Here is what the FDA concluded about a possible association between breast implants and a rare form of non-Hodgkins lymphoma called anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Read more here.
It is not possible to confirm with statistical certainty that breast implants cause ALCL. At this time, data appear to indicate that the incidence of ALCL is very low, even in breast implant patients. Currently it is not possible to identify a type of implant (silicone versus saline) or a reason for implant (reconstruction versus aesthetic augmentation) associated with a smaller or greater risk.
The FDA also noted 3 in 100 million women per year in the United States are diagnosed with ALCL in the breast. As in 0.000003% of women.
There were 60 reported cases of ALCL in women with breast implants worldwide from 1997-2010. The average time women between getting implants and a ALCL diagnosis was 8 years.
Should women with implants be concerned? The FDA suggests follow up for any persistent swelling or fluid build up. And cautions that over-reaction could lead to even worse problems for women:
“..if we biopsy every abnormality – such as a minor thickening or fluid accumulation adjacent to a breast implant – we’ll hike up the costs and, more importantly, the complications associated: With every needle stick there’s a risk of infection, additional scar formation and more. On the other hand, you wouldn’t want to overlook a treatable, early-stage lymphoma. Women need to know of the risks of implants, which can only be determined if doctors thoroughly investigate these sorts of complications.”
And the risk of dying? Early diagnosis and treatment for all forms ALCL is essentially a cure. And relative to the risks of dying from heart disease and diabetes the risks seem fairly insignificant.
But if you read most of the media outlets and websites in the last couple of days you would have thought that implants were “linked” conclusively to an increased risk of cancer for every woman who has them:
Chicago Sun-Times - Monifa Thomas -
Boston Globe - Deborah Kotz -
Wall Street Journal - Jennifer Corbett Dooren, Alicia Mundy -
ABC News - Lara Salahi
Bloomberg - Catherine Larkin
AP’s Matt Perrone did a great job reporting the real risk-benefit bottom line but the Huffington Post managed to turn his account inside out with this headline:
Blogs were not much better for the most part:
New York Times (blog) - Toby Bilanow
CNN (blog)
WebMD FDA announced that there is a link between breast implants and a very rare form of blood cancer. Read more here
Actually WebMD the FDA used the term “a possible association”
The rare exceptions:
FDA Reports on Association of Breast Implants and a Rare Form of Lymphoma
FDA Reports on Association of Breast Implants and a Rare Form of Lymphoma
By Elaine Schattner, M.D., on January 27th, 2011
and
5 hours ago by Katherine Hobson
Even assuming 60 cases among 5 million women, that's about one case per 83333 women. http://blogs.wsj.com/health/
(Actually it is 60 cases among 5 million over 10 years but we should get the point)
Last week the media was congratulating itself for reporting that Andrew Wakefield was a fraud after giving him an evidence free pass for over a decade. But as Gary Schweitzer warned:
“Unfortunately, journalism played a key role in promoting Wakefield's claims. The "Respectful Insolence" blog referred to one journalist as CBS' resident anti-vaccine propagandist. Around the world there were many other examples of journalists' unquestioning acceptance of the vaccine scares.
The BMJ reminds us that "the damage to public health continues, fuelled by unbalanced media reporting and an ineffective response from government, researchers, journals, and the medical profession."
Didn’t take long for mainstream outlets to go back to their unhealthy habits…
