Anaplastic Large T-Cell Lymphoma and Breast Implants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Anecdotal reports and one case-control study suggested an association, without evidence of causation, between breast implants and anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative anaplastic large T-cell lymphoma (ALCL), a rare non-Hodgkin's lymphoma. This review summarizes the published evidence, including case reports and epidemiologic studies. METHODS: A PubMed search limited to English language articles was conducted using the search terms "breast implant" and "lymphoma," "primary T-cell breast lymphoma," or "breast implant and ALCL" to identify all published cases of breast-associated ALCL. RESULTS: A total of 18 publications were retrieved describing 27 cases of ALCL in breast implant recipients. Breast-associated ALCL occurred in women with and without implants. Approximately 78 percent of cases (21 of 27) were CD30 anaplastic lymphoma kinase-negative, with an indolent clinical course. Both saline- and silicone-filled devices were identified; however, implant style and surface texture were largely unreported. The tumor stage at diagnosis was I in 16 of 27, II or higher in seven of 27, or unreported in four of 27. No prospective epidemiologic study has linked implants and ALCL; however, a single case-control study in Dutch women reported increased odds of association between ALCL and implants, and an estimated frequency of one in 1 million women with and without breast implants. CONCLUSIONS: An association, without evidence of causation, was reported between breast implants and ALCL. Further study is required to confirm this association. Breast-associated ALCL occurred rarely in women with and without breast implants and had a primarily indolent clinical course, which may provoke a revision of the World Health Organization nomenclature for lymphoma; however, aggressive clinical behavior was also reported. The cases of ALCL were not confined to a specific type of implant. CLINICAL QUESTION/LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Risk, V.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".