Comparative Effects of Biomaterials Used in Breast Surgery on Tumor Engraftment and Proliferation of Breast Cancer Cells in a Murine In Vivo Model
Catalina Pineda Molina, William D’Angelo, Madeline Cramer, Alvin Liu, Bharadwaj V Chirravuri, Mahima Ravi, George S Hussey, Linsey Reavie, David P Martin, Sakib F Elahi, Stephen F BadylakAbstract
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.