Current Considerations of Breast Implant–Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma in Breast Surgery: a Systematic Review

  • Katherine J. ChoiEmail author
  • Ashley M. Brown
  • Christopher H. Pham
  • Sagar V. Patel
  • Ketan M. Patel
  • Joseph Carey
Hot Topics in Breast Cancer (K Hunt, Section Editor)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Hot Topics in Breast Cancer


Purpose of Review

A systematic review of three databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar) was conducted to appraise the current evidence behind the diagnosis and management of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL). The goal is to help patients make informed decisions regarding reconstruction after breast cancer treatment by educating physicians on the nuances of diagnosis and treatment of BIA-ALCL.

Recent Findings

Following recent statements by the FDA, BIA-ALCL has recently garnered the attention of both patients and plastic surgeons. To date, BIA-ALCL has been almost exclusively associated with textured implants.


BIA-ALCL is a very rare T cell lymphoma that was first described more than 20 years ago. BIA-ALCL usually follows an indolent course and carries an excellent prognosis if treated promptly. However, the pathogenesis of the disease is unclear, and further studies need to be conducted to better understand the disease.


Breast implant associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL) Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) Breast reconstruction Breast cancer Breast implants 


Compliance with Ethical Standard

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Clemens MW, Horwitz SM. NCCN consensus guidelines for the diagnosis and management of breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Aesthet Surg J. 2017. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Horwitz SM, Ansell SM, Ai WZ, Barnes J, Barta SK, Choi M, et al. NCCN guidelines insights: T-cell lymphomas, version 2.2018. J Natl Compr Cancer Netw. 2018;16:123–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Keech JA, Creech BJ. Anaplastic T-cell lymphoma in proximity to a saline-filled breast implant. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1997;100(2).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Doren EL, Miranda RN, Selber JC, et al. U.S. Epidemiology of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017. Scholar
  5. 5•.
    Brody GS, Deapen D, Taylor CR, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma occurring in women with breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015. estimates of developing BIA-ALCL ranged from one in 500,000 to one in 3million women with implants. Demonstrated that disease occurred any time within months to 25 years after implantation.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons. 2015 Plastic Surgery Statistics Report. Accessed August 10, 2019.
  7. 7.
    Miranda RN, Medeiros LJ, Ferrufino-Schmidt MC. Pioneers of breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019.
  8. 8•.
    de Jong D, Vasmel WL, de Boer JP, et al. Anaplastic large-cell lymphoma in women with breast implants. JAMA. 2008;300:2030–5 Demonstrated a positive association between breast im-plants and the development of ALCL, with an odds ratio of 18.2. Although based on small number of cases, patients with implants were deemed to be 18 times more likely to develop ALCL than patients without breast implants.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Collins MS, Miranda RN, Medeiros LJ, et al. Characteristics and treatment of advanced breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Food and Drug Administration: FDA Update on the Safety of Silicone Gel-Filled Breast Implants. 2011. Accessed August 11, 2019.
  11. 11.
    Feldman AL, Harris NL, Stein H, et al. Breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. In: Swerdlow SH, Campo E, Harris NL, et al, eds. WHO classification of tumours of haematopoietic and lymphoid tissues. Revised 4th. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2017:421–422.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Food and Drug Administration: The FDA Requests Allergan Voluntarily Recall Natrelle BIOCELL Textured Breast Implants and Tissue Expanders from the Market to Protect Patients. Accessed August 11, 2019.
  13. 13.
    Food and Drug Administration: Medical Device Reports of Breast Implant-Associated Anaplastic Large Cell Lymphoma. Accessed August 11, 2019.
  14. 14.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group TP. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15••.
    Miranda RN, Aladily TN, Prince M, et al. Breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma: long-term follow-up of 60 patients. Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013. study showed that long-term follow-up of 60 patients who had BIA-ALCL demonstrated excellent overall survival (12 years), especially if the disease was confined to the capsule. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Brown T, Harvie F, Stewart S. A different perspective on breast implant surface texturization and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Aesthet Surg J. 2018. Scholar
  17. 17••.
    Hu H, Johani K, Almatroudi A, et al. Bacterial biofilm infection detected in breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lympho-ma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016. pathogenesis of BIA-ALCL is un-known, but this study helped demonstrate that contamination of the implant during surgery may contribute to chronic in-flammation and BIA-ALCL, because capsules that were affected by BIA-ALCL had different colonization (i.e.,Ralstonia spp.) when compared with control capsules not affected by BIA-ALCL.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tamboto H, Vickery K, Deva AK. Subclinical (biofilm) infection causes capsular contracture in a porcine model following augmentation mammaplasty. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126:835–42.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deva AK, Adams WP Jr, Vickery K. The role of bacterial biofilms in device-associated infection. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2013;132(5):1319–28.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jacombs A, Tahir S, Hu H, et al. In vitro and in vivo investigation of the influence of implant surface on the formation of bacterial biofilm in mammary implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:471e–80e.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Blombery P, Thompson E, Ryland GL, Joyce R, Byrne DJ, Khoo C, et al. Frequent activating STAT3 mutations and novel recurrent genomic abnormalities detected in breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Oncotarget. 2018;9(90):36126–36.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tevis SE, Hunt KK, Miranda RN, Lange C, Butler CE, Clemens MW. Differences in human leukocyte antigen expression between breast implant-associated ALCL patients and the general popula-tion. Aesthet Surg J. 2019. Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ebner PJ, Liu A, Gould DJ, Patel KM. Breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma, a systematic review and in-depth evaluation of the current understanding. J Surg Oncol. 2019.
  24. 24•.
    Lamaris GA, Butler CE, Deva AK, et al. Breast reconstruction following breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. study examined surgical techniques used for reconstruction after BIA-ALCL and surveyed patient attitudes on methods used. Patients in this cohort were mostly very satisfied with the reconstructive results, but some were highly concerned about recurrence of disease after reconstruc-tion with a non-textured implant, suggesting that the reconstructive method should be chosen after careful discussion with the patient. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Shauly O, et al. The first reported case of gluteal implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL). Aesthet Surg J. 2019;39(7). Scholar
  26. 26.
    Clemens MW, Brody GS, et al. How to diagnose and treat breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2018. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Aladily TN, Medeiros LJ, Amin MB, Haideri N, Ye D, Azevedo SJ, et al. Anaplastic large cell lymphoma associated with breast im-plants: a report of 13 cases. Am J Surg Pathol. 2012;36:1000–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Stack A, Levy I. Brentuximab vedotin as monotherapy for unresectable breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma. Clin Case Rep. 2019. Scholar
  29. 29.
    Alderuccio JP, Desai A, Yepes MM, Chapman JR, Vega F, Lossos IS. Frontline brentuximab vedotin in breast implant-associated an-aplastic large-cell lymphoma. Clin Case Rep. 2018. Scholar
  30. 30••.
    Clemens MW, Medeiros LJ, Butler CE, et al. Complete surgical excision is essential for the management of patients with breast implant–associated anaplastic large-cell lymphoma. J Clin Oncol. 2016. study highlighted the importance of definitive surgery by showing that patients with total capsulectomy and implant removal had better overall and event-free survival. PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bergsten M, et al. Non-implant associated primary cutaneous ana-plastic large cell lymphoma of the breast. J Surg Case Rep. 2019.
  32. 32.
    Macadam SA, Bovill ES, Buchel EW, et al. Evidence-based medicine: autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2017;139:204e–229e.28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taylor CW, Horgan K, Dodwell D. Oncological aspects of breast reconstruction. Breast. 2005;14:118–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Becherer BE, de Boer M, PER S, et al. The Dutch breast implant registry. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019. Scholar
  35. 35.
    American Society of Plastic Surgeons. BIA-ALCL Resources. Accessed August 10, 2019.
  36. 36.
    Orr JP, Sergesketter AR, Shammas RL, Thomas AB, Cason RW, Zhao R, et al. Assessing the relationship between anxiety and revi-Sion surgery following autologous breast reconstruction. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2019 Jul;144(1):24–33. Scholar
  37. 37.
    Abboud MH, Dibo SA, Abboud NM, et al. Power-assisted liposuc-tion and lipofilling: techniques and experience in large-volume fat grafting. Aesthet Surg J. 2019.
  38. 38.
    Oni G, Malata CM. New surgical technique: simultaneous use of contiguous intercostal spaces during total rib preservation exposure of the internalmammary vessels inmicrovascular breast reconstruction. J Plast Reconstr Aesthet Surg. 2019;72(9):1525–9. Scholar
  39. 39.
    Largent J, Oefelein M, Kaplan HM, Okerson T, Boyle P. Risk of lymphoma in women with breast implants: analysis of clinical studies. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2012;21:274–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Lazzeri D, Agostini T, Giannotti G, et al. Null-type anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative anaplastic large cell lymphoma arising in a silicone breast implant capsule. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127:159e–62e.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Spear SL, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Walker PS. Inamed silicone breast implant U.S. study group. Inamed silicone breast implant core study results at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(Suppl1):8S–16S discussion 17S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Barnsley GP, Sigurdson LJ, Barnsley SE. Textured surface breastimplants in the prevention of capsular contracture among breast augmentation patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2006;117(7):2182–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Derby BM, Codner MA. Textured silicone breast implant use in primary augmentation: core data update and review. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;135(1):113–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Salzberg CA, Ashikari AY, Berry C, Hunsicker LM. Acellular der-mal matrix-assisted direct-to-implant breast reconstruction and capsular contracture: a 13-year experience. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:329–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kim IK, Park SO, Chang H, Jin US. Inhibition mechanism of acellular dermal matrix on capsule formation in expander-implant breast reconstruction after postmastectomy radiotherapy. Ann Surg Oncol. 2018;8:2279–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tevlin R, Borrelli MR, Irizarry D, Nguyen D, Wan DC, Momeni A. Acellular dermal matrix reduces myofibroblast presence in the breast capsule. Plast Reconsr Surg Glob Open. 2019;7(5):e2213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Bengtson BP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Maxwell GP. U.S. Core clinical study group. Highly cohesive silicone breast implant core study results at 3 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(Suppl 1):40S–8S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cunningham B. The Mentor study on contour profile gel silicone MemoryGel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2007;120(Suppl1):33S–9S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Hammond DC, Migliori MM, Caplin DA, Garcia ME, Phillips CA. Mentor contour profile gel implants: clinical outcomes at 6 years. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;129:1381–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Murphy DK, Slicton A, Bengtson BP. Natrelle style 410 form-stable silicone breast implants: core study results at 6 years. Aesthet Surg J. 2012;32:709–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Stevens WG, Harrington J, Alizadeh K, et al. Five-year follow-up data from the U.S. clinical trial for Sientra’s U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved Silimed brand round and shaped implants with high-strength silicone gel. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2012;130:973–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Caplin DA. Indications for the use of MemoryShape breast im-plants in aesthetic and reconstructive breast surgery: long-term clinical outcomes of shaped versus round silicone breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;134(Suppl):27S–37S.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Duteille F, Rouif M, Laurent S, Cannon M. Five-year safety data for Eurosilicone’s round and anatomical silicone gel breast implants. Plast Reconstr Surg Glob Open. 2014;2:e138.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Spear SL, Murphy DK, et al. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2014;133:1354–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Maxwell GP, Van Natta BW, Bengtson BP, Murphy DK. Ten-year results from the Natrelle 410 anatomical form-stable silicone breast implant core study. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35:145–55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Cordeiro PG, McGuire P, Murphy DK. Natrelle 410 extra-full projection silicone breast implants: 2-year results from two prospective studies. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2015;136:638–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Stevens WG, Harrington J, Alizadeh K, Broadway D, Zeidler K, Godinez TB. Eight-year follow-up data from the U.S. clinical trial for Sientra’s FDA-approved round and shaped implants with high- strength cohesive silicone gel. Aesthet Surg J. 2015;35(Suppl 1):S3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine J. Choi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ashley M. Brown
    • 1
  • Christopher H. Pham
    • 1
  • Sagar V. Patel
    • 1
  • Ketan M. Patel
    • 1
  • Joseph Carey
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Keck School of MedicineUniversity of Southern CaliforniaLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations