Comparative Effects of Biomaterials Used in Breast Surgery on Tumor Engraftment and Proliferation of Breast Cancer Cells in a Murine In Vivo Model

Clicks: 8
ID: 334172
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #117 of 125 articles by views in Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 125 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Abstract Background Breast reconstruction commonly employs implantable biomaterials—including poly-4-hydroxybutyrate (P4HB), polypropylene, silicone, and acellular dermal matrix (ADM)—to reinforce soft tissue. These materials differ in composition, degradation profile, and structure, and their potential influence on residual tumor cell behavior remains incompletely understood. Objectives The objective of the present study was to compare the effects of four biomaterials used in breast reconstruction on the engraftment, tumor area, and proliferation of breast cancer cells in a preclinical model. Methods Three human breast cancer cell lines (MCF-7, BT-474, and MDA-MB-231) and one non-malignant breast epithelial cell line (MCF-10A) were co-implanted with P4HB scaffold, polypropylene mesh, silicone, or porcine acellular dermal matrix (ADM) in NSG™ mice, using Matrigel, human Adipose Graft, or extracellular matrix (ECM) gel to simulate distinct tissue microenvironments. At six weeks, engraftment, tumor area, and proliferation were assessed histologically. Results Tumors formed only with malignant cell lines; no engraftment occurred with MCF-10A or cell-free controls. Tumor area varied by cell line, vehicle, and biomaterial: Polypropylene was most frequently associated with the largest tumor areas, particularly for the more aggressive MDA-MB-231 cell line, while ADM was generally associated with smaller tumor areas. However, no single biomaterial consistently increased tumor area or proliferation across all cell lines and vehicles, and proliferation scores showed few significant differences between the evaluated groups. Conclusions The findings from this model suggest that residual tumor growth may not be largely influenced by the presence of a specific biomaterial. These results provide preliminary, model-specific reassurance regarding the biomaterials evaluated here, but do not, on their own, establish the oncologic safety of these devices in the clinical setting of breast reconstruction, underscoring the need for further studies in clinically representative models.
Reference Key
openalex_W7223689501 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Catalina Pineda Molina, William D'Angelo, Madeline C. Cramer, Alvin Liu, Bharadwaj V Chirravuri, Mahima Ravi, George S. Hussey, Linsey B. Reavie, David P. Martin, Sakib F. Elahi, Stephen F. Badylak
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Aesthetic Surgery Journal Open Forum
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/asjof/ojag215
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/asjof/ojag215
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.