fluid around the implant (peri-implant seroma). In cases of implant seroma, send fresh seroma fluid for pathology tests to rule out ALCL.
• There is no need for women with breast implants to change their routine medical care and follow-up. ALCL is very rare; it has occurred in only a very small number of the millions of women who have breast implants. Although not specific to ALCL, health care providers should follow standard medical recommendations.
• Women should monitor their breast implants and contact their doctor if they notice any changes.
• Women who are considering breast implant surgery should discuss the risks and benefits with their health care provider.

 

The FDA published its literature review in a document posted on FDA’s website site today titled “Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma (ALCL) in Women with Breast Implants: Preliminary FDA Findings and Analyses.”

The FDA also plans to provide an update on its review of silicone gel-filled breast implants in the spring of 2011. This update will include interim findings from ongoing post-approval studies for silicone gel-filled breast implants currently sold in the United States, adverse event reports submitted to the FDA, and a review of the scientific literature on these products.

By Matthew Perrone, Associated Press
January 5, 2012

WASHINGTON — Consumer safety advocates are questioning the Food and Drug Administration about seemingly incomplete and erroneous data used to affirm the safety of silicone breast implants last year.

The FDA concluded last summer that the silicone-gel implants are basically safe as long as women understand they come with complications. More than one in five women who get implants for breast enhancement will need to have them replaced within five years, the agency’s report concluded.

In August, an outside panel of physicians affirmed the FDA’s decision that the devices should remain available for both breast enhancement and reconstruction.

But the National Research Center for Women and Families says the FDA did not present information that showed women reported lower emotional, mental and physical well-being after implantation. Additionally, the group questions why figures presented by the FDA appear to show implant complications declining over time. The implants are known to fail over time.

“This shows problems with the data, since the complication rates are reported to be cumulative and should therefore stay the same or increase over time,” states Diana Zuckerman, the group’s president, in a letter to the head of FDA’s medical device division.

Most of the FDA’s data on the safety and effectiveness of breast implants comes from long-term studies conducted by the two U.S. manufacturers of the devices, Allergan Inc. of Irvine, Calif., and Mentor, a unit of Johnson & Johnson, based in New Brunswick, N.J.

When the FDA reviewed the initial applications for the devices in 2005, women using Allergan’s implants scored lower on nine out of 12 quality-of-life measures, including mental, social and general health. Women did report higher scores on measures of sexual attractiveness-body esteem.

Women implanted with J&J’s implants also scored worse on measures of physical and mental health. In the 11-page letter, Zuckerman questions why that information was not presented at FDA’s public meeting in August.

“Breast implants are widely advertised and promoted as a way to increase women’s self-esteem and positive feelings about themselves,” said Zuckerman, in an interview with the Associated Press. “But the implant companies’ own data, which the FDA made public in 2005 but ignored last year, shows the opposite.”

Silicone gel breast implants have traveled a long, winding regulatory path at the FDA over the last 20 years. The FDA banned the silicone-gel type in 1992 amid fears they might cause cancer, lupus and other diseases. For more than a decade, only saline-filled implants were available. But when research ruled out most of the disease concern with silicone, regulators returned the implants to the market in 2006 — with the requirement that manufacturers continue studying patients to see how they fare long-term.

When the FDA revisited the devices’ safety last year they relied on eight and 10-year follow-up data from J&J and Allergan, respectively. This followed up on similar data submitted in 2005.

Breast implants are known to rupture and break down over time. But Zuckerman points out in her letter that the company data seem to defy this trend, with complication rates falling over time.

For instance, Allergan’s reported rate of swelling among patients fell from 23 percent in 2005 to 9 percent reported in 2011. Rates of scarring similarly fell from 8 percent to 4 percent.

“This again raises questions about the accuracy of reporting, and whether patients with complications were excluded from the 10-year sample,” writes Zuckerman.

FDA staffers did not immediately respond to a request for comment Thursday.

The questions about FDA’s review of breast implants come amid a wave of recalls and warnings over similar devices across Europe and South America. The implants from French company Poly Implant Prothese are being pulled from the market amid fears they could rupture and leak silicone into the body.

French investigators say the now-defunct company used cheap industrial silicone, not medical-grade silicone, and that more than 1,000 women in France have had one or two implants burst. French health officials have agreed to pay for an estimated 30,000 women in France with the implants have them removed.

Read Dr. Zuckerman’s letter to the head of FDA’s medical device division.