U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

CENTER FOR DEVICES AND RADIOLOGICAL HEALTH

MEDICAL DEVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

GENERAL AND PLASTIC SURGERY DEVICES PANEL

66^TH^ MEETING

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13, 2005

The Panel met at 8:00 a.m. in Salons A, B and C of the Hilton Washington
DC North/Gaithersburg, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Dr.
Michael Choti, Chairman, presiding.

[PRESENT]{.underline}:

MICHAEL A. CHOTI, M.D. Chairman

GRACE T. BARTOO, Ph.D., RAC Industry Rep.

BRENT A. BLUMENSTEIN, Ph.D. Voting Member

LEIGH F. CALLAHAN, Ph.D. Temporary Voting Member

LEELEE DOYLE, Ph.D. Consumer Rep.

CHERYL A. EWING, M.D. Voting Member

A. MARILYN LEITCH, M.D. Voting Member

STEPHEN LI, Ph.D. Temporary Voting Member

JOSEPH LOCICERO, III, M.D. Voting Member

BARBARA R. MANNO, Ph.D. Temporary Voting Member

MICHAEL J. MILLER, M.D. Voting Member

AMY E. NEWBURGER, M.D. Voting Member

DAVID KRAUSE, Ph.D. Executive Secretary

[FDA PARTICIPANTS]{.underline}:

CDR SAMIE ALLEN

SAM AREPALLI, Ph.D.

DAVID B. BERKOWITZ, Ph.D., V.M.D.

SAHAR M. DAWISHA, M.D.

HERBERT P. LERNER, M.D.

MIRIAM C. PROVOST, Ph.D.

PHYLLIS SILVERMAN, M.S.

[SPONSOR PRESENTERS]{.underline}:

REBECCA C. ANDERSON, Ph.D.

JERRY BARBER, Ph.D.

BRUCE L. CUNNINGHAM, M.D., M.S.

JOSH LEVINE

[AGENDA ITEM]{.underline} [PAGE]{.underline}

[WELCOME/OPENING REMARKS]{.underline}:

David Krause 4

[PANEL INTRODUCTIONS]{.underline}:

Michael Choti 8

[MENTOR CORPORATION,]{.underline}

[SILICONE GEL-FILLED BREAST IMPLANTS PRESENTATION]{.underline}:

Josh Levine 12

Bruce Cunningham 16

[PRECLINICAL SUMMARY]{.underline}:

Jerry Barber 25

[CLINICAL SAFETY]{.underline}:

Bruce Cunningham 40

[CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND BENEFITS]{.underline}:

Rebecca Anderson 62

[SUMMATION]{.underline}:

Bruce Cunningham 72

[COMMITMENTS TO PATIENTS]{.underline}:

Josh Levine 75

[PANEL QUESTIONS TO MENTOR PRESENTERS]{.underline}: 79

[FDA PRESENTATION]{.underline}:

Commander Samie Allen 129

[CHEMICAL DATA OVERVIEW]{.underline}:

Sam Arepalli 142

[TOXICOLOGICAL DATA OVERVIEW]{.underline}:

David Berkowitz 148

[CLINICAL DATA OVERVIEW]{.underline}:

Herbert Lerner 153

[RUPTURE OVERVIEW]{.underline}:

Sahar Dawisha 169

[STATISTICAL OVERVIEW]{.underline}:

Phyllis Silverman 189

[PANEL QUESTIONS TO FDA PRESENTERS]{.underline}: 197

[OPEN PANEL DISCUSSION]{.underline}: 207

[FDA QUESTIONS]{.underline}:

Question 1 253

Question 2 259

Question 3 264

Question 4 279

Question 5 292

Question 6 299

[AGENDA ITEM]{.underline} [PAGE]{.underline}

[OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT]{.underline}:

Amy Alina 308

Michelle Nawar 311

Betsy Mullen 313

Sheila Crigler 319

Debbie Schwartz 324

Gloria Duda 327

David Sarwer 331

Holly Feustel 335

Gail Judd 337

Heather Hoffman 340

Tracey Hotta 343

[MOTION OF NON-APPROVABLE]{.underline}: 350

[VOTE ON NON-APPROVABLE]{.underline}: 350

[MOTION TO APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS]{.underline}: 351

1 - Education/Training 351

Vote to Approve Condition 1 358

2 - Continue Data Collection/5-Year Review 358

Vote to Approve Condition 2 365

3 - Data Monitoring Comm. for Core Study 366

Vote to Approve Condition 3 367

4 - Patient Education/Consent 368

Vote to Approve Condition 4 370

5 - Modify Core Study for Explanted Patients 370

Vote to Approve Condition 5 373

6 - Registry 373

Vote to Approve Condition 6 397

7 - Substudy to Core Study 397

Vote Against Condition 7 409

8 - Fulfill Proposed Post-Approval Recommendations

or Plans 410

Vote to Approve Condition 8 411

9 - Tracked Device 412

Vote to Approve Condition 9 416

10 - MRI Scan at Year Five 416

Vote to Approve Condition 10 422

[VOTE TO APPROVE WITH 9 CONDITIONS]{.underline}: 425

[ADJOURN]{.underline}:

Michael Choti 436

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

8:01 a.m.

DR. KRAUSE: Good morning. We are ready to continue the meeting. I would
like to get started as close to on time today as possible. We have a lot
to do and I know everybody is interested in going home after three
difficult days. Good morning, everyone. We are ready to continue the
66^th^ meeting of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel. My name
is David Krause. I\'m the Executive Secretary of the Panel. I\'m also a
biologist and a reviewer in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
Devices Branch in the Division of General Restorative and Neurological
Devices.

I would like to remind everyone to, please, sign in on the attendance
sheets that are just outside the door on the tables. At that point, out
there on those tables, you can also pick up an agenda, a roster of the
Panel Members and also information about today\'s meeting. You can also
pick up information about future meetings and how to access that
information through the FDA phone line. Also, how you can obtain a
transcript of this meeting or other previous FDA Panel meetings.

Before I turn the meeting over to Dr. Choti, I\'m required to read a
number of statements into the record. There\'s two deputization of
temporary voting members and there is one Conflict of Interest
statement. I\'m going to read the Conflict of Interest statement first.

The following announcement addresses Conflict of Interest issues
associated with this meeting and is made a part of the record to
preclude even the appearance of an impropriety. To determine if any
conflict existed, the Agency reviewed the submitted agenda for this
meeting and all financial interests reported by the Committee
participants. The Conflict of Interest statutes prohibit special
Government employees from participating in matters that could affect
their or their employer\'s financial interests.

However, the Agency has determined that participation of certain Members
and consultants, the need for whose services outweighs the potential
Conflict of Interest, involved is in the best interest of the
Government. I would like to note for the record that the Agency took
into consideration certain matters regarding Dr. Miller. Dr. Miller
reported that his institutions past and current involvement with firms
at issue.

In the absence of personal financial interests, the Agency has
determined that he may participate fully in the Panel\'s deliberations.
In the event that the discussions involve any other products or firms
not already on the agenda for which an FDA participant has a financial
interest, the participant should excuse him or herself from such
involvement and the exclusion will be noted for the record.

With respect to all other participants, we ask, in the interest of
fairness, that all persons making statements or presentations disclose
any current or previous financial involvement with any firm whose
products they may wish to comment upon.

The first temporary voting memo that I\'m going to read is in regards to
Dr. Callahan, who comes to us from a Center for Drug Evaluation panel.
Pursuant to the authority granted under the Medical Devices Advisory
Committee Charter, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, dated
October 27, 1990, and as amended August 18, 1999, I appoint Dr. Leigh
Callahan as a voting member of the General and Plastic Surgery Devices
Panel for the duration of the meeting on April 11^th^ through the 13^th^
2005.

For the record, Dr. Callahan is a consultant to the Arthritis Advisory
Committee of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. She is a
special government employee, who has undergone the customary Conflict of
Interest review and has reviewed the material to be considered at this
meeting. This appointment is signed by Sheila Dearybury Walcoff, who is
the Associate Commissioner for External Relations in the Office of the
Commissioner.

The second memo is for the Members of Device Panels who have been
deputized for this meeting which are Dr. Li and Dr. Manno. Pursuant to
the authority granted under the Medical Devices Advisory Committee
Charter dated October 27, 1990, and as amended August 18, 1999, I
appoint Stephen Li and Barbara Manno as voting members of the General
and Plastic Surgery Devices Panel for this meeting on April the 11^th^
through the 13^th^ 2005.

For the record, these individuals are special government employees and
consultants to this Panel or other panels under the Medical Devices
Advisory Committee. They have undergone the customary Conflict of
Interest review and have reviewed the material to be considered at this
meeting. This is signed by Dr. Daniel Schultz, who is the Director for
the Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

At this point, I would like to turn the meeting over to Dr. Choti.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you, Dr. Krause, and good morning. My name is Dr.
Michael Choti. I am an Associate Professor of Surgery at Johns Hopkins
in the Division of Surgical Oncology, and I\'m the Chair of this Panel.
During this three day meeting, the Panel will be making recommendations
to the Food and Drug Administration on now the second pre-market
approval application. The next item of business is to reintroduce the
Panel Members who are giving their time to help the FDA in these
matters, and the FDA staff here at the table.

I\'m going to ask each person to introduce him or herself stating his or
her area of expertise, position title, institution and his or her status
on the Panel, voting Member, industry or consumer representative. Can we
start with Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: My name is Grace Bartoo. I\'m the General Manager of Decus
Biomedical. My background and expertise is in biomedical engineering,
clinical trials and medical device development. I\'m the industry
representative.

DR. DOYLE: My name is LeeLee Doyle. I\'m a Professor Emeritus, an OB/gyn
at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences College of Medicine.
I hold my Ph.D. in reproductive physiology. I am a consumer rep and
non-voting member.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I\'m Brent Blumenstein, a biostatistician working
independently out of Seattle, Washington. I\'m a voting Member.

DR. EWING: My name is Cheryl Ewing. I\'m a Faculty Member at the
University of Chicago \-- not University of Chicago, University of
California in the Department of Surgery and I\'m a voting Member. Too
many universities.

DR. NEWBURGER: I\'m Amy Newburger. I\'m a Dermatologist in private
practice in New York. I\'m a voting Member. I teach at St.
Luke\'s-Roosevelt Hospital Medical Consortium.

DR. LOCICERO: I\'m Joseph LoCicero. I\'m a Thoracic Surgeon specializing
in foregut surgery. My background is in new technologies as they relate
to thoracic surgery. I\'m a Professor and Chair of Surgery at the
University of South Alabama and I\'m a voting Member.

DR. MANNO: I\'m Dr. Barbara Manno. I\'m from the Louisiana State
University School of Medicine in Shreveport, Louisiana. I\'m in the
Department of Psychiatry. My Ph.D. is in pharmacology/toxicology and I
practice as a toxicologist and I\'m one of the special ones that vote.

DR. LI: And you are special. I\'m Stephen Li. I\'m President of Medical
Device Testing Innovations out of Sarasota, Florida and my interests are
biomaterials and biomechanics.

DR. CALLAHAN: I\'m Leigh Callahan. I\'m a Health Outcomes Researcher and
an epidemiologist, primarily focusing on musculoskeletal diseases. I\'m
an Associate Professor of Orthopedics in Medicine and Social Medicine at
the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill and I\'m a temporary
voting Member.

DR. MILLER: I\'m Michael Miller. I\'m a Professor and Deputy Chairman of
Plastic Surgery at the University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center.
I am a clinician. Primarily, I care for cancer patients who have
deformities. I also have an appointment in bioengineering at the
University of Texas Center for Bioengineering and Rice University and
I\'m a voting Member.

DR. LEITCH: I\'m Marilyn Leitch. I\'m a Surgical Oncologist and a
Professor of Surgery at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical
Center in Dallas. I also take care of breast cancer patients and
patients with benign breast disease. I\'m a voting Member.

DR. PROVOST: I\'m Miriam Provost. I\'m the Acting Director of the
Division of General Restorative and Neurological Devices in the Office
of Device Evaluation, FDA.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. I would like to note for the record that the
voting Members present constitute a quorum as required by 21 CFR Part
14. I would like to remind the public observers at this meeting that
while this portion of the meeting is open to public observation, the
public attendees may not participate except at specific request of Panel
Members.

We are now ready to begin the applicant\'s presentation. The
presentation will be introduced by Josh Levine, Mentor Corporation\'s
President and CEO. Mr. Levine?

MR. LEVINE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Panel Members and
representatives of FDA. My name is Josh Levine and I am the President
and Chief Executive Officer of Mentor Corporation. We are here today to
provide for the first time a public viewing of our PMA data. The data we
present today is a different science-based safety and effectiveness
presentation than the discussion of yesterday.

As you will hear this morning, Mentor\'s PMA evidence and the issues we
will clarify are different in five fundamental ways. First, we will be
providing a significantly more detailed discussion of our modes and
causes analyses, our gel diffusion tests, related experiments on
silicone and platinum and our cyclic fatigue lifetime predictions.

Second, you will hear a safety profile from our three-year Core data
that the departs significantly from the other sponsors core results,
particularly as it relates to rupture rates.

Third, you will hear that we have a long-term, and by that I mean
12-year clinical data that evaluates and defines silent and symptomatic
ruptures specific to our PMA products. I\'m talking about empirical
data, not projections.

In reference to yesterday\'s Panel discussion, we have multiple MRI data
points specific to our product that allows us to draw conclusions with
reasonable assurance regarding rupture rates over time. As a fourth
point of departure from yesterday, we will be giving greater attention
to the long-term, well-designed epidemiological literature on systemic
health consequences, both CTD-diagnosed disease and signs and symptoms.

And as a fifth and final difference, we will be providing a more
detailed discussion on core effectiveness and QoL outcomes and how those
outcomes relate to psycho-social and restorative benefits. Although we
will, of course, be providing a more general presentation on our PMA
data. I am calling each of these five issues out in this introduction,
because they warrant deliberation that should be new and distinguished
from yesterday\'s Panel discussion.

For today\'s discussion, we will start by providing an overview of our
Core Gel Study. Following that overview, we will present our preclinical
findings, including what they tell us concerning silicone diffusion,
modes and causes of failures and device lifetime predictions. We will
then continue the rupture discussion from the clinical perspective
focusing on three things: The Core Gel Study, our Longer-Term Rupture
Study and the literature supporting both.

From there, we move to addressing some of the more specific rupture and
exposure issues raised by FDA, including extracapsular rupture, health
implications, and the monitoring of ruptures. We move next to a
discussion of effectiveness and clinical benefits, and then in summation
we will review each of the Panel questions and identify Mentor\'s
commitments for post approval.

Now, I would like to introduce the presenters for Mentor\'s affirmative
presentation. Providing introductory remarks for the presentation will
be Dr. Bruce Cunningham, Professor and Chairman of the Department of
Plastic Surgery at the University of Minnesota. Presenting the
preclinical rupture and related data will be Dr. Jerry Barber, Mentor\'s
Vice President for Corporate Research. Returning to present the clinical
rupture and related safety data will be Dr. Cunningham.

Discussing the clinical effectiveness and benefits data will be Dr.
Rebecca Anderson, Associate Professor of Psychology at the Medical
College of Wisconsin. Dr. Cunningham will then provide a summation of
the data, after which I will provide a discussion of Mentor\'s
post-market commitments and conclude our presentation. And now, I would
like to turn the podium over to Dr. Cunningham.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much, Mr. Levine. Dr. Choti, Panel
Members, I don\'t know how this feels like to you, but to me this feels
like the end of a long week on trauma call at Cook County or Hennepin
County Hospital. And as we have heard, I think today is going to be a
new day and a different day. Let me begin.

Mentor\'s PMA devices, representative styles of its smooth and textured
lines shown here, will be presented today. But before we discuss this
data as a critical introductory theme, it\'s important to put Mentor\'s
PMA devices in proper generational context. I would like to begin by
describing the differences between the commonly recognized generations
of implants used in clinical practice and to stress that the devices we
are seeking to have approved today are the latest in silicone
technology, third-generation devices.

Now why are these distinctions important? In evaluating safety, we can
look to second- and first-generation devices for a conservative estimate
of the risk of systemic disease. But in evaluating clinical performance
and outcomes, we must look to our own and other third-generation devices
described in the medical literature. Thus, it is clear that the devices
we are presenting for approval today are constructed in a way that\'s
vastly different from prior generations.

The first generation had a thick elastomeric shell and firm gel. From
the late \'70s on to the mid- to late \'80s, a second generation with a
thin elastomeric shell and less viscous gel was used. The third
generation features low bleed, a multilayer shell with a barrier layer
and firm gel. The thick gelatin-like nature of the gel in today\'s
implants with the barrier technology results in a significantly lower
rupture rate, both intra- and extracapsular.

Now, there are three critical themes to understanding the implications
of generations within the medical literature. First, for safety, the
biological response is essentially the same across all implant
generations. Therefore, information concerning the biological effects of
silicone may validly be gleaned from the extensive universe of medical
literature on this topic.

Health consequences literature on the earlier generations provides us
with a measure of the worst case over a longer period of time given the
higher rates of bleed and rupture associated with those devices. Second,
and in contrast, the data relating to the mechanical performance
characteristics should be evaluated on a generation-specific basis.
Thus, rupture data and other clinical performance characteristics are
specific to a given implant generation.

And, finally, as I have said, Mentor\'s implants are third-generation.
Literature pertaining to third-generation implants is applicable to
Mentor\'s PMA products. This is true regardless of whether the
literature specifically speaks to Mentor\'s third-generation devices or
not, given the general similarity in design and clinical composition.

Now, I want you to bear in mind there is one significant design
difference. Mentor\'s PMA does not include a gel device with more than
one lumen or structural component. The far reaching consequences of this
fact have to be borne in mind as you evaluate the data.

Next, I want to review the Core Gel Study briefly and I\'ll cover these
topics: Objectives, clinical study sites, patient enrollment, data
collection and follow-up, and the key local complications. Given the
importance of rupture issues to the FDA and to this Panel, we\'ll have a
separate and more detailed discussion on rupture outcomes that will
follow later in the presentation. And in that, we will weave together
both the preclinical and the clinical findings.

First, let\'s discuss the objectives of the study. There are two: first,
the safety objective to assess the incidence, severity, and method of
resolution for adverse events. The second objective is the effectiveness
objective, primarily, to show the change in breast size, the restoration
of breast mound and secondarily to document the quality of life and
satisfaction.

There were 40 clinical sites well-distributed across the United States.
The practices involved represented a good mix of practice styles,
including academic, who practice, and solo practitioners. Next, a
profile of the 1,007 patients into enrollment cohorts at the time of
database closure. The augmentation cohort of 551 represented 55 percent
of the total enrollment. The reconstruction cohort of 252 represented 25
percent and the revision cohort of 204 represented 20 percent.

The three-year follow-up for eligible patients was 93 percent or over
for all groups at the time of database closure. In addition, the
demographic and ethnic characteristics of the study group were designed
to be as close as possible to the statistical mix of cosmetic patients
which is defined in the procedural statistics of the American Society of
Plastic Surgeons.

We have recently provided the Agency with an amendment containing a
general update on our three-year data, and this was included in your
packet for the PMA. As of March 2005, the three-year follow-up is
complete, with 892, or 89 percent, of all enrolled patients having
returned for their three-year follow-up. With this in mind, the
complication rates are essentially the same from those reported in the
August 2004 PMA update. Most importantly, there was no change at all in
rupture rates.

This table shows the follow-up schedule for the full ten-year Core Gel
Study. Of particular note are the intervals for MRI follow-up which is
different from Inamed\'s. We have follow-up at years one, two, four,
six, eight and ten, and we have excellent follow-up on our, to date, two
MRI evaluations to report.

In presenting key local complications, I would like begin with an
important clinical preface concerning the Core Study findings. As you
review these local complications, we ask that you consider, as you heard
yesterday, that the composite of medical literature provides no evidence
of systemic effects from these devices, and we will discuss that more,
shortly.

Consequently, the important issues for your review become what are the
reasons for reoperation and what can physician and patient education do
to improve these outcomes and realistically shape expectations?

First, let\'s look at the three-year Kaplan-Meier analysis curves. This
one for infection. I want to note that all Kaplan-Meier slides will be
expressed as one minus the survival curve. And the three cohorts are
always shown together and labeled accordingly. In this slide, infection
for the reconstruction group was 5.3 percent, for the augmentation group
it was 1.5 percent, and for the revision group 1.0 percent.

Next, the curves for the clinically significant Baker III and IV
capsular contracture incidents including all patients: 17.6 percent for
revision, 8.8 percent for reconstruction, and 8.2 percent for
augmentation. This is the incidence among all patients.

Next, the curves for cumulative incidence of reoperation for any reason.
The revision and reconstruction cohorts are both around 26 percent. The
augmentation cohort at 15 percent. Over 97 percent of these operations
were done as an outpatient without hospitalization.

Within the complication category of reoperation, patient request
represents a significant percentage. In the augmentation cohort, patient
request was 32 percent of the reoperations. In reconstruction, it was 17
percent and in revision it was 20 percent.

This K-M analysis is for all patients who were explanted for any reason:
13.3 percent for revision and reconstruction, 5.1 percent for
augmentation. Of note, almost 60 percent of these patients were
replanted with a study device, usually as a day-surgery outpatient. I
believe that this is an indication of the patient\'s sense of value in
and commitment to the value of the implant and, in addition, that the
physicians informed consent process was effective in establishing
realistic expectations.

Finally, a summary slide on clinical implications of these key local
complications. It\'s important to note that the vast majority of them
were clinically minor events: 97 percent of which could be resolved
without hospitalization, no treatment in 33 percent, medication in 17
percent, and a secondary procedure in 39 percent.

Now, let\'s place these local complications in historical perspective. I
want to compare this complication to the complication threshold that the
FDA has approved previously. This slide compares the augmentation
patient complications for the approved saline devices and the gel
implants we are discussing today. The saline implants are represented by
the cross-hatch bars.

To me, this slide can base two important points. First, it identifies
the complication threshold that the FDA has approved in a prior context
for the various complications which were cited. Second, you will see
here that the complication rates are not statistically different.

This slide compares the reconstruction complications for the approved
saline implants and the gel implants. Again, the saline implants are
represented by cross-hatch bars. As an aside, we note that there is no
revision comparison as the saline study did not include that cohort. So
for the reconstruction patients at three years the different
complication rates between saline and gel are quite notable, with gel
complications being statistically significantly lower in rupture,
contracture, explantation, and reoperation.

I believe that this data should clarify some of the misconceptions
regarding the relative safety of saline implants expressed in the public
testimony that you have heard. Now, it is a pleasure to introduce Dr.
Jerry Barber, the Vice President for Corporate Research at the Mentor
Corporation.

DR. BARBER: Thank you, Dr. Cunningham. Good morning, Dr. Choti, Panel
Members. Thank you. My presentation will concentrate on four main
topics: biocompatability of Mentor products, as substantiated in
preclinical testing; potential exposure through silicone diffusion from
intact devices; modes, causes and mechanisms for device failures; and
finally, prediction of longer-term ? that is greater than 10 years
device life ? as determined by cyclic fatigue testing.

Biocompatability of Mentor devices are proven; one, by demonstrating
compliance with tests prescribed in the FDA guidance in ISO 10993; two,
by analyzing devices for chemical constituents and comparing the
determined concentrations to establish toxicity standards; and, finally,
by determining the potential exposure to the patient by those
constituents through diffusion or so-called gel bleed. Mentor has
demonstrated, we believe, no adverse biological effects when our devices
were subjected to the tests shown here. These tests demonstrate
compliance with FDA guidance.

It is significant to note that the total amounts of low molecular weight
siloxanes D4, D5 and D6 contained in the PMA devices are less than the
established toxicity limits, even if the total content of those
compounds in the implant would be exposed to the body within a 30-day
period. But these materials are contained within the implant. Mentor
conducted experiments to determine the precise amounts of D4, D5 and D6
that can be released from an implanted device through diffusion.

On the left hand of this slide, you see the design of the experiment. A
hundred-and-twenty-five cc devices were immersed in porcine serum. The
amount of porcine serum was 225 cc?s. The tests were run at body
temperature and for 120 days. Porcine serum simulates the immediate *in
vivo* environment of the devices. These tests were run in a diffusion
apparatus that was sealed with zero head space to prevent the loss of
the siloxanes through volatilization. The results from these tests were
that D4, D5 and D6 were the only siloxanes detected. There was
negligible diffusion and the diffusion essentially stops in about 45
days.

The total amount that was diffused is equivalent to approximately
1/1000^th^ of the weight of the head of a straight pin or more than one
million-fold below the No Effect Levels in experimental animals.
Diffusion of an individual species is limited in this test by solubility
of those siloxanes in the immersion medium and *in vivo* by solubility
in extracellular fluid. Once the solubility limit is reached, then the
diffusion of a species must cease. We do understand that extracellular
fluid is replaced, and I\'ll address that in just a moment.

Next slide, please. Here you see the actual results in terms of
numerical values. No D3 was detected in the immersion medium, nor D7
through D21, only D4, D5 and D6. The diffusion rate for D6 was the
highest at 1/1000^th^ microgram per centimeter-squared surface area per
day. The total amount of material that was diffused of the cumulative
total was 4.7. This was into a reservoir of 225 milliliters.

How does the volume of the immersion medium relate to the *in vivo*
environment? *In vivo*, the reservoir that will receive the siloxanes is
extracellular fluid. The amount of this fluid surrounding the implant is
estimated to range from two to five milliliters. If we assume the higher
value, five milliliters, then the actual amount that will be diffused
from the implant into that environment is five over 225, or 1/45^th^ of
the 4.7 micrograms, or approximately 1/10^th^ microgram translating from
the test conditions to the body, or about 200^th^ microgram per
milliliter of extracellular fluid.

We mentioned that we understand that extracellular fluid is turned over.
If you make the assumption that the five milliliters were turned over in
ten days, then the long-term diffusion rate from that device will be a
tenth of the amounts that we talked about before. Very low levels.

Let\'s look at platinum diffusion for just a moment. The total platinum
included in these devices is, on a whole device basis, 5.3 micrograms
per gram. In the gel, the platinum will lie between four and five parts
per million; and the shell, eight to ten parts per million. The test
conditions were the same as described before for siloxane diffusion.
Platinum reached the cumulative equilibrium of 4.0 micrograms in 45
days. The diffusion rate was .0027 micrograms per centimeter-squared per
day.

No more platinum diffused out of the device after 45 days. On a whole
device basis, 99.4 percent of the platinum was retained. This platinum
is in the zero valence state and we have demonstrated that through two
independent studies.

Each of us gets exposure to D4, D5, cyclic siloxanes every day because
they are present in a wide array of consumer care products, including
silicone hair care products, skin care products, antiperspirants,
lipstick. The estimated daily exposure from the average individual for
D4 is, approximately, 4,700 micrograms. This compares to D4 diffused
from our devices of about 5/10^ths^ micrograms or the exposure from our
devices is 10,000-fold lower than expected on the daily exposure basis
for the average person.

We next looked at devices that had been explanted ? and we had devices
implanted up to 15 years for smooth devices, 9 years for textured
devices ? and we weighed these devices, the explanted devices, and
compared them to nominal weight as they were implanted. And we detected
no weight loss in those devices. One could argue you could be losing
silicone and it could be replaced by protein, water, or lipids, and so
the devices were analyzed for those materials. No significant water or
protein was found in the devices.

Lipids in one test device, on a whole device basis, contained 400 parts
per million of lipids. There were all in the shell. There was zero part
per million in the shell. On the other device that was analyzed for
lipids, there was none detected. Therefore, we conclude that it is
negligible silicone diffusion out of a negligible diffusion of lipids,
protein and water into implanted devices.

Thus far we have examined intact devices. But a small number of devices
do rupture. It\'s important to understand the modes and causes of these
failures in order to provide a basis for reducing the failures. Mentor
devices have an overt failure rate based upon explanted devices of
approximately one percent based upon all complaints recorded from 1985
through September 30, 2003.

We believe that these complaints provide a good representation of the
failed devices, because of the incentive to report based upon Mentor\'s
Lifetime Replacement Program for these devices. When explanted devices
are returned to Mentor, they are examined in an attempt to determine the
modes and cause of failure. When sharp instrument damage is detected,
the device is assigned to an iatrogenic category.

In some cases, the mode and cause of failure could not be determined.
These were the devices that are the subject of this modes and causes
study. In the Mentor Study, these devices were given a thorough physical
and microscopic examination in order to assign mode and cause of
failure. In the study done at Washington University under the direction
of Dr. Brandon and his colleagues, the failed devices were examined by
scanning electron microscopy. These characterizations of failures were
an important supplement to the Mentor Study. Lastly, the cyclic fatigue
study examined longer-term failure modes.

And here are the modes. On the left side of this slide are the modes
that we detected in failed devices, on the right the causes of those
failures. Shell-thin line failures was a result from two causes: sharp
instrument damage from scalpel cuts or needle puncture, or local stress
induced during implantation. These failures result from application of
very localized force by the surgeon\'s fingers as the device is being
pushed into the surgical pocket.

In some cases you could even see permanent deformation on the shell from
the application of this localized stress. Patch internal, this simply
means a failure inside the patch. There were only three of these and all
of the failures were caused by sharp instrument damage. Shell/patch
junction. These failures result from cyclic fatigue. The edge of the
patch is thicker than the adjacent shell. Any elongation of that shell
will cause an increased stress just at that periphery and this causes
the failure.

Localized shell fatigue, a very distinct failure. This is caused by
folding of the device. If you get folding on the anterior part of the
device, it will form a \"V\" and that V in most cases will extend close
to the radius area. The radius area is dynamic in these devices; that
is, it can move, and so you have a fold that extends close to that
radius that causes the end of that fold to roll. And over time, cyclic
fatigue will fail the device. Easy to recognize. These are fatigue
failures. You have microscopic fatigue cracks around the failure and
also a very unique pattern, like a fishbone pattern, that extends out
from this failure. Shell/patch delamination. These failures are the
result of cyclic fatigue. This is when the path separates from the
shell.

All return devices are subject ? any return device that comes to Mentor
? to routine evaluation in an attempt to determine the cause of failure.
The failure distribution for the modes and causes study was based on 240
devices. These are all explant overt rupture devices available for
examination. It is interesting to note and important to note 22 percent
of these 240 devices failed intraoperatively and were not implanted.

Next. In order to find the total distribution of failed devices, it is
necessary to include with the 240 devices inspected modes and causes
increase that by those devices that failed by sharp instrument. Recall
that I said when we receive devices, we go through, if they are
iatrogenic sharp instrument damage we put aside, and we then look at the
other for mode or causes.

These iatrogenic failures have to be brought into the total
distribution. When you do that, you obtain this distribution and you see
that local shell stress and sharp instrument damage make up 80 percent
of all failures with shell/patch fatigue failures and localized shell
stress coming in at eight and seven percent.

Here we see the zero- to five-year distribution of failures and there
are 240 devices in this distribution. Failures at the zero- to five-year
time frame are dominated by instrument damage local shell stress. These
two individual populations have approximately 20 percent intraoperative
failures each. These intraoperative failures were not implanted. Fatigue
failures require time to develop. Localized shell fatigue, shell/patch
junction and shell/patch bond failures are seen for the first time in
the 1 to 3 year time interval.

Here we are looking at the six- to ten- year time frame and the
observation that I would make is that in this time frame failures are
dominated by local stress. That means that the failures related to sharp
instrument damage are greatly reduced in this population. The numbers of
local shell stress have also decreased in that overall population.
Fatigue- related failures comprise a greater proportion of the failures
over this time frame, which means that fatigue is now becoming more
important in the failure population.

In conclusion on the modes and causes then, local shell stress resulting
from force applied during implantation and sharp instrument damage
account for 80 percent of explanted devices overt failures. The
remainder of the causes of failure localized shell fatigue, shell/patch
junction failures and shell/patch delaminations comprise a much smaller
percent of the failures.

All of these result, all of these latter ones, from cyclic fatigue. The
preponderance of these failures involve textured implants. Most failures
occur at the radius. This is the most dynamic region of the implant and
it\'s subjected to stress during implantation and cyclic bending and
folding *in vivo*.

We believe that modes and causes failure have been well-defined up to 10
years. The frequency of shorter-term failure, sharp instrument damage
and local shell stress will diminish over time by depletion of the
source of these failures. Mentor believes that the longer-term *in vivo*
ruptures will occur by cyclic fatigue at the radius of the device. *In
vitro* cyclic fatigue testing creates failures at the radius of the
device and can be utilized to determine long-term failures.

The radius, as I have said before, is the most vulnerable area of the
shell for failure. It is a dynamic region that is subjected to cyclic
fatigue *in vivo* as shown in the modes and causes failure analysis.

The easiest way, I think, to understand what we have done with cyclic
fatigue is simply walk through the process of use and point out the most
important areas. Of course, you start out by testing devices. You test
them to failure and count the number of cycles-to-failure at a series of
fixed loads. These loads are stringent in order to finish the testing in
a reasonable period of time.

The next thing you do is select a relationship that expresses the
relation between stress and cycles-to-failure. In our cases, we used
Basquin-Gerber. By utilizing the data properly, you can determine the
parameters in this equation and then you have the means of translating
back to every day activities for any stress that you choose. That is if
you define a stress in an every day activity, you can then calculate the
cycles-to-failure.

The tough part of this exercise is to find a model. And the first thing
we did is look at walking and jogging, that type of thing, and the
conclusion you quickly reach is that the gravitational forces on the
mass of an implant simply are not large enough to elongate the shell. If
you can\'t elongate the shell, you can\'t get fatigue. So we settled on
a model of slight wrinkling with every jogging step or walking step, a
slight wrinkle form. And by slight, I mean only 50 percent of the total
capability.

If you have this type of wrinkling, you can generate
20-pounds-per-square-inch stress in the device. Once you have that
stress, you calculate cycles-to-failure, you return to your model,
determine the frequency of activity over a year, a simple division then
gives you the fatigue life of that device.

We estimate that the fatigue life of Mentor devices is greater than 60
years. This is fatigue life at the radius. This is where you test with
parallel plates. Long-term fatigue device life must be considered in
conjunction with short-term failure population in order to obtain a
complete picture of device life. This testing results in failures at the
radius as seen clinically.

The radius is the thinnest part of the shell and the area subjected to
the greatest dynamic stress. The test conditions used in these tests
were body temperature and the device was in a physiological medium. The
overall failure rate in device life for devices must be based both on
overt, and we\'ve been talking about overt failures here, and silent
rupture rates that must be determined from clinical studies. And this
rate and device life will be brought up later in the presentation.

In summary then, Mentor PMA devices pass all guidance requirements for
biocompatability, silicone diffusion from devices is negligible and we
believe well-characterized, modes and causes of device failures to
approximately 10 years have been defined and estimated cyclic fatigue
life, based strictly on cyclic fatigue, is greater than 60 years. Now,
I\'ll turn the podium back over to Dr. Cunningham.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you very much, Dr. Barber. I want to discuss the
critical issue of rupture in these third-generation implants from a
clinical viewpoint. I will review the specific data from the Mentor Core
Study followed by the Sharpe and Collis Long-Term Rupture Study and then
place those results within the context of the medical literature on
third-generation devices.

The Core Gel MRI Substudy protocol was designed in collaboration with
the Agency to obtain the best possible data on the overall rupture
rates. The tool was an MRI imaging, the scans were read by local and
expert central reviewers, silent and overt, that\'s clinically evident
rupture rates were determined, and the sample size was based on an
estimate of 5 percent rupture rate at 10 years. That would imply a
minimal sample size of 320 patients.

Now, why should this sample size estimate be considered conservative? If
the rupture rate were assumed to be higher at 10 years, fewer patients
than the 320 would actually be required. We over-subscribed the study by
100 subjects to make sure that there would be more than adequate
follow-up. To place this in statistical context, if we had enrolled
1,000 patients, the upper confidence limit would only decrease to 1.46
from the current 2.25 percent.

420 patients were randomly enrolled into the MRI cohorts. The
demographic profile of the cohorts matches that of the non-MRI
population. There were two MRI evaluations to date at one and two years.
The two-year follow-up rates on the 372 patients, augmentation 91
percent, reconstruction 89 percent, revision 87 percent, but note the
number of patients followed-up exceeded the cohort requirement for
statistics of 320.

Here is the data from the MRI Study indicating the Kaplan-Meier rupture
rate for devices confirmed at explantation. Of the 1,007 patients, there
was only one patient in the revision cohort who had a bilateral rupture
confirmed at explantation. This data shows a .2 percent rupture rate for
patients and .3 percent rupture rate for devices.

Using the most conservative approach of combining the confirmed and the
suspected ruptures, the rupture rate at three years for each cohort is
shown as follows: 4.8 percent for the revision, .8 percent for
reconstruction and .5 percent for augmentation. The overall confirmed
and suspected rupture rate was 1.4 percent. Now, this is reported for
patients and we view it as a more conservative reporting style reporting
it by the percentage of implants of 1 percent which was done yesterday.

Now, to better understand the long-term rupture rates of Mentor
third-generation devices, we now turn to the work done by Drs. Sharpe
and Collis in the United Kingdom and referred to as the Long-Term Study.
As a reminder from a slide we showed previously, Mentor believes and the
literature supports that the mechanical characteristic issues, such as
rupture, must be described in generation- specific terms, in this case
third-generation.

This is in distinction to issues concerning the biological effects of
silicone and the health consequences that can be conservatively
estimated using data from all generations. In this Long-Term Silent
Rupture Study, conducted in the United Kingdom by Drs. Sharpe and
Collis, only Mentor\'s third-generation PMA devices were evaluated.
Their integrity was evaluated by MRI ranging from implant duration *in
vivo* of 4 years out to 12 years.

The patients were evaluated with a physical examination. Then they were
evaluated by MRI at two points of the implant duration ranging from 4 to
12 years. If the device was ruptured, that\'s the trouble coming here
from Minnesota, you know, it\'s just too warm, they were then referred
to a rheumatologist for a formal standard evaluation. And then, finally,
their status was confirmed at explantation.

Let\'s look at the patients accounting for this study. 101 patients
agreed to participate in the Long-Term Study. Drs. Sharpe and Collis
began by identifying 204 patients from their cosmetic National Health
Service population with Mentor third-generation devices. 14 of these
patients no longer had their original implants. Then 190 patients were
remaining and they were offered an opportunity to participate in the
study. 101 patients agreed to participate.

Thank you very much, Dr. Krause. Note, when the study was done, Sharpe
and Collis reported no overt ruptures among the 204 patients. The study
population included patients with Baker III and IV capsular contracture
and patients with prior surgical procedures, such as mastopexy. As
mentioned earlier, 14 patients who no longer had their implants were
excluded. These patients? original implants had been removed to
appropriately treat capsular contracture. But of note, all of those 14
implants that were removed were intact at the time of removal.

The Long-Term Rupture Study design as with the Core MRI Study collected
data through MRI examination with a 1.5 Tesla breast coil. The MRIs were
evaluated by two independent radiologists. Consistent with Draft
Guidance, the data analysis calculated both the overall rupture rate and
the cumulative probability of rupture over time, that is annually.

Moving from the study design to the study findings. The mean implant
duration was 8.8 years. The average age of the implant at confirmed
rupture was 9.1 years. There were no overt ruptures and the confirmed
silent ruptures were 8.9 percent by patient and 5.4 percent by implant
with no extracapsular ruptures. In addition, no ruptures at all were
seen or observed until seven years after implantation.

But not only does this study allow us to understand the overall rupture
rate, it also allows us to characterize the cumulative probability of
rupture over time, that is annually out to 12 years. At 12 years, the
cumulative rate of silent ruptures will be 15 percent for the patients
and .9 percent for the implants.

The 95 percent confidence intervals for both are indicated on the graph.
By implant at 12 years, the 95 percent confidence interval is 0 to 19
percent. With 19 percent representing the worst-case and with the
cumulative rate of 9 percent as the best case, best statistical
estimate.

You will recall that Dr. Barber discussed our preclinical cyclic fatigue
estimates. Through Sharpe and Collis we interposed some clinical
conditions to help us understand and further interpret the expected
fatigue life estimate. In our estimates, we use the worst-case upper
bound 19 percent cumulative rupture rate and the best statistical
estimate of a 9 percent rate from 6 years onward to give us an expected
median implant lifetime range of 25 to 47 years.

Now, how does this rupture rate compare to the literature? This rupture
finding of 15 percent for patients from the Long-Term Rupture Study is
statistically consistent with the conclusion drawn from Holmich 2003.
Holmich 2003 is an important published study describing silent ruptures
of third-generation implants. Of note, the single site with a faulty MRI
coil reported on in Holmich 2001 was excluded in this analysis. It also
discusses other generations, so it is critical to review this report
carefully and to distinguish data reporting by generation. In this
study, 62 percent of the total implants studies were third-generation
and the rupture incidence falls within the Long-Term Study confidence
intervals.

What did Holmich conclude for third-generation products? The authors
conclude third-generation implants currently in use are relative durable
for the first six to eight years in-situ after which the rupture weight
increases. It increases 3.6 percent per year for third-generation
implants. The 8.9 percent cited by the FDA to describe this study is for
all generations. And as for the cumulative rate for modern
third-generation implants intact three years after implantation, we
estimated rupture- free survival of 98 percent at 5 years and 83 to 85
percent at 10 years, that is 15 to 17 percent rupture rate by implant.

Again, when you consider the silent rupture rate as reported in the
literature, it is critical to distinguish rates by generations. For this
reason, some of the literature published provides no meaningful
third-generation silent rupture rate information. For instance, Brown
2000, there were virtually no third-generation implants to evaluate,
only 12 out of 687. In Gaubitz, there was no generation-specific
evaluation provided and the reports spanned all three generations.

So Holmich then is the one published report that provides us with
meaningful third-generation information on long-term silent rupture
rates. And the findings are statistically consistent by falling within
our long-term PMA data confidence intervals.

Now, what do the core and the longer-term literature tell us about
overt, that is clinically evident ruptures? It has been suggested that
given the extremely low rupture rate in the Core Study, that conclusions
cannot be drawn. In fact, the Core Study provide very meaningful
information concerning rupture rate through three years, that is these
products do not tend to rupture during this period of time.

These Core Study findings are consistent with the literature evaluating
overt ruptures in third-generation devices for similar or longer periods
of time. This Henrickson Study followed 971 women up to two years
post-surgery with no overt ruptures reported. In an unpublished
third-generation subanalysis of the Kjoller cohort involving
augmentation patients with a mean implantation time of five years and
extending out to nine years, only 2 of 509 implants were ruptured.
That\'s .4 percent. Again, consistent results over this time frame.

So in summary, taking together the Core, Henrickson, Kjoller, Sharpe and
Collis, and Holmich tell a consistent story of the durability of
third-generation implants through approximately seven years after which
the rupture rate begins to increase. Now, I have summarized the findings
from Sharpe and Collis and how they relate to the literature.

Let me spend just a moment discussing these findings in the context of
an issue that the FDA raised in its Panel memo. That is, is the
Long-Term Study applicable to the general augmentation population?
Examination of this issue at many levels allows us to conclude that the
Long-Term Study is, in fact, applicable to the general population.
Listed are several of the issues we examined to respond to the FDA\'s
inquiry.

First, with regard to the issue of using a single-physician site.
Physician variability was not found to be a factor in the Core Gel Study
based on Cox regression analysis. Moreover, as we will be discussing in
a moment, the findings of this single site study are very consistent
with the important multi-site study, specifically Holmich 2003.

With regard to the anatomical location, Cox regression analysis
demonstrated that the subglandular placement in the Long-Term Study
shows no effect. And further, some literature suggests that this
location, in fact, might provide the worst-case scenario with regard to
implant rupture. We provide here the literature citations, for example,
Kulmala 2004 and a just issued study by Henrickson 2005 supporting our
conclusions that subglandular placement would provide a worst-case
finding.

Next, the exclusive use of textured implants in the Long-Term Study
similarly did not affect rupture findings. Specifically, the textured
implants represented 30 percent of the Core Gel Study augmentation
population. Cox analysis showed no affect of surface type for all
complications, including rupture. And most importantly, the recent
literature, which includes Kulmala, who followed patients out 11 years,
and the just published Henrickson, report no association between surface
type and complications.

Would you go back a slide, please? Thus, based on a more detailed review
of implant style, surgical approach and study sites, we conclude that
this Long-Term Rupture Study is quite applicable to the general
augmentation population.

This final slide is a graphic depiction of our clinical conclusions. You
can see here how the Long-Term Study rupture rate reaffirms and extends
the Core Gel Study findings of extremely low rupture rates. This is
based on two data points in Core and numerous data points through Sharpe
and Collis. And as has been established, both these studies are
consistent with third-generation literature.

Now, with Mentor having established both the modes and causes of failure
and the clinical findings of rupture in the short- and long-term, we
move next to the important question regarding implications of rupture
and potential for exposure.

The next series of questions to be addressed relate to the FDA\'s issues
regarding rupture progression and exposure and the potential health
consequences from these events. First, to the issue of extracapsular
rupture. In both the Core and the Long-Term Studies, we saw no
extracapsular ruptures for any studied device. Of note, there were two
revision patients with what we believe is legacy extracapsular gel from
their previously ruptured implants.

Of note, the current devices in them were both read by the reviewers
centrally and locally as not being ruptured. The Core and Long-Term
Study findings were not surprising. In fact, the literature for
third-generation devices demonstrates similar results. In a subanalysis
of 261 third-generation implants, only 2, that is .8 percent, reported
extracapsular rupture. As you will note, this rate is significantly
lower than the extracapsular rates seen in prior generations. 17.7 for
the first and 13.5 percent for the second-generation.

In conclusion, extracapsular ruptures appear largely to result from
closed capsulotomy, which is no longer an accepted procedure, or from
acute trauma. What do we know about progression of rupture, that is
progression from silent to symptomatic from intracapsular to
extracapsular? Holmich 2004 evaluated these issues. Notably, a
subanalysis by generations was not available for this study and thus,
these study findings probably represent the worst-case.

In this study, because 90 percent of the original intracapsular ruptures
showed no change at a second MRI evaluation, 84 percent of extracapsular
rupture remains stationary at a second MRI. The authors further found no
increase in autoantibody levels, no increase in breast hardness,
significant increase in non-specific breast changes. In conclusion, the
authors note implant rupture is a relatively harmless condition, which
only rarely progresses and gives rise to notable symptoms.

With progression of rupture having been addressed, the next important
issue we address are the local complications associated with implant
rupture. This table represents the local consequences reported from the
Core Study patients with both suspected and confirmed rupture. Nipple
sensation changes, reoperation, capsular contracture, hematoma and
wrinkling, and this is reported by implant.

From Core findings on local complications of rupture, we turn to the
literature on the local complications. We know from the Institute of
Medicine Report that an important consequence of rupture is explantation
requiring a reoperation. While there are reports of various signs and
symptoms associated with rupture, the only findings of statistical
significance are those listed here: Change in breast size and shape,
breast pain and breast hardness.

Still another question raised by the FDA for Panel consideration
concerned potential for gel migration. To understand gel migration, it
is important to aggregate and summarize data from a number of sources.
You will recall first that when we reported negligible diffusion of
low-molecular-weight siloxanes well below the No Effect Level from our
preclinical data. We also reported a subanalysis of third-generation
implants that showed extremely low extracapsular rupture rates .8
percent for third-generation implants.

Knowing that diffusion and extracapsular rupture rates are negligible
for this generation, what does the literature report? The literature
specific to migration provides us with these conclusions: In these
studies, silicone was retained primarily within the capsule. Only very
small amounts were detected in the surrounding tissue and regional lymph
nodes as seen with other implants, such as joint endoprostheses, dental
implants and orthopedic devices.

There historically have been rare anecdotal reports of distant/bulk
migration, but these reports have essentially been limited to three
contexts: Prior generation implants, closed capsulotomy, which is no
longer a standard of care, and severe trauma. It has been discussed over
the last couple of days and there have been suggestions that distant
migration occurs with third-generation implants. This is, in fact, not
supported by the literature.

Although there are isolated reports using magnetic resonance
spectroscopy to attempt to make the claim of distant migration, the
underlying work by Garrido has been thoroughly discredited. Furthermore,
Berner, et al, demonstrated silicone in the liver of women both with and
without breast implants.

Finally, the over-arching all of these issues of migration and exposure
findings must be the clinical context. As we will be discussing next,
the composite of literature finds no evidence of systemic health
consequences from silicone exposure of any kind, including migration. An
evaluation of rupture or exposure must be reviewed first and foremost in
light of what is known regarding the potential health consequences
resulting from these events.

It is well-established that the issues of connective tissue disease and
related signs and symptoms are best addressed by well-designed,
controlled epidemiological studies. And from that, we have to go to the
literature related to implants generally and the literature related to
ruptured implants.

There are a lot of studies up here, but the consistent conclusion drawn
from the large body of epidemiological study data on implants, which
involves over 34,000 patients, is that there is no evidence of an
association between connective tissue diseases related to silicone
gel-filled breast implants. Note that 10 of these studies also discussed
signs and symptoms. A series of studies have evaluated more specifically
the potential association between ruptured implants and connective
tissue disease.

The composite of these studies have an average follow-up range of 7 to
16 years. As with the larger body of evidence of literature, these
rupture-specific studies show no evidence of an association between
connective tissue disease and rupture events. Importantly, these
epidemiological studies represent the worst-case, that is to say they
included patients with prior implant generations associated with a
higher rupture rate and exposure than has been demonstrated for the
current third-generation devices.

In summary then, the combination of rupture-specific literature and the
general implant literature demonstrate no association between connective
tissue disease and silicone gel-filled breast implants. The universe of
epidemiological studies included patients with first- and
second-generation implants and thus, much greater exposure rate and
exposure to low-molecular-weight siloxanes.

Now, how does this body of literature square with the Core Study data?
First, it is important to understand that the FDA recognizes that the
Core Study is not designed to examine a potential linkage between
implants and connective tissue diseases. This quoted statement is drawn
from the Draft Guidance.

So what did the Core Study do in evaluating connective tissue diseases?
Well, first, patients with prior existing connective tissue diseases
were excluded from the study. Within Mentor\'s Core Study patients were
monitored for connective tissue diseases and based on that a
Kaplan-Meier rate for new diagnoses was determined, and that was .6
percent.

Here are the new diagnoses of connective tissue disease in the Core Gel
Study with the incidence compared to that of the general population. The
Draft Guidance expressly recommends that connective tissue diseases
should be compared to the literature. And, in fact, the findings in the
Core Study are lower than those of the population at large.

From connective tissue diagnosis, now, we must turn to the issue of
signs and symptoms. In the Core trial, we analyzed hundreds of systems
across cohorts. Although these combined system categories in the
augmentation cohort showed a statistical significance from baseline,
they were quite small in absolute terms and therefore in clinical terms.
In the reconstruction cohort none were significant and in the revision
cohort combined fatigue showed a significant increase.

Several comments about these GEE findings. First, if the differences had
any meaning, one would expect consistency across cohorts and no
symptoms, in fact, were consistent across the three patient groups.
Second, we note that the overall signs and symptoms were reported in the
Core Study as significantly less than those identified in Mentor\'s FDA
Approved Saline Breast Implant PMA. Third, we would note that fatigue
and joint pain are two of the most frequently reported symptoms in the
general population.

We provide over the next several slides the literature examining
associations between these symptoms and silicone breast implants. This
slide specifically addresses joint pain and the composite indicates that
join pain is no more common in women with breast implants than in the
general population. Through studies cited on this slide, we also know
that fatigue is no different in women with breast implants than in the
general population.

And we would further note that in these last two slides that joint pain
and fatigue are no different in women with ruptured versus intact
implants or in women with intra versus extracapsular rupture.

Now, several people have alluded to significant findings and symptoms in
the Fryzek 2001 Study of Danish women. In a much Longer-Term Study
evaluating Danish women, no associations were found. I draw your
attention to the Breiting Study from 2004. It featured a 19-year mean
follow-up time. It used other plastic surgery patients, such as breast
reduction, as a control and that?s recognized as the most appropriate
comparator group for health effect studies by Dr. Brinton.

Here is our conclusion. We conclude that long-term cosmetic breast
implantation may cause capsular contracture and breast pain, but it does
not appear to be associated with other symptoms, diseases or autoimmune
activity. Breast pain then is the only significant finding. With these
final safety conclusions reporting no systemic health consequences, I
would now like to introduce Dr. Rebecca Anderson, who will report on the
clinical effectiveness and benefits of Mentor\'s Silicone Gel Implants.
Dr. Anderson?

DR. ANDERSON: Thank you, Dr. Cunningham. Members of the Panel, my
portion of the presentation today will focus on the effectiveness
benefits results from the Core Gel Study. I will also summarize the
benefits cited in the literature. The Core Gel Study includes two
effectiveness objectives. The primary effectiveness objective was to
assess an increase in size and the secondary effectiveness objective was
to assess quality of life and patient satisfaction.

Regarding the primary effectiveness objective, augmentation in revision
patients demonstrated an increase in cup size. Restoration of the breast
mound was accomplished among the breast reconstruction patients and
there was an increase in chest circumference in all three cohorts, thus
meeting the primary effectiveness objective.

This table is the standardized quality of life assessments used to
assess the secondary effectiveness objective and they include the Body
Esteem scale, the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, the SF-36 Health Survey,
the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale and for the breast reconstruction
patients the Functional Living Index of Cancer. 97 percent of the
augmentation patients experienced greater than a cup size increase.

The secondary effectiveness measures for all cohorts were analyzed by
simple change from baseline and by aging adjusted change from baseline.
I will present the key findings. An increase in self-esteem was noted on
the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale, both before and after adjusting for
aging. There was no change in the overall score of the Body Esteem
scale. However, after adjusting for the aging effect, the total score on
the Body-Esteem scale increased.

The sexual attractiveness subscale and the chest score of the Body
Esteem scale increased with both simple change from baseline and what
adjusted for the aging effect. On the SF-36, there are eight subscales
and two component scales. Prior to adjusting for aging scores decreased.
After adjusting for the aging effect, the changes in 8 of 10 scales were
not statistically significant and 2 improved from baseline.

In the reconstruction cohort, restoration of the breast mound was
achieved. With respect to the secondary effectiveness objective, no
change among the reconstruction patients can be viewed positively due to
the body image concerns and physical challenges facing these patients.
No change was observed on the Body Esteem scale total score. However,
the chest score was significantly improved before and after adjusting
for aging. No change was seen on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale or the
Mental and Physical Component scales of the SF-36 prior to or after
aging adjustment.

A mean increase of 2.8 cm in chest circumference was seen in the
revision cohort. And increase in the Body Esteem scale chest score was
observed for the revision cohort prior to and after adjusting for aging.
The total score of the Body Esteem scale decreased prior to aging
adjustment, but was no longer significant after adjustment. However,
many Body Esteem scale questions are not relevant to patients with
breast implants.

For example, satisfaction with the feet is one such question. There was
no change on the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Decreases were seen on the
SF-36. However, when adjusted for the aging effect, there was no change
in the Physical and Mental Component scales or on 7 of the 8 subscales.
After adjusting for the aging effect, there was no statistically
significant change on the Tennessee Self-Concept Scale.

A global satisfaction question was asked of patients in each cohort.
Such an evaluation question related to overall satisfaction is
frequently used to assess medical product outcomes and determine patient
satisfaction. Among the augmentation patients, 99 percent indicated they
would have the surgery again after two years and 97 percent said they
would have the surgery again after three years.

98 percent of the reconstruction patients indicated they would have the
surgery again after two and three years and 95 percent of the revision
patients reported that they would have the surgery again after two
years, that increased to 96 percent after three years. Therefore,
satisfaction results among all cohorts are compellingly high.

FDA has recognized the literature as an appropriate source for
demonstrating clinical benefits. With that in mind, I will present a
brief summary of the relevant literature. In its review of the
literature, Mentor focused primarily on more recent publications,
because they are more reflective of current cultural norms related to
the issue of cosmetic and reconstructive surgery. The earlier cultural
bias against plastic and reconstructive surgery has changed. Cultural
norms tend to coincide with the introduction of the third-generation
devices. Mentor\'s publication review also focused primarily on clinical
outcomes.

Based upon the reports in the contemporary literature, primary
motivations and expectations cited by augmentation patients include to
improve body image and self-esteem, to improve body proportions, to
regain feelings of femininity and to restore size and shape after
pregnancy/lactation, weight loss and aging.

The literature regarding augmentation patients reports consistently high
levels of satisfaction. That satisfaction correlates to psychological
and physical well-being, which are both considered meaningful clinical
benefits.

In a study by Young and Associates, 2,273 women who underwent breast
augmentation reported extremely high levels of satisfaction ranging from
92 to 98 percent, depending upon the question asked. High overall
satisfaction with surgical outcomes was reported by Cash and Associates
2002. They further concluded that the high satisfaction was correlated
with improved body image, improved self-image and improved sexual
satisfaction.

In an editorial response to the Cash article, Dr. David Sarwer
recognized that such \"Studies will help correct the public perception
that cosmetic surgery is simply trivial vanity and will help reassure
the individual patient that improving one\'s appearance can result in
psychological improvements.\"

The professional literature has identified the following motivations and
expectations for those breast cancer patients who choose breast
reconstruction and they include: Restoration of the breast mound
following mastectomy, improve psychological health, self-esteem and body
image, avoidance of the need for an external prosthesis, which is often
hot and cumbersome, and it assists them to put living with cancer in
perspective and maintain a sense of femininity.

For some women who faced mastectomy, silicone gel-filled breast implants
provide the best reconstruction option. For over a decade, FDA has
formally recognized the public need for these products in this
population. Recent studies have indicated that the benefits of
reconstruction extend to women even over age 65. Girotto and Associates
reported that women over age 65 who elected breast reconstruction showed
improved quality of life outcomes compared to age-matched general
population patients and mastectomy-only patients.

Harcourt and Rumsey in a comprehensive review of the literature
substantiate the previously cited motivations for breast reconstruction.
Wilkens and Associates comprehensively evaluated psycho-social outcomes
among breast reconstruction patients. Their results indicated that
subjects experience significant gains after reconstruction across a wide
array of psycho-social measures, including vitality, social functioning,
emotional well-being, general mental health, functional well-being and
emotional roles.

It is important to understand that social science studies differ
somewhat from FDA pre-approval clinical studies which support the safety
and effectiveness of medical devices. The duration and design of the
studies cited is representative of that in the social sciences
literature. Based upon the consistency across studies and the following
methodological characteristics of the studies cited, we believe it is
possible to draw meaningful conclusions regarding clinical benefits of
breast implants.

In many studies, sample sizes range from several hundred to over 2,000.
Studies measuring pre- and postoperative status use the same assessment
instruments. Patients served as their own controls and were evaluated
using pre- and postoperative assessments.

Some of the studies were multicenter. Articles cited appeared in peer
review journals. Most of the studies did not exclude participants with
adverse outcomes. The majority of the survey instruments are generally
accepted in validated outcome measures. And the composite of the
literature reflects multiple studies conducted by different
investigators of recognized confidence with consistent findings across
studies. Satisfaction results are consistent among cited studies and
with the Core Gel Study.

In summary, the primary effectiveness objective was met for all cohorts.
Quality of life benefits are demonstrated, reconstruction patients
reported a significant improvement on the Body Esteem chest score,
augmentation patients experienced statistical and clinical improvements
on measures of self and body esteem. All SF-36 scores showed no change
or improvement when adjusted for the aging effect, except for the social
functioning score for the revision cohort. Quality of life benefits are
consistent with the literature.

In conclusion, high global satisfaction rates from the Core Study are
substantiated by the literature. Regardless of study design, recent
literature consistently demonstrates that satisfaction correlates to
psychological and physical well-being and are meaningful clinical
benefits.

Finally, FDA has previously issued statements on the importance of
factoring benefits into the efficacy calculation of these devices. FDA
has formally acknowledged the potential psychological benefits offered
by silicone gel-filled breast implants are an important part of the
device\'s efficacy.

In my practice in an academic institution, I have had the opportunity
over the past 15 years to see patients clinically and review the
literature. During that time, I have treated thousands of breast
patients. I have reviewed the literature and published. As a mental
health practitioner, I have a responsibility to look out for the
well-being of the women I treat. My experience has convinced me that the
benefits provided by silicone breast implants far outweigh the risks.

Thank you and Dr. Cunningham will provide a summation.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Thank you, Dr. Anderson. I would like to summarize
Mentor\'s PMA presentation and in so doing address the questions of
interest presented to the Panel concerning this PMA application. First,
to the issue of rupture rates over time. We have answered this question
from many sources. The Core data, the Mentor-specific clinical data out
to 12 years and we have shown that these data are consistent with the
medical literature on third-generation implants.

The estimated cyclic fatigue lifetime of greater than 60 years has been
established, assuming cyclic stress is the only factor. And if cyclic
stress estimates are adjusted based on clinical data, the medium life of
25 to 47 years can be determined for these devices.

Panel question No. 2 on progression of ruptures, migration and local
consequences, we believe this question must be considered in light of
what is known from the literature regarding systemic health
consequences. Composite literature findings show no evidence of an
association with systemic disease. The literature demonstrates no
consistent pattern of signs and symptoms.

These findings should guide any assessment on how much data are required
to address the issue, such as rupture progression and migration. Silent
rupture progression has been followed out to two years with Holmich.
Extracapsular rupture and migration for third-generations are extremely
rare. Local health consequences for ruptured implants have been
established by the Core Study and the medical literature.

The third question relates to clinical management as defined in product
labeling. The full spectrum of potential risks and benefits of these
devices along with recommendations for clinical management will be
provided in patient and physician labeling. Mentor will support the
recommendations of both the FDA and the ASPS and the aesthetic society
practice guidance.

Mentor\'s current proposed labeling contains the following
recommendations: Follow-up physician examinations are recommended on an
annual or biannual basis. If rupture is suspected, consult a physician.
If rupture is confirmed by a physician, the implant removal is
recommended. Monitor breast implants for rupture during monthly breast
self-exam and we\'ll provide a guidance on how to examine the breast. If
any changes are noticed, a plastic surgeon should be consulted and
should be visited.

Now, to address the fourth issue raised by the FDA, the President and
CEO of Mentor wishes to personally address the important issue of
post-market commitments, after which he will conclude the presentation.
Mr. Levine?

MR. LEVINE: Thank you, Dr. Cunningham. First, let me say personally on
behalf of my company and the physicians and patients we serve that our
post-market commitments will be followed. We are prepared to provide
whatever assurances the Panel and/or the Agency requests to continue to
monitor and improve patient outcomes post-approval. Specifically, we
will continue the Core Study to the end of its stated duration, that is
10 years, with annual post-approval reports or, for that matter, reports
at any interval requested by the Agency.

The question had been raised about our ability to assure compliance with
post-approval requirements. History provides a demonstrated track record
of our commitment in this respect. For our saline breast implants we are
now in our ninth year of study and for our saline testicular implants,
we are now in our fifth year of study, strong evidence that the company
has and will continue to fulfill its post-approval commitments.

We will also continue our explant retrieval analysis to continue to
refine our knowledge on modes and causes of failure. With regard to the
concept of a patient registry, we commit, as does the rest of our
industry, to provide financial support to an independent voluntary
third-party registry sponsored by the American Society for Plastic
Surgery and the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgery.

Participants in this registry will be encouraged to take part in
longitudinal studies in key areas including rupture, progression and
health consequences discussed over the last several days. The registry
will be housed and managed by a reputable, independent clinical research
organization.

It will be regulated by an Oversight Committee comprised of all
interested parties, including scientific disciplines of the type
represented by this Panel, industry as well as patients. And finally,
reports will be given annually to the FDA and the registry will be as
transparent to the public as possible consistent with privacy interests.

On labeling, as with our saline breast implants, we will engage focus
groups to ensure that our patient labeling always allows for an informed
decision. We have a continued commitment, and this is a critical point,
to provide an informed consent process post-market, and by that we mean
distributing to physicians a formal informed consent for their use with
patients, so that patients acknowledge that they have reviewed and
understood all risks and benefits. In other words, we will not just be
relying on patient labeling and continuing patient educational outreach
to inform our patients.

Along with industry, we will support a Comprehensive Physician Training
Program, which will include specific information with regard to
screening and clinical management of rupture, as well as modes and
causes of rupture findings based on Mentor data. A mandate of this
training will be physician certifications of participation.

Physician training will be just one component part of our ongoing
commitment to improve physician and patient education on these products.
And finally, Mentor will continue post-market its research and
development efforts to further enhance the performance characteristics
and labeling of our products.

Let me end today\'s presentation with four points that are for me
critical take home messages about this product and this PMA. First, we
have answered the three critical questions on rupture, modes and causes
of rupture, rupture rates over time and the health consequences of
rupture that were raised by FDA\'s Draft Guidance.

Second, all questions have been answered based on testing of Mentor
implants. Rather than respond to FDA\'s concerns through projects and/or
hypothesis, we have conducted the necessary experiments and studies to
provide reasonable assurances of safety and effectiveness.

Our preclinical science is state of the art. We have a well-designed and
well-conducted three-year clinical study on 1,000 of our patients that
tells an important and valuable story on ruptures through three years,
and that is that ruptures are negligible. And we have answered the
long-term rupture question with a 12-year Mentor-specific clinical
evaluation.

Our third message, health consequences are well-defined and local in
nature. Our fourth and final message is really a request. We ask that
you fully consider what so many women and their doctors have told you
over the last several days, and that is whether for augmentation or
reconstruction, improving an individual\'s self-image, self-esteem and
self- confidence is as integral to health and well-being as any medical
issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We look forward to taking your
questions.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. We\'re now open for Panel questions to the
sponsor directed toward their presentation. Dr. LoCero \-- LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: You\'ll get it right by the end of the three days.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Joe, fire up.

DR. LOCICERO: For Mr. Levine. Would you, please, just clarify which
devices you\'re seeking PMA approval on and which ones were in the Core
Study?

MR. LEVINE: Our smooth and textured silicone gel-filled breast implants.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: The moderate profile devices, both smooth and textured.

DR. LOCICERO: And those are the only ones you\'re looking for PMA
approval on?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: That is correct.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I wonder, Dr. Cunningham, could you give a little
description of what the Baker classification is for the condition of the
patients who have these implants?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, why don\'t I give you the one that I give my
residents and my patients? Perhaps it\'s a little simplistic, but the
Baker Grade I is basically a device that only the woman knows is there.
You can\'t feel it. You can\'t really see it. The Baker II, the most
intimate partners know that it\'s there. Baker III, it might be evident
in clothes and there might be some pain and Baker IV, it\'s stiff and
unnatural.

DR. MILLER: Okay. And you mentioned that your patients requested the
implants to be removed. What were the reasons for these requests?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: As we looked back for the patient request category, the
largest single patient request was for size, size change, and we feel
that\'s a parameter that can probably benefit from physician education
through the future.

DR. MILLER: Were the requests for removal based on symptoms or, you
know, Baker Class III or IV capsules and that sort of thing?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. The other major classification for implant removal
was Baker classification, Baker scar capsule problems.

DR. MILLER: Okay. Can I ask another question? I would like to ask a
question of Dr. Barber.

DR. BARBER: Before we go further, I want to clarify what was \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Speak into the microphone, please.

DR. BARBER: The devices \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Use the microphone, please.

DR. BARBER: I\'m sorry. The devices are moderate, moderate plus and high
profile, smooth and textured. Those are the families. I\'m sorry now.

DR. MILLER: I was interested in some of the information you showed on
diffusion of some of the implant, you know, components. You mentioned
that your projections are based on the fluid limited to the space around
the implant, but that fluid is in equilibrium with all the rest of the
fluid of the body.

DR. BARBER: Sure.

DR. MILLER: So really the total body fluid content is the pool that the
device is in equilibrium with, and that total body pool is being turned
over with urinary excretion and everything. So in some ways there will
never be an equilibrium established between the device and the patient
because of this. Could you comment on that?

DR. BARBER: Sure. And we looked at it from this standpoint. You have the
local fluid, which is changed out over time and that then allows a
continuing, but a very low diffusion rate. For example, let\'s just
assume that the fluid is turned over every 10 days, which is a
reasonable estimate probably, probably closer, a little longer than
that. Let\'s assume 10 days, 5 milliliters as being a reasonable
estimate. Then what you\'ll have is a diffusion rate of 10 percent of
that that got you to equilibrium, that equilibrium, which is an
extremely low number, probably lower than analytical capability today.

DR. MILLER: Do you have a notion of \-- if you assume that there will be
a constant rate of diffusion over the entire lifetime of the implant,
what would be the total exposure of the patient over your projected
lifetime, which I appreciate the projections you have done on that.

DR. BARBER: Well, we did answer that in saying, theoretically, if all of
the material, all of the siloxane, D4, D5 and D6, were expelled from the
implant by any mechanism, not in fusion certainly, because fusion takes
longer, within a 30 day period, you still don\'t exceed the toxicity
limits for those materials. The diffusion is much, much lower than that,
orders of magnitude.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Just to clarify, the studies were with an intact
elastomer shell. Did you do studies where free silicone gel was used to
measure diffusion?

DR. BARBER: You mean outside the shell itself, Dr. Choti?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes.

DR. BARBER: We have not done those. We plan to do those in the future.
We have not done those to date, but in theory the same constraints
apply. That is you\'ll get an equilibrium faster, but the constraints
that are there still apply. That is if you simply injected silicone,
which I would not recommend, the equilibrium set up by the fluid, the
extracellular fluid close to that, will control that diffusion. The
barrier layer causes that diffusion to be much slower. But the total
amounts, that kind of thing, is controlled by that solubility limit.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: But you didn\'t do these exposure studies mimicking a
ruptured implant, if you will. These were mimicking, if you will, intact
implants. Is that fair to say?

DR. BARBER: I did not \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is that fair to say, that these exposure studies, *in
vitro* exposure studies, mimic the presence of an intact implant rather
than a ruptured implant in which free silicone gel is \--

DR. BARBER: I have not done that. Certainly, it\'s something that will
be interesting to do.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li? Yes.

DR. LI: I\'m sorry. Dr. Barber, if you would stay there. I have a couple
more questions for you if you don\'t mind.

DR. BARBER: Sure.

DR. LI: Could you review for me how you determine the valence of the
residual platinum in your implant?

DR. BARBER: Yes, we did that in a couple of ways and I have \-- let me
go through it first. At one site, University of Georgia, they actually
used catalyst and it was an exaggerated level of platinum in that
catalyst. Those studies with X-ray absorption, sorry it escaped me for a
moment, it showed that the platinum was in the zero state.

DR. LI: My own experience with X-ray absorption is that it can\'t tell
you the valence state. Could you elaborate on how you used X-ray
absorption to look at the valence state?

DR. BARBER: We just happen to have probably one of the leading experts
here, Dr. Scott, from the University of Georgia. Let him elucidate that?

DR. LI: I would appreciate that. Thank you.

DR. BARBER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Introduce yourself.

DR. SCOTT: I\'m Robert Scott, distinguished research professor of
chemistry at the University of Georgia and have been doing X-ray
absorption spectroscopy for probably 25 years, longer than I would like
to admit. How technical would you like me to be?

DR. LI: Well, could you give me the 60 second version?

DR. SCOTT: I can. What happens in X-ray absorption spectroscopy is that
an X-ray ejects an electron bound to the core of a platinum atom.

DR. LI: Excuse me. Is this photoelectron spectroscopy?

DR. SCOTT: It is not photoelectron spectroscopy.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. SCOTT: It\'s a core electron rather than a valence electron.

DR. LI: So it\'s like ESCA then?

DR. SCOTT: ESCA is valence electrons being ejected.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. SCOTT: I\'m talking about core electrons.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. SCOTT: When that core electron is ejected, it takes a particular
energy to do that. That is the ionization energy of the electron,
platinum. That ionization energy is very large. It\'s in the thousands
of electron volts region, if that helps.

But because the valence effects the charge of the platinum from which
the electron is departing, the valence has an effect, although slight,
on the amount of energy it takes to ionize that core electron. Those
effects are in the eV range, but easily measurable, and that is part of
what we use X-ray absorption spectroscopy for, to do speciation and to
identify valence of not only platinum, but essentially any element on
the periodic table.

DR. LI: So would this method allow you, if there is a mix of valence in
your sample, they will all show up readily in your \--

DR. SCOTT: We will see every platinum in the sample and if it\'s a
mixture of 0, II or IV, the accepted valence states of platinum, we will
see something in between and we should be able to sort out from the
position of the edge the composition of the sample within reason.

DR. LI: And you did this test on the same catalyst that they use in
their implant?

DR. SCOTT: Yes. What we know is that when we look at the catalyst at
almost any concentration in siloxane fluid, that it is always
platinum(0), as far as we can tell, 100 percent platinum(0).

DR. LI: Okay. Thank you.

DR. SCOTT: Sure.

DR. BARBER: Could I just add one comment to round that out? We all need
to understand that platinum catalysis hydrosilylation has been
well-studied. In the early \'90s through the late \'90s, mechanisms were
elegantly described by people like Lewis, Dr. Scott and others. That
work shows clearly that the platinum state at the end of hydrosilylation
is platinum(0). So we\'re only confirming what is already very
well-known.

DR. LI: Maybe a follow-up question on that. You have characterized it
quite well. Thank you very much. Can you then comment on some testimony
we heard yesterday and that appears in the literature also that there
seemed to be a high level of platinum ions in these patients?

DR. BARBER: First of all, I\'ll comment and then I will turn it to
experts that can do it much better. There was reference to platinum
chloride. This is so-called Speier\'s catalyst and this is one of the
early catalysts that was used in the industry. Speier\'s catalyst, when
it actually enters a reaction, is converted. So all catalysts end up at
a platinum(0) state and then it cycles between platinum(II), platinum(0)
until the reaction is finished and it remains in the platinum(0).

Nobody uses a Speier catalyst. Nobody uses a catalyst containing
chlorine. Everyone uses a Karstedt catalyst today that is a more
effective catalyst and these are catalysts that are coordinated with
vinyl species. That\'s usually the form. This is the species that the
Speier catalyst goes to, but it\'s uniformly used today. So you won\'t
find platinum chloride anywhere. Now, you\'re asking about higher levels
of platinum.

DR. LI: Well, I\'m asking for a comment on how these patients that have
these implants appear to have a higher level of platinum ions.

DR. BARBER: To be very blunt with you, I think they are being subjected
to erroneous analysis. For example, a claim of platinum(VI), in my
opinion, personal opinion, and experts far better than I am will tell
you that platinum(VI) is a very, very rare valence state and cannot
exist in an aqueous environment. So I can\'t answer the question other
than to say I don\'t see how it\'s possible.

DR. LI: Okay. And then just a quick follow-up, but switching gears. You
said you weighed some of these implants that had been in for 15 years
and you got them as an explant and you saw no weight change. Did I get
that correct?

DR. BARBER: I\'m sorry. Would you speak louder?

DR. LI: Oh, sorry. If I understood you right, part of your retrieval
analysis was that you weighed implants.

DR. BARBER: Yes.

DR. LI: After they were in, in some cases up to 15 years.

DR. BARBER: Yes.

DR. LI: And you saw no weight change. I just kind of did back of the
envelope, a little math, and I took your bleed rates of your different
constituents, what you gave in micrograms per centimeter-squared per
day, did a little quick math and found that you can only \-- if all of
it came out, you would only get around a little over 300 micrograms. So
is your weighing technique sensitive to be able to detect 300
micrograms?

DR. BARBER: This was one of the early studies and we were looking for
macro changes because, as you probably know, some of the ASTM 703 tests,
which is not a good way to measure diffusion, got high rates and would
predict that you could see macro changes. So we were looking at macro
changes, didn\'t see any and were convinced that we would have to go to
more sensitive methods, but certainly there was no macro effect.

DR. LI: Right. But you could have had bleed rates similar to your
laboratory tests and not be able to detect it?

DR. BARBER: Oh, yes, absolutely, and we agree entirely that we can and
do have those bleed rates, certainly.

DR. LI: And kind of related to that question, if I can stick one more
in. Have there been any studies of analysis of periprosthetic tissue
around these implants for silicone levels or any constituents that one
normally finds?

DR. BARBER: Dr. Wixtrom.

DR. WIXTROM: Yes. My name is Roger Wixtrom. I\'m a toxicologist and I
have reviewed the safety of silicone medical devices for the past 15
years. Yes, there is. There was an article not too long ago by Flassbeck
et al, that actually quantitated the levels of D4, D5, etcetera, in the
capsule tissue around women with breast implants.

Now, actually in their study they reported on only three patients with
breast implants. Based on the time of the implantation, the first one,
Patient A in the study, actually had higher levels as one would expect
with a second-generation implant.

What we did is we looked to see, based on our gel diffusion results that
Dr. Barber described to you, how do those relate to what we would
estimate or what we would estimate based on the size of the capsule and
the thickness of the capsule, are we in the ballpark?

And what we found is if you assumed what our surgeons tell us is the
average thickness of the capsule, the levels that Flassbeck reported for
those second and third patients were about 100-fold below the levels
that we estimated in our gel diffusion studies.

DR. LI: And these were for intact implants, obviously?

DR. WIXTROM: What\'s that?

DR. LI: These were for intact implants in these patients?

DR. WIXTROM: I believe both of those were intact.

DR. LI: Okay. Thank you.

DR. WIXTROM: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Other questions from the Panel directed to the sponsor?
Yes, Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: Dr. Cunningham, I have two questions for you. Going to
your analysis of infection, the \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: The Kaplan-Meier?

DR. LOCICERO: The Kaplan-Meier, yes. The infection rate is quite low for
the augmentation and revision patients and it\'s 5.3 percent for those
having reconstruction. Is that in the ballpark of infections for
patients who are reconstructed without an implant?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: I think that if you look over the long span, three years
like this is, I think, the immediate five or so percent of postoperative
infections that you would see with a woman, for instance having a
latissimus flap or a TRAM flap, I think it\'s within the ballpark. And
when you go out and then come back and look at the many women who have
had TRAM flap reconstructions who have to have their abdomens closed
with mesh, who have problems with mesh, I think that group is actually a
higher group than the group we\'re showing here.

DR. LOCICERO: Okay. And in terms of the comparison to those with saline
implants, would that be in the same range?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: We showed you a slide earlier with complications of
saline and in the reconstructive group, saline generally has a higher
complication rate than gel.

DR. LOCICERO: And then in the Kaplan-Meier analysis of reoperation, the
reoperation rates for revision and reconstruction patients are,
essentially, the same at one quarter require reoperation.

Do patients who have other forms of reconstruction have rates similar to
that?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, certainly, in my practice and as I read the
medical literature, the group of patients who can\'t have
reconstructions with implants have to have a much more complicated type
of surgery. They have to either have a flap brought around from their
backs or they have to have their abdominal wall used for that
reconstruction. And I think the medical literature is pretty clear on a
large complication rate for TRAM flaps, both abdominally associated and
then having to revise the breast.

And also included here is the fact that, you know, many reoperations
were for size change. You have the same problems as you try to remodel
the abdominal contents that are now up on the chest wall. So it may be a
little less, but it\'s probably comparable certainly for the TRAM and
probably less for the latissimus.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: Dr. Cunningham, I have a few questions, please. First of
all, in the Longer- Term Rupture Study, were those models the same as
what you have in your PMA?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, first of all, we didn\'t use a statistical model
to try to predict as you may have heard yesterday. We used the actual
patient data and there was a computation of that data assigned, you
know, that was used on those patients. And I would like to ask Dr.
Poggio if he would come up and maybe go over that data calculation for
you.

DR. NEWBURGER: I beg your pardon. I\'m not asking about data modeling.
I\'m asking about breast implant model or style.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Oh, I\'m sorry. I thought you were talking about data
modeling. The styles in the Sharpe and Collis were the same as ones that
are being asked for approval today. They were textured models rather
than smooth models.

DR. NEWBURGER: But the profiles were the same?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

DR. NEWBURGER: Also, in your chart on connective tissue disease findings
being lower than in the general population, I think \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: That\'s in the Core Study? That\'s the grid?

DR. NEWBURGER: Your Slide 85, Core Study.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Let me put it up here for you.

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes, Core Study. I\'m not aware that all of the
literature quotes actually are on incidence. I think a few of them are
prevalence and since you have eliminated people with connective tissue
disease in your Core Study Group, I wonder if that\'s actually a fair
comparison.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Why don\'t I ask Dr. Wixtrom if he\'ll speak to the
articles that were chosen here. Dr. Wixtrom?

DR. WIXTROM: Yes. That\'s a very good question. I think one of the
things in the field of connective tissue disease that is quite difficult
is that there are actually very limited numbers available as far as good
quality estimates for a number of these conditions. The ones we cited, I
have the papers with me right here where they were available separately
for women. We have included that population.

You are correct in assuming that some of those are probably prevalence
as opposed to incidence, and that is why if the numbers were directly
comparable, I think we would have more concern, but our numbers are
substantially lower, yes.

DR. NEWBURGER: I have one more question.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes.

DR. NEWBURGER: I think for Dr. Cunningham. I was having a little trouble
matching up the numbers and it seems to me that perhaps patients who
were explanted during the duration of the study were not followed for
signs and symptoms. Am I correct in that?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: The patients when they enrolled in the study, the
protocol and the informed consent that they signed was for being
followed during the course of the study when they had a device in place.
Now, a number of those had that device removed and had another study
device placed. Those patients were studied.

The patients who had no device placed and who left the study, it would
really be inappropriate. HIPAA regulations wouldn\'t allow us to study
them more than what the standard of care of the physician treating them,
the plastic surgeon, would do for getting them past the immediate
surgical hurdle of having the implant removed.

So they had given no permission to us to be followed into the future
once they had their device removed, not replaced or out of the study. So
those people were not followed and appropriately not so.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Cunningham, what is the lifetime of your device?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: I would ask Dr. Barber to give that summation. We have
given it to you in a number of different ways, and I think 25 to 47
years is what we are saying as the lifetime of the device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I mean, I think you have shown that it looks like the
rupture rate is not linear. I mean, is that fair to say based on the
long-term data that you showed?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I think we can say that the rupture rate out to
six or seven years appears to be very, very low. After that, the rupture
rate seems to come up and I could ask Dr. Poggio to help interpret that,
the question of whether it\'s a linear function or not. Why don\'t I ask
Dr. Poggio, who is our statistician, if he would give you that answer?

DR. POGGIO: Hi. My name is Gene Poggio. I am managing vice president of
Biostatistics and Epidemiology at Abt Associates Clinical Trials, been
involved in breast implant evaluations for a decade and have no personal
or financial interest in Mentor Corporation or any other manufacturer.

The estimates of 25 to 47 were obtained by extrapolating from the Sharpe
and Collis numbers. We used the point estimate and the upper confidence
bound, the upper part of the confidence interval. And since things were
quite close to zero up to six years, we conservatively assumed a linear
rupture rate. That\'s not quite the same as saying that the survival
curve is linear, but that the rupture rate itself is constant.

And we used the rate between 6 and 12 years going from zero to the point
estimate and then extended that on and asked how long it would take to
get to the 50 percent point, the median, and then also from 6 years to
12 years, the upper bound point, we assumed that that \-- used that to
estimate a higher rate and then extrapolated that. And with that we got
the 25 and 47s as potential medians and we think that\'s quite
conservative, because we have used \-- especially with the upper bound,
because we\'re assuming a very high rate just using the 6 to 12 years
and assuming it goes at that rate constantly from then on.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So if I understand you, you\'re assuming a linear rate
of rupture that is low and then at some point, like 6 to 10 years, then
it shifts to a higher annual rupture rate, but still linear?

DR. POGGIO: Well, we\'re using the data we have. It is very close to
zero from 0 to 6 years and then, assuming it were zero at 6 years, look
at the implied rate to go from zero to the point estimate at 12 years or
to the upper bound at 12 years, and we assumed a constant hazard rate,
and then use that to compute the survival curve out.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So if you\'re saying the lifetime of the device is 25 to
47 years, so a woman that has the device in for 25 years, what would you
anticipate her risk of rupture at that timepoint?

DR. POGGIO: Well, if that\'s the estimate, then it would be 50 percent
at that timepoint, because it\'s the median. For the estimate that got
us to 25, we would say half the people, half the women, would have their
implant rupture by then and half after.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And so that, in your opinion, is still within the
lifetime of the device even though there\'s a 50 percent chance that it
had ruptured?

DR. POGGIO: Well, when one says what is the lifetime of the device,
there is obviously variation in that. We\'re characterizing the lifetime
by the median as would a typical measure.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I want to follow-up on this lifetime issue. I think Dr.
Barber maybe said that the fatigue life was 60 years, and I don\'t know
if that fatigue life, 60 years, was a median rupture or what that number
exactly represented. But let\'s say it\'s saying that it is the lifetime
as the 60 years.

And if 80 percent of the ruptures were thought to be related to surgical
manipulation and if those mostly happen in the first 10 years, let\'s
say, of the device being present, then how would you account for the
failures then subsequent to that time if the fatigue is 60 years?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Before I invite Dr. Barber back up, let me just address
a couple of things. I was fascinated by the discussion yesterday and
feel that Dr. Spear very appropriately said surgeons don\'t go near
devices with knives and I think it\'s very true. And that certainly
applies 150 percent for the time during which the device is being
placed.

However, when you\'re taking a device out it\'s a totally different
proposition. You know, you\'re trying to remove it. You\'re being
careful, but you\'re using a knife to cut through the skin to get down
to where the device is. Also, you may be reaching in to grab that with a
pickup or with a clamp or you\'re pulling it out under force.

So as we think about some of these devices that get returned with
iatrogenic causes, we can\'t tell when those devices were damaged.
Certainly, some of them may have been damaged as they were placed in,
but I think a vast majority of them are damaged when they are taken out.

Also, the personnel in the OR, as all of you know, I mean, they don\'t
view this device as a part of an evidentiary standard. You know, they
are very careless with them. They pack them up. They send them back.
They have to be re-sterilized. They have to be repackaged to be returned
to the manufacturer. So we can\'t tell how many of those events either
propagate or cause a rupture.

Now, your other question had to do with, what, the reconciling, the
mechanical testing with the in situ issue. And Dr. Barber was talking
about trying to model a situation where a device would be modeled based
on the average activities of an individual woman who is exercising,
doing the activities of daily life.

And certainly, we all know there is a huge range of activities between
someone who is, you know, a 120 pound marathoner and somebody who is a
more stay at home, recreational type of person. So it\'s hard to build a
model that accomplishes all that. Plus the model that they are talking
about is designed to evaluate a very small crease that forms.

We know over time that some people will develop scar capsular
contractures. The scar capsular contracture squeezes the total volume of
the device into a smaller space and these folds enfolding along the
device can develop, and it\'s probably a fold that is more severe than
the fold that\'s used in this modeling estimate.

And it may be that if the device does not change position, that fold
stays in a similar place over time and that fold, as I tell my patients,
is just like folding a piece of paper back and forth. Sooner or later
that part of the wall is going to be weaker. So maybe that would help
reconcile the difference between this 60 year lifetime in a fairly
controlled compression, repetitive cycling milieu and the milieu that
these are actually placed in, a human body plus the secondary effects of
scar capsule.

Does that help or would you like me to call Dr. Barber up?

DR. LEITCH: Well, I was just wondering if you would postulate, it
doesn\'t seem like you have, but if you would postulate that once you
got rid of the ruptures that you thought were related to surgical
intervention, if the material is as strong and the fatigue is so long,
could you postulate that the rupture rate would go down at a certain
point?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Let me ask Dr. Barber if he can answer that.

DR. BARBER: I don\'t know if you were looking carefully when I described
0 to 5 and 6 to 10. The first, the failures in the 0/5 time frame was
about 240 and the next, I don\'t remember the numbers, but they were
smaller. In point of fact, when we looked at modes and causes and looked
at all of the causes that we could see, what you would have always was a
large distribution that then would tail down to 10 years. We only saw
three failures overt, let me emphasize that, overt failures after 10
years.

So yes, and we hypothesized that\'s what you see, that you have some
damage from instruments, obviously, from implantation, folding and we
believe that once that\'s done, then you will proceed to this longer
term fatigue failure. That is not to say that, obviously, when you view
life now you have to view it at the top. So you have to view the number
that failed here plus the number of potential failures.

But when we were looking beyond 10 years, for example, in our population
there were over 110,000 devices that could fail and weren\'t. So we
think it\'s tailing down and that eventually, like the example of an
automobile aging, you will start to see this gradual trend up. It
hasn\'t started yet.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I have a question about the natural history of ruptured
implants. Dr. Cunningham, you mentioned a Holmich Study from 2004 where
some of these implants were left in place. I wonder if you could
elaborate on that a little bit, how many patients did this involve, and
just a few more details about that?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Perhaps I could call up our literature expert, Dr.
Wixtrom, to give the details of that study. I\'m going to put a slide up
to help him understand that. We\'re very fortunate, of course, to have
that study available to us, because that is not really something, as we
thought about it, that could probably ever be done in the States. So Dr.
Wixtrom? Actually, let me close that so you don\'t short it out.

DR. WIXTROM: Yes, Dr. Miller. The baseline, I have the abstract here
from that study. The baseline magnetic resonance imaging examination was
performed in 1999 on 271 women. Two years later there was a follow-up
MRI exam in 2001. As you can see here, there were 64 augmentation
patients in the study. There were silent ruptures left in place and they
looked at what happened over that two-year period.

DR. MILLER: Excuse me. Just to clarify, there were 64 patients with
silent ruptures out of that 271?

DR. WIXTROM: Okay. The 271, they excluded or actually during the time
interval between the first and second MRI exam, there were 44 device
that were removed due to rupture. Those were added into the rate that
you saw at the 10 year estimate, the 15 percent.

Now, one confusion that I have heard in previous days here is that in
this study, in the Holmich studies that looked at this at a two-year
interval between the MRIs, the time of implantation when that first MRI
was taken varied from a minimum of four years to a much longer time
frame. So you weren\'t looking at implants that had only been in for
four years. And then they examined whether there was progression of
those ruptures among the silent ruptures left in.

And one of the things we think, based on the other sub-analyses that you
saw in the main presentation, when we looked at the third-generation
subset of patients in these Danish studies, based on the stronger
envelope, the thicker gel in these devices, we don\'t have the
third-generation subset out of this particular study yet, although we
are attempting to obtain that information.

But in the other studies we have seen that for third-generation devices,
owing to their characteristics, the extracapsular rupture rate is lower,
the overall rupture rate is lower and we would expect, based on the
characteristics of the devices, that the progression would be reduced
over what we\'re seeing with the combination of second-generation
devices.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Because the gel consistency is different?

DR. WIXTROM: Because the gel is cohesive. In fact, if one makes an
incision along the radius of one of these devices and squeezes that
device very firmly, you will see the gel appear through the incision,
but as you release the pressure, it comes back in.

DR. MILLER: So, again, this is important to me, because it\'s one of our
specific questions and this is so unique. And I haven\'t see the
abstract of this paper, unfortunately, but how many patients had
ruptures, had silent ruptures that were not explanted and were followed?
What was the number of patients?

DR. WIXTROM: Okay. I apologize for not having this up on a slide. Okay.
There were \--

DR. MILLER: We can discuss it later perhaps.

DR. WIXTROM: I have a chart here that shows it. The women eligible for
the second MRI, there were 228 women. There were 22 who did not
participate. There were 206 who participated in the second MRI and the
number of women with at least one untreated rupture from the first to
second MRI was 64 women with 96 ruptured devices in a total of 126
implants.

DR. MILLER: Okay. And then how long were those devices followed and what
happened? I mean, were they eventually explanted? Do we know that from
the study or what happened?

DR. WIXTROM: This was a 2004 study, so I don\'t believe we know that.

DR. MILLER: Okay. They are still being followed.

DR. WIXTROM: What we know are the results of the two-year.

DR. MILLER: Okay. I understand.

DR. WIXTROM: Right. And as I understand, there is some talk that there
might be further investigation down the road of this cohort.

DR. MILLER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: For your Long-Term Rupture Study, MRIs were done. At what
point was it decided they would be done or did you just \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: I\'m sorry, for the Core Study?

DR. LEITCH: Not the Core Study, not the Core Study, because I know when
those were done.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: The Sharpe and Collis Study?

DR. LEITCH: Right.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: They were \--

DR. LEITCH: Where you\'re trying to give, you know, your 12 year data.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Right. They had a database that was a database of their
practice and they started MRIing, I think, at four to six years. So they
started the MRIs at year four. So if you\'re asking well, what were the
ruptures reported up to year four, there were none, because the group
that they MRIed at around year four, none of those patients had any
ruptures.

DR. LEITCH: So \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: So they did not start MRIing them at year zero. It\'s
similar in design to the Holmich Study where they wanted to start the
MRI at a time when they felt they might capture some ruptures.

DR. LEITCH: And so \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: So the MRIs started \--

DR. LEITCH: It says evaluated by MRI, points of implant duration ranging
from 4 to 12 years. So what I\'m asking, I guess, is did everybody have
an MRI at four years?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: No. Why don\'t I ask Roger Wixtrom who is most familiar
with that database to come up and discuss that?

DR. WIXTROM: Okay. Most of the MRIs, as I recall, in this study were
performed between 2000 and 2003, I believe. And what they did is they
looked at the consecutive patients that they had had over the years that
they had tracked in their database, and the focus of the results that
you\'re seeing are on the population of National Health Service patients
with the textured subglandular current generation Mentor devices.

And so the patients who were invited to come in and obtain the single
MRI evaluation had had varying implantation times from as short as four
years to as long as 12 years. Okay. And as far as, which Dr. Cunningham
referred to, the less than four group, in their database they also
tracked whether there were any reports of overt rupture among the entire
population and there were none. So that is how the data were collected
from those studies.

DR. LEITCH: So starting at four years, there would have been no overt
ruptures prior to that time, right?

DR. WIXTROM: There were no overt ruptures seen, correct.

DR. LEITCH: Okay. And so then the breakdown of, you know, how many were
at what year of follow-up, do you have that?

DR. WIXTROM: This may be a question you would want our statistician to
refer to, but basically what we have is cross-sectional data, which we
were then able to determine estimates of rupture rate over time with the
method that Dr. Poggio has described in the materials. So that is how
the data in this graph were obtained.

DR. LEITCH: I guess I just wanted some absolute numbers if you had them
of, you know, where the patients were in the continuum, because it\'s
101 patients, right?

DR. WIXTROM: It is 101 patients.

DR. LEITCH: And just where they were in the continuum of that 4 to 12
years.

DR. WIXTROM: Selective cluster, yes. I don\'t have that right here, but
we can obtain that.

DR. LEITCH: Well, do you think most of them were four years or most of
them were fifth year?

DR. WIXTROM: Actually, we had a considerable number in the latter years
as well.

DR. LEITCH: Okay.

DR. WIXTROM: And the confidence intervals that you see there sort of
reflect, you know, how many patients that we still \-- you know, we had
in the later time range, which affected the confidence interval that you
see there.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan, question?

DR. CALLAHAN: Do you have any information about were there any
differences in the women who agreed to participate versus those who
didn\'t participate?

DR. WIXTROM: You may want to ask Dr. Poggio for additional follow-up,
but one of the discussions that we had is a discussion of whether or not
we think there might be bias in the study. Dr. Cunningham reviewed a
number of the characteristics that we looked at.

One of the reasons that we feel that this population would be applicable
to Mentor\'s current products here is because the women in this study,
it was focused primarily on identifying silent rupture. So the women
would not have been aware whether or not their devices were ruptured. As
far as detailed demographic data on the patients who showed up and did
not, we actually do not have detailed demographic data. We do have age.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: In your Long-Term Rupture Study design, it was noted that the
patients who experienced a ruptured implant were examined by a
rheumatologist, and I wondered if you had any information regarding
those evaluations.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes. There were, I think, 11 patients that were referred
to rheumatologists. 10 of them had a full rheumatology workup. There was
only one case. Why don\'t we have that slide? So the MRI patients had an
independent examination. The incidence of rheumatological diseases was
determined and there is a slide here with the outcome.

One patient had a diagnosis. The rheumatologist felt that that diagnosis
was not attributable to the device, but only one of the 11 or so had it.
It was a myalgic encephalitis and they decided that it had nothing to do
with the device. That was the objective rheumatologist\'s view.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Yes. I would like to revisit a little bit this fatigue data,
perhaps questions for Dr. Barber. First, let me say I thought your
testing in the fatigue was excellent. It\'s perhaps the best I have seen
and I congratulate you actually on the scope and the magnitude and just
the plain hard work it took to get the data. So nonetheless, I have some
questions.

At the end of the day, you tried to collect or tried to calculate a
lifetime based on what you called the Basquin-Gerber combination of
equations. Now, my experience with this is that both of these equations,
not that they are inappropriate, but they were designed for metals like
Basquin\'s was I think in 1910 published for steel.

DR. BARBER: Yes.

DR. LI: And coming from the plastics industry, calculating lifetimes of
any plastic in any application is extremely difficult a task. And so you
have taken two equations of limited value for polymers, in my
experience, and kind of combined them to try to calculate a lifetime for
your device here and you got the 61 year estimate.

My question is have you done anything to validate the use of this
combination of equations for this application? In other words, assuming
that you follow the Basquin-Gerber equation and your calculations for
the constants in that equation, have you gone back and picked a load and
picked a number of cycles and tried it to see how close you got to that
prediction? Because of exponents in here, my experience is if you\'re
just a little bit off in stress, the slopes are so steep that you get
huge variations in the number of cycles it takes to actually break it.

So my simplified question is have you validated the combination of those
two equations as actually being an accurate representation of this
device?

DR. BARBER: Actually, the combination was not made to accommodate
plastic or elastomers, but rather the fact that the Basquin equation, as
I\'m sure you know, goes from tension to compression.

DR. LI: Right.

DR. BARBER: And in our studies go from zero to compression. So it
wasn\'t meant to do that.

DR. LI: No, it\'s reasonable. I guess my question is is it applicable?

DR. BARBER: Yes.

DR. LI: I mean, it\'s a reasonable approach. The question is is it
applicable?

DR. BARBER: Yes, yes. I was just clarifying that. Have we validated it?
No. There is good news and bad news. The good news is we think we have a
good model. The bad news is that this increasing failure rate hasn\'t
started. Once we have that, then we can ask the question, have we
hypothesized correctly for wrinkling? We should see evidence of that.

Until we have failures \-- we continue to test, of course, but it\'s not
like having failures you can point to and touch and examine. Until we
have those, it\'s going to be difficult to say yes, I have validated it.
You can test over and over, but it\'s very difficult to validate the
method itself.

DR. LI: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein, do you have anything to add to the
discussion?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: No, I\'ll have something to say later.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: Questions for Dr. Cunningham. Please, educate me in terms
of the current trend toward placement of breast implants. It was my
understanding that currently it\'s a submuscular location, that\'s the
trend now, and your long-term trial was on \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Subglandular.

DR. NEWBURGER: \-- subglandular. And could you speculate as to the
differences in the stresses and compression in a submuscular versus a
subglandular location? That is my first question. I have a couple
others.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, as you are correct, the trend has been to go from
the subglandular approach, which was the predominant approach used for
Generation I and II devices, to a submuscular approach. A great deal of
that, of course, has been influenced by the practices that were really
necessary in order to camouflage some of the side effects of saline
implants, such as scalloping and wrinkling, some of the things that are
undesirable.

And I think as most of us went on into these investigational studies, we
tended to put them submuscularly, but there is still a large number of
people who do place them in the subglandular position. We did a Cox
regression analysis that looked at rupture rates and position and our
Core Study did not find it was significant.

Now, in terms of the structural loads, it\'s kind of a mixed blessing.
If it\'s on top of the muscle, there is probably more action, more
recoil underneath the muscle like you can say there might be more
physical tension on it. There are many who argue that the submuscular or
the subglandular is a worst- case scenario not so much because of
repetitive mechanical stress, but more because of the fact that that
site tends to form scar capsules more readily, and the scar capsules
could lead to the kind of folding that Dr. Barber was discussing as a
long-term rate of, cause of failure.

So I\'m not sure that the mechanical stress is as important as the
higher degree of capsules and folds in the subglandular position.

DR. NEWBURGER: Thank you. Yesterday, no, two days ago, sorry, in public
testimony we heard from a young woman who had an illness that she
attributed to a Mentor implant. Have you contacted that young woman?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: We did look through all of our studies for that woman by
the name that she stated in the public record. We do not have a record
of a patient with that name in the adjunct study. We do not have a
record of a patient with that name in the Core Study. So we were unable
to find her documentation.

DR. NEWBURGER: Thank you. Lastly \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Let me just check. Yes, we also went to MAUDE, the FDA
website, and could not find her listed there either. So it\'s possible
that her surgery was done under a different name or maiden name perhaps,
but the name she stated we checked in every source that we could.
Obviously, we want to know what\'s going on and we could not find her.

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay. I was looking. You have an 18 year history of
complaints with returned devices and analysis of these devices. In that
data accumulation, do you also have any associated signs or symptoms or
other systemic issues with those patients or is that just, you know,
here, you know, I\'m giving back my device?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Right. I think the devices, once they come out, the
patient is outside of any study and we would not go back and collect
signs and symptoms.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: A final question, Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I just had a question about on your Core Gel Study where you
compared the three- year rates with saline implants, and our stuff
doesn\'t show all the categories here on what\'s printed here, but I
think I recall that you said the rupture rate was better or superior for
the gel compared to the saline in those, in the reconstruction patients.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Sure. Let\'s go with first the augmentation group and
here is the reconstruction group. The saline devices are shown in the
stippled graph. Forgive me. I was concentrating on getting the slide
while you asked which category of complication you were interested in.

DR. LEITCH: The rupture rate.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, the rupture rate is significantly more favorable
for gels in the reconstructive cohort.

DR. LEITCH: So to what do you attribute that?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I think generally the saline device has got more
things that can go wrong. It\'s got a filler port that is penetrated, a
valve that\'s penetrated. The valve filler mechanism is removed. The
filler port has to be placed back into position. I think in
contradistinction to what was said yesterday, the wall characteristics
of the saline device are different than the wall characteristics of a
gel device and I think they are more fragile. I think they are generally
not as strong.

DR. LEITCH: So what are those differences of the wall?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, first of all, it doesn\'t have a barrier layer,
because there is not a barrier layer in the salines. And I think there
may be more variability around the edges. Perhaps I could ask Jerry to
give you the technical, physical differences.

DR. BARBER: The saline devices are made from room-temperature
vulcanized, that is they are cured by moisture as opposed to a platinum
catalysis for the gel devices. I think you\'ll find that one of the
primary differences in the failure rates for saline versus gel is that
salines have the potential of crease fold failure. You fold them and
they will fail much more easily than a gel device.

The reason for that is quite simple. We talked about diffusion and,
certainly, there is some and the siloxanes that are coming into that
shell plasticize it. It makes it more difficult to fail that shell. So
when you extend it or bend it, the molecules inside can slip past one
other. They can slip past the filler a lot easier, conform to that
different shape and won\'t fail as easily. It\'s as simple as that.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Perhaps I could mention one more additional thing that
we found out in some studies we were doing. I think there is a
difference in the lubricating characteristics of the saline versus gel.
So when you have a fold flaw that is just separated by saline versus the
gel, the abrasion coefficient is larger.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Why don\'t we take a 10 minute break and
resume after with the FDA presentation? Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m. a recess was taken until 10:52 a.m.)

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Let\'s go ahead and resume if we could, please. We\'re
now ready to begin the FDA\'s presentation, which will be introduced by
Commander Samie Allen.

CDR ALLEN: Good morning. I\'m Samie Allen, the lead reviewer for this
PMA. FDA will now provide an overview of Mentor\'s Silicone Gel-Filled
Breast Implant PMA. For your convenience, we have provided you with a
hard copy of FDA\'s slides.

FDA\'s review team was comprised of many reviewers from across the
Agency. This slide shows those reviewers who are presenting today. I
will now present an overview of the device description and some of the
preclinical testing. Dr. Arepalli will cover the chemistry testing and
Dr. Berkowitz will cover the toxicology testing.

With regard to the device descriptions, there are six implant styles
under PMA review for the indications of primary augmentation, primary
reconstruction, and revision. The styles are available in different
combinations of profiles, surfaces, and volumes. All styles are round
and single lumen. All styles are comprised of the same basic components:
A shell, patch, silicone gel filler, and silicone adhesive to seal the
fill hole. The material specifics will be provided by Dr. Arepalli
during his presentation.

These are going to be the preclinical tests that I will cover.

Mentor provided numerous test reports and other information to
characterize the modes and causes of rupture of their device, such as
failure analyses of retrieved devices, physical property testing,
assessment of manufacturing processes and surgical techniques that may
impact rupture, and a review of the explant literature. My focus will be
the primary set of retrieval study data. A summary of the other
information was provided in FDA\'s Panel memo.

In order to obtain retrieved devices for analyses, Mentor utilized their
Product Evaluation or PE database. Mentor\'s PE database collects device
complaints, which range from cosmetic defects to actual ruptures. Some
of these complaints are matched with the retrieved explanted device.
There were three categories in the PE database for which failed devices
have been categorized.

One category is the iatrogenic (user-related) category that includes
devices already confirmed by Mentor to have surgical instrument damage.
The other two categories, RUC and NAEU, include devices for which Mentor
was not previously able to determine the modes and causes of rupture.

The purpose of this Retrieval Study was to reexamine failed devices from
domestic sales that came from those two categories based on Mentor\'s
additional knowledge and experience gained on how to identify modes and
causes of rupture. There were 203 devices identified from those two
categories.

This table shows the failure modes for the 203 failed devices from the
study. A description of these failure modes was provided in FDA\'s Panel
memo. Mentor determined the modes and causes of rupture for 190, or 94
percent, of the 203 failed devices. However, it should be noted that for
121 of these devices, there was a presumption made regarding localized
stress being the cause of failure, based on a process of elimination.

The remaining 13 devices involved a combination of defects for which
Mentor could not identify the primary failure mode. Three of the failure
modes identified involved the specific region of the patch. As a whole,
63 percent of the devices had failure regions that included the radius.
Approximately, a quarter of the devices had failures involving only the
radius.

In addition, in order to provide FDA with a more complete assessment of
the failure modes for the devices in their PE database, Mentor then
combined this Retrieval Study sample from the RUC and NAEU categories
with the existing iatrogenic (user-related) category data. Mentor
excluded the 13 devices with combination failure modes and then focused
on those implants with reported *in vivo* times for a total of 274
retrieved failed devices.

It should be noted that these retrieval data cannot determine the time
at which a given failure mode will occur, because the data are based on
only a small collection of retrieved implants that were available for
analysis. The data can, however, be used to present the distribution of
device failure types observed in this sample at particular time frames.
Accordingly, this table reflects this for the 274 failed devices.

The Retrieval Study sample showed that the observed failures at the
earlier timepoints were due primarily to surgical instrument damage.
Mentor stated that the longer-term failures attributed to surgical
damage could have been due to delayed intraoperative damage,
explantation instruments or instruments used during *in situ*
procedures. Mentor also clarified that although a Retrieval Study
analysis can determine whether an implant was damaged by a surgical
instrument, it cannot determine with certainty when the damage occurred.

You\'ll note that the localized stress failures were a larger percentage
of the retrieval sample. If no other definite failure mode could be
identified, Mentor presumed that the cause was localized stress.
Although they provided a reasonable argument, Mentor did not provide
definitive data to support their position. There were no shell samples
observed to have failed from pure cyclic fatigue.

The following bar graphs reflect the percentage or distribution of the
failure modes based on the data shown in the previous table. Here is the
distribution of failure modes for devices that failed from 0 to 5 years
and from 6 to 10 years and after 10 years.

Based on the findings with regards to modes and causes of rupture,
Mentor is proposing the following: They will begin a study to determine
the optimum incision size for the given implant size to address failure
modes related to surgical procedure, such as instrument damage,
localized shell stress, and fold flaw. They will develop and evaluate an
introducer instrument to address the localized stress failures.

They will assess an alternative texturing process to address fold flaw
and patch internal failures. They will investigate changes in patch size
to reduce the stress at the patch/shell interface and reduce such
failures. Mentor will revise their labeling to reflect the findings of
the retrieval studies. And Mentor will include the findings as part of
their training program. However, the specifics of this were not provided
in their PMA.

Now, on to fatigue testing. Mentor performed fatigue testing using a
flat, parallel plate set up in 37-degree saline solution. Smallest
volume implants were tested. The endurance load limit ranged from 20 to
30 pounds for the three different styles tested. Mentor then analyzed
the fatigue data with the purpose of estimating the lifetime of their
device. As described in FDA\'s Panel memo, Mentor developed a
Basquin-Gerber relationship; identified three activity areas of
walking/jogging/running, lying face down, and shell wrinkling; and
estimated the in-vivo loads and stresses, lifetime, frequency and the
expenditure of lifetime per year of the three activity areas.

Mentor found that walking/jogging/running, combined with shell
wrinkling, had the greatest impact on fatigue life. Mentor then
considered their complaint database data and the Sharpe-Collis Study
data to estimate a median life of their device rupturing from pure
cyclic fatigue to be approximately 25 to 47 years. Although Mentor
provided a reasonable approach at estimating the fatigue life of their
device, FDA believes that given the assumptions used in their estimation
and the lack of pure cyclic failures observed in their retrieval
studies, the accuracy of this estimate is unknown.

Gel bleed testing. Silicone gel bleed is a diffusion of gel constituents
through an intact shell. Although current designs of breast implants
should minimize gel bleed, it appears to occur continuously for silicone
gel-filled breast implants. Three different sets of testing were
provided by Mentor in order to address this issue.

The first set of testing involved gel bleed testing performed as per
ASTM F703. As a reminder, ASTM F703 is a testing standard for
implantable breast implants for which one of the elements is gel bleed
testing. The resulting average weight gain rate at 8 weeks was .0011
grams per centimeter-squared per week.

The ASTM F703 test methodology was not established to mimic
physiological conditions, but instead to accelerate the bleed diffusion
process to compare various smooth implant designs. Thus, the correlation
between this ASTM F703 testing and long-term clinical performance cannot
be made, nor is it intended to be made.

The purpose of Mentor\'s gel loss analysis was to determine the rate of
gel loss over *in vivo* time from intact explants in Mentor\'s PE
database since September 2000. There were 74 devices that were randomly
selected and reweighed to obtain their post-explantation weight. Device
weight at the time of gel fill is known within a specified range for a
given device size. Mentor then calculated a percent implant weight value
by dividing the explantation weight by the nominal weight at the time of
gel fill.

For both the smooth and textured sample sets, the average percent
implant weight was 101 percent. Mentor plotted the percent weights
against *in vivo* time, which showed the change in weight of the implant
to be essentially negligible over time.

FDA considers this test to be of limited value because exposure of the
samples to different *in vivo* or post-explant environmental conditions
may have influenced the potential weight gain or loss. Furthermore, this
testing only attempts to provide an overall gel bleed rate and does not
identity and quantify the rate of bleed for all gel bleed constituents.

The purpose of Mentor\'s gel bleed study was to mimic in-vivo conditions
and identify gel bleed constituents, the rate that gel constituents
bleed out and how that rate changes over time. A description of the test
methodology was provided in FDA\'s Panel memo. It involved incubating
the implants in porcine serum at 37 degrees. At 11 time points ranging
from 1 to 120 days, samples of the serum were analyzed.

D4, D5 and D6 were detected. The average peak cumulative release amount
of these low-molecular weight silicones was 4.3 micrograms by day 30,
with a corresponding release rate of 0.95 nanograms per
centimeter-squared per day. Platinum was also detected with an average
peak release amount of 4.1 micrograms by day 60. Mentor stated that they
did not detect any higher oligosiloxanes that diffused out of the gel
bleed material. This slide also shows the outstanding issues with this
testing that we believe need to be resolved before the adequacy of
Mentor\'s gel bleed study can be assessed.

Gel cohesion testing. Gel cohesion, as a whole, is typically addressed
by both gel cohesion testing as per ASTM F703 as well as penetrometer
testing. Gel cohesion assesses the tendency of a gel to resist flow. All
test samples passed the ASTM criteria. Penetrometer testing assesses the
stiffness of a gel. All test samples passed Mentor\'s internal
specification. Mentor also provided gel rheology testing to further
characterize the cohesion and extent of crosslinking of their gel. The
results were provided in FDA\'s Panel memo.

With regard to shelf life, device and package testing were performed.
Adequate real-time data were provided to support a five-year shelf life
on their package label.

The next two slides summarize some of the key findings from each of the
preclinical tests that I covered. Mentor provided ample testing and
other information to characterize the modes and causes of rupture of
their device through approximately 10 years. However, this information
is not predictive of the lifetime rupture rate of the device, because
the tests were set up to test hypotheses about failure modes, to force
failures, and/or to perform device characterizations of a subset of
explanted devices returned to Mentor for analyses.

Although Mentor stated that they will research the optimum incision size
for a given implant size, they are primarily focusing on labeling and
physician training to address the observed failures related to surgical
technique. Mentor has proposed several design and manufacturing changes
to address fold flaw, shell/patch junction, shell/patch delamination and
patch internal failures.

They have also proposed to design an instrument to specifically address
localized stress failures. However, Mentor didn\'t identify any *in
vitro* studies that they were going to perform to support their
presumption that a large percentage of the retrieval sample failed from
localized stress. With regard to the fatigue testing, the adequacy of
that and the estimated lifetime of the device cannot be validated
without longer-term studies that show *in vivo* device failure due to
pure cyclic fatigue.

With regard to the gel bleed testing, there are outstanding issues.
However, FDA believes that Mentor should be able to address them in
order to adequately identify and quantify the gel bleed constituents and
the bleed rate of those constituents. FDA believes that the gel cohesion
and shelf life testing are adequate. The Panel should consider these
preclinical tests in its safety assessment of this breast implant. Thank
you. Dr. Arepalli will now present FDA\'s review of the chemistry data.

DR. AREPALLI: Hi. Good morning. My name is Sam Arepalli, and I\'m the
chemistry and materials reviewer for this PMA.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Please speak clearly and into the microphone. Thank you.

DR. AREPALLI: The next few minutes I will be giving a brief overview of
the chemistry and material aspects of this device. Please bear with me
for the next few minutes as my presentation contains some long technical
terms. As Commander Allen stated earlier, the device components are the
silicone shell, silicone patch, silicone gel filler and silicone
adhesive.

The shell is manufactured from platinum-cured silicone elastomers.
Briefly, these elastomers are made from high-molecular weight methyl,
phenyl and vinyl group containing siloxane polymer and a low-molecular
weight methylhydrogen containing siloxane crosslinker. A
platinum-silicone complex is used as a catalyst, and the elastomer is
reinforced with amorphous fumed silica to enhance toughness.

The shell consists of base layers, also called an inner and outer layer,
sandwiched around a barrier layer designed to impede the diffusion of
the components of the gel through the shell. The barrier layer differs
from the base layers in that it contains about 15 percent of diphenyl
groups whereas the inner and outer layers are made of purely
dimethylsiloxane polymers.

The patch assembly is manufactured from platinum-cured, high temperature
vulcanized dimethyl silicone elastomer. The gel is manufactured from a
platinum-cured, high temperature vulcanized silicone that contains
dimethyl and methylvinyl siloxane polymers. The gel formulation contains
approximately 50 percent by weight of silicone oil. The room temperature
vulcanized \-- that is RTV \-- adhesive used to seal the fill hole in
the patch is an oxime-cured silicone with an organotin catalyst.

Degree of crosslinking. The chemical analyses were conducted in
accordance with the FDA Breast Implant Guidance Document. Both the shell
and the gel were subjected to analyses separately. The first analysis
carried out was the determination of crosslink density. The degree of
crosslinking in the shell was measured by the Sol Fraction method and
was found to be 7.90 chains per centimeter-cubed. The elastomer was
subjected to additional thermal cure step and then the crosslink density
measured to ensure completion of cure reaction and uniformity of degree
of crosslinking.

The gel, when analyzed, showed a crosslink density of 8.81 chains per
centimeter-cubed. Additionally, the gel was subjected to penetrometer
studies and was found to have 3.0 to 10.0 millimeter penetrometer
readings which met the sponsor\'s specs.

Volatiles. Next, the device was tested for volatile components. The
volatile compounds were analyzed for the shell component and were found
to contain traces of isopropyl alcohol, xylenes, methoxymethylsilane,
dodecane and undecane. PPM here stands for parts per million. The gel
when tested for volatiles was found to contain trace amounts of
cyclicoligosiloxanes; that is D3, D4, D5, and undecane.

Extractables. This slide shows the analytical methods used for the
analysis of the extractables. The extraction residues obtained from both
shell and gel were subjected to gravimetric analysis, gel permeable
chromatography, infrared spectroscopic analysis. These results are
consistent with those of typical silicone polymers.

CG-MS Analysis. The extracted residues obtained from both shell and the
gel were also subjected to qualitative and quantitative analyses using
gas liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometer. The results
were provided in FDA\'s Summary Panel memo. The low-molecular weight
cyclicoligosiloxanes (up to D10) are present at a concentration of less
than 10 ppm; that is, parts per million. High-molecular weight cyclic
oligosiloxanes and linear oligosiloxane concentrations of the subject
device are comparable to those present in the FDA-approved saline-filled
breast implants.

Metal analysis. Analyses for heavy metals were carried out on shell and
gel filler components separately. The metal analyses were performed on
both the extracted residue and unextracted components. The extracted
residue showed trace amounts of metal as shown in the FDA Panel memo of
the Panel pack. The amounts of tin and platinum metals that are used as
catalysts in the device manufacture are shown on this slide. Please note
\"ND\" denotes \"non-detectable.\"

When the shell and the gel components were subjected to metal analysis,
the shell was found to contain about 8.8 ppm \-- that\'s parts per
million \-- of platinum and the gel 4.8 ppm in addition to minute
amounts of tin. While saline-filled breast implants contain only tin,
the gel-filled breast implants contain both platinum and trace amounts
of tin as both these catalysts are used in the manufacture of gel-filled
breast implants.

Analysis for silica. Raman and photoelectron spectroscopic studies were
conducted on the shell to show that there was no free silica present in
the device. X-ray diffraction studies indicated that the bound silica is
present in the amorphous form, not in the crystalline form.

Finally, a summary. In summary, the envelope shell and the gel materials
were analyzed in accordance with the FDA Breast Implant Guidance
Document. The shell and gel were tested for degree of crosslinking and
volatiles. Each component was solvent extracted and the residue obtained
was subjected to gravimetric, gel permeation chromatography, infra red
spectroscopic studies, and qualitative and quantitative analyses using
GC-MS analysis.

The shell and gel were also analyzed for heavy metals. The elastomer
shell was analyzed for the presence of free silica and the bound silica
was proved to be in the amorphous form, not the crystalline form. Mentor
has performed extensive chemical analyses of their breast implant
device. FDA notes no deficiencies in the information they have provided
to FDA. FDA recommends that the Panel consider these chemistry data in
their deliberation on the long-term safety of the implant.

Thank you very much. Dr. Berkowitz will now present FDA\'s review of the
toxicology information. Thank you.

DR. BERKOWITZ: I\'m David Berkowitz, toxicology reviewer for this PMA.
This is a list of the types of testing performed and I will spend a few
minutes summarizing each of these topics.

Pharmacokinetics. Mentor provided a literature review of some relevant
silicone pharmacokinetics. And the three bullets on this slide represent
three types of materials in the implants: the elastomer, the gel and the
low-molecular weight components. These data are all from the scientific
literature.

The elastomer is represented by orthopedic implants. These elastomers
are very similar to the shell of the implant, but are firmer. They are
interesting because they represent materials with the longest
implantation times, 12 years in a human autopsy and 10 years after
orthopedic implantation in dogs. The implants were intact. Silicone
particles were found locally around the implants and a few particles
were found at the local lymph nodes. No particles were found at distant
sites.

To follow silicone migration, gel implants in rats were observed over a
450-day period following implantation. No silicone was detected in the
major organs. However, microscopic techniques were used, and these were
not very sensitive. Estimates of the amount of radiolabeled silicone gel
remaining at subcutaneous implantation sites at various time intervals
ranged from 94 percent to 99.7 percent.

The investigators at both ends of this range noted that small amounts of
radioactivity were excreted rapidly in the air, urine and feces with
half-lives of a few days. This rapid-release component may reflect the
release of some of the non-covalently-bonded radiolabeling reagents
eluted from the finished gel. The 99.97 result was obtained after 56
days of implantation in mice, so the total amount of leakage from the
gel is low.

The migration of low-molecular weight siloxanes was tested using a
distillate of low-molecular weight siloxanes from breast implants. The
distillate contains cyclic siloxanes D3 to D7 and linear siloxanes L6 to
L16. The concentration of siloxanes is about 100 times more concentrated
than the siloxanes in the silicone gel. Two hundred and fifty milligrams
of the distillate, an enormous dose, were injected subcutaneously into
25-gram mice with no protective shell.

The silicone tissue siloxanes were detected chemically. The amount of
siloxanes remaining at the injection site was not determined. Some
siloxanes were widely distributed in the tissues, with changing profiles
over the course of a year. However, only .07 percent of the total
material injected was accounted for in the tissues. It is not clear how
much of the siloxanes was limited to the subcutaneous injection site and
how much was excreted or metabolized. No toxicity was reported in the
animals, even at this high dose.

Biocompatability testing. This slide lists the standard biocompatability
tests performed on each of the prosthetic components. Cytotoxicity
testing was done by direct contact and with extracts. For systemic
toxicity, saline extracts were injected intravenously and cottonseed oil
was injected by the intraperitoneal route. The two solvents are used to
extract both polar and non-polar compounds. For irritation and
short-term implantation, the injections were subcutaneous. The implant
materials passed all the biocompatability tests.

Can you go up one? Yes, immunotoxicity testing is what comes next in my
notes. Sensitization was tested using the Guinea Pig Maximization test.
This optimizes the presentation of potential antigens to the skin to
determine whether they are immunogenic. Again, all device components
were tested. There was no significant sensitization.

The remaining immunotoxicity testing was performed by implanting the
test materials subcutaneously in mice at three different dose levels.
The data collected are listed on this slide: body, spleen and thymus
weights; hematology, including differential leukocyte counts; T cell
responses to mitogens (Con A and phytohemagglutinin); and the mixed
lymphocyte response. Splenic T cells were enumerated, as were
antibody-forming cells to sheep erythrocytes. The splenic
antibody-forming cell assay requires T-helpers as well as B cells and
measures the complete antibody production process. None of the materials
produced significant changes to the immune system.

Reproductive and teratogenicity testing. The reproductive and
teratogenicity testing employed a well-executed one-generation study. A
hundred Sprague-Dawley rats were used in F0 to provide sufficient
animals in F1 for evaluation of a control group and three doses, roughly
1,000 animals. The materials were implanted through incisions. The most
obvious teratogenic effects are very rare, so many animals with multiple
physiological and anatomical, behavioral, neurological and reproductive
endpoints were evaluated.

Some of the observed endpoints were grip strength, motor activity
levels, auditory startle and maze learning, in addition to the gross and
histological organ inspections. There were no significant reproductive
behavioral or developmental effects.

Genotoxicity and carcinogenicity testing. Short-term genotoxicity
testing was negative. This included a mouse micronucleus test which
allows for *in vivo* pharmacokinetic and metabolic alterations of device
chemical components. The mouse micronucleus test was negative. The
sponsor provided two-year carcinogenicity studies on appropriate
materials and these showed no carcinogenicity other than the
foreign-body carcinogenicity, which is common in rats.

In summary, the implant materials were found to be non-toxic in the
tests performed. No safety issues were raised by the data. Dr. Lerner
will now present the clinical data.

DR. LERNER: Good morning. I\'m Dr. Herb Lerner and I will be reviewing
the prospective clinical data submitted by the sponsor and will be
presenting to you an overview of the safety and effectiveness data for
this PMA.

This slide outlines the studies included in the PMA, all of which were
open label, prospective, multicenter, and which collected local
complications. I would like to point out that these studies do not
address long-term and general health issues, such as the risk of cancer,
reproductive and teratogenic effects and later effects on offspring. For
a summary of the recent literature on these topics, please, refer to the
FDA Panel memo.

Of the two studies, the Core Study constitutes the majority of the
clinical safety and effectiveness prospective data. My presentation will
focus on this study. Patients with all three indications were enrolled
and the study is intended for 10 years of follow-up. This study includes
a prospective screening for silent rupture via MRI in a subset of 34
percent of the patients at years 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 after
implantation.

The study was designed to collect quality of life and health status
information and a variety of connective tissue disease-related signs and
symptoms. The quality of life/health status information was intended to
supplement the patient satisfaction information.

The Adjunct Study was intended to make the implants available for
patients with the public health needs of primary breast reconstruction
or revision of an existing implant due to medical or surgical reasons.
Local complications were prospectively collected at years 1, 3 and 5
post-op. Not included in the protocol was an MRI screening. While
patients are being continuously enrolled, others are completing the
study with their five-year evaluations.

Now that I have provided a brief overview of the two prospective studies
conducted by the sponsor, I will discuss the results of each study
individually beginning with the Core Study.

Before I discuss the data for each separately, I would like to point out
the median ages of the three cohorts in the Core Study: 34 years for
augmentation, 46 years for reconstruction and 44 years for revision.
These ages are consistent with those reported by plastic surgeons for
women seeking breast implants. And as you can see, the median age of
augmentation patients is considerably younger and within the
childbearing years. Of note is that most women, approximately, 90
percent across all the cohorts, were Caucasian.

This slide summarizes the patient disposition for the core augmentation
cohort. There were 551 patients implanted with 1,110 devices. At the
time of the closure of the database, 80 percent of the augmentation
patients were available for a three-year visit. Twenty percent were not
yet due for that visit. Follow-up at three years was obtained for 94
percent of the patients expected, which is the number theoretically due
minus deaths and minus removals without replacement. Complications,
which are captured and included in the Kaplan-Meier risk rates, will be
discussed next.

This slide summarizes the cumulative Kaplan-Meier rates of first
occurrence of selected complications through three years on a by-patient
basis with the 95 percent confidence intervals in parenthesis.
Reoperation is reported as the highest risk rate. I will discuss these
results later. Nipple sensation changes, then capsular contracture,
Baker grade III or IV are the next highest rates reported.

Note that breast nipple sensation change only includes reports of
moderate or greater severity. At three years, 26 percent of the nipple
sensation changes remained unresolved and 23 percent of capsular
contracture remained unresolved. Implant rupture will be discussed by
Dr. Dawisha after my presentation.

With respect to reoperations in the augmentation cohort through three
years, there were 160 additional surgical procedures performed in 79 of
the patients following their original surgery. Based on the number of
operations the two primary reasons for reoperation were capsular
contracture and patient request. The most frequently performed
procedures were capsule-related and implant removal. Fifteen percent had
replacement and 13 percent of patients chose not to have replacement.

This table summarizes some of the key data regarding the primary
surgical procedures performed for a given reason for reoperation through
three years. A complete summary of this data is in the FDA\'s memo to
the Panel.

This slide summarizes the top reasons for the removal of the 45
explanted devices in 26 or 6.4 percent of the 404 augmentation patients
evaluated through three years. Sixty-nine percent of the implants were
removed or replaced due to patient choice. In terms of explantations due
to complications, the most common medical reason was capsular
contracture at 11 percent.

In addition to local complications associated with the implants, the
sponsor collected other safety information such as self-reported
reproductive problems, lactation problems, breast disease, breast
malignancy, abnormal mammogram reports, connective tissue disease
diagnoses, and connective tissue disease signs and symptoms. Through
three years, there was no increase in reports of reproductive problems
and lactation problems.

There were six new patient reports of abnormal mammograms, all of these
were benign disease. There were no reports of a breast malignancy. Of
the three new diagnoses of connective tissue diseases in this cohort,
one patient had Hashimoto\'s thyroiditis, one was seronegative
rheumatoid arthritis and the third autoimmune hypothyroidism and
rheumatoid arthritis.

The sponsor collected a variety of signs and symptoms, some of which
could be contributed to connective tissue disease, in order to assist in
referring patients to a rheumatologist. This table shows the number and
rate of new complaints of any sign or symptom through three years, as
well as the two most commonly reported signs and symptoms. Joint pain
was one of the top two most commonly reported signs and symptoms for all
three surgical indications. The sponsor used a GEE model to determine
whether these indices were due to aging. These will be discussed later
by Ms. Phyllis Silverman at the end of my presentation.

Effectiveness for all indications is assessed by several quality of life
scales, as well as patient satisfaction and chest/breast measurements.
Data are only collected on patients with original implants who came back
for their follow-up visit at two years. Please, recall that quality of
life data are only to be collected at 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 years.

With respect to general quality of life measures, such as the Tennessee
Self-Concept Scales, there were no significant changes in mean values of
all scales at two years compared to pre-op. The SF-36 scores show the
statistically significant worsening in the Physical Component Summary
and in the Mental Component Summary scores. However, these remained
above the general patient population without implants.

The Body Esteem Scale, a scale of attractiveness and physical condition,
demonstrated no statistically significant changes in mean scores. The
Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, assessing self-worth and self-acceptance,
showed a statistically significant positive change for this cohort. For
effectiveness, while the majority of patients completing three years of
follow-up and responding to a satisfaction question, \"Would you have
the surgery over again?,\" reported being satisfied with their implants,
the satisfaction rate decreased from 99 percent at two years to 97
percent at three years.

On page 60 of your FDA memo, there is a table outlining the reasons for
patient dissatisfaction. The two most common were numbness and scarring.

This table summarizes the patient disposition for the Core
reconstruction group. There were 252 patients implanted with 410
devices. Fifty-seven percent of the reconstruction patients were
available for their three-year visit. The nine patient deaths through
three years were all attributable to breast cancer. Follow-up for three
years was obtained for 95 percent of the patients expected, which is,
again, the number theoretically due minus deaths and removals without
replacement.

The by-patient cumulative Kaplan-Meier risk rates are shown here for the
Core reconstruction patients through three years. The complication with
the highest risk rate is reoperation, followed by implant removal with
or without replacement. Breast pain here again is only reports of
moderate or greater severity.

With respect to reoperations, there were 139 additional surgical
procedures performed following their original surgery in 64 of the
patients. The primary medical reason for reoperation was asymmetry and
implant malposition or displacement. The most commonly performed
surgical procedures were implant removal with or without replacement
followed by capsule procedures.

This table summarizes some of the key data regarding the primary
surgical procedure performed for a given reason for reoperation through
three years. Again, a complete summary is in your Panel memo.

Here are summarized the top reasons for the removal of the 40 explanted
devices in 31, or 25.6 percent, of the reconstruction patients evaluated
through three years. Thirty-three percent of the implants were removed
or replaced due to patient choice. In terms of explantation due to
complications, the most common medical reason was asymmetry, capsular
contracture III or IV, followed by implant malposition or displacement.

As noted previously, Mentor collected additional safety information.
With respect to other complications through three years, there were no
increased reports of reproductive or lactation problems. With respect to
breast disease, there were no new reports of breast malignancy. There
was one new report of a connective tissue disease, fibromyalgia, in a
patient diagnosed nine months after implant insertion.

This table again shows the number and rate of new complaints of any sign
or symptom as well as the two most commonly reported connective tissue
disease signs or symptoms.

As noted in this slide, quality of life indices did not show any
statistical changes for the Core reconstruction cohort except for the
Functional Living Index: Cancer, which assesses physical well-being and
the psychological state, social ability and somatic sensation in cancer
patients. The FLIC showed a statistically significant improvement,
improving function from pre to post-op, in delayed post-mastectomy
patients.

The majority of patients completing three years of follow-up and
responding to the satisfaction questionnaire question again reported
being satisfied with their implants. The satisfaction rate increased
from 97 percent at two years to 98 percent at three years.

This slide summarizes the patient disposition for the Core revision
cohort. There were 204 patients implanted with 386 devices. Of these 204
patients, 77 percent of the revision patients were available for a
three-year visit. Follow-up at three years was obtained for 93 percent
of the patients expected, which is the number of theoretically due minus
deaths and removals with or without replacement.

The cumulative Kaplan-Meier risk rates of selected complications are
shown here. Reoperation is the most frequently reported complication.
This is followed by capsular contracture III and IV and then implant
removal with or without replacement.

With respect to reoperation, there were 141 additional procedures
following the revision surgery performed in 51 of the patients through
three years. The primary medical reason for reoperation was capsular
contracture. The primary surgical procedures were capsule-related and
implant removal with or without replacement.

This table summarizes some of the key data regarding the primary
surgical procedure performed for a given reason for reoperation through
three years.

Here are summarized the top reasons for the removal of the 39 explanted
devices in 25, or 17.9 percent, of the revision patients evaluated
through three years. Thirty-six percent of the implants were removed or
replaced due to patient choice. In terms of explantations due to
complications, the most common medical reason for capsular contracture
III or IV followed by asymmetry.

Through three years, there were no increased reports of reproduction or
lactation problems. There was one new report of malignant disease in the
revision cohort. There were two new reports of connective tissue
disease. A patient was diagnosed with fibromyalgia 12 months after
implantation, and another patient had a diagnosis of pyoderma gangrenosa
with inflammatory bowel disease 12 months after implant.

Again, I?ve shown the number and rate of new complaints of any sign or
symptom as well as the two most commonly reported connective tissue
signs or symptoms in this cohort.

With respect to general quality of life measures, such as the SF-36,
Body Esteem Scale and Tennessee Self-Concept Scales, there were no
significant changes in mean values of all scales at two years compared
to pre-op, except for the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale.

The majority of patients completing three years of follow-up and
responding to the satisfaction question reported being satisfied with
their implants. The satisfaction rate increased from 95 percent at two
years to 96 percent at three years.

In summary, the most frequent complications through three years were
reoperation, nipple sensation changes, capsular contracture Grade III or
IV and hypertrophic scarring. The most frequent reason for reoperation
and medical reason for implant removal was again capsular contracture.
Of the patients who did not have study implants removed and who answered
the global satisfaction question, 97 percent were satisfied at three
years.

For the Core reconstruction cohort, the most frequent complications were
reoperation, implant removal with or without replacement, capsular
contracture, and ptosis. The most frequent medical reason for
reoperation is asymmetry. And of the patients who did not have study
implants removed and who answered the global satisfaction question, 98
percent were satisfied at three years.

For the revision cohort the most frequent complications are again
reoperation, capsular contracture, implant removal with or without
replacement and nipple sensation changes. The most frequent medical
reason for reoperation and implant removal through three years was
capsular contracture. And of the patients who did not have the study
implants removed and who answered the global satisfaction question, 96
percent were satisfied at three years.

To further detail the effectiveness of their device, the sponsor
provided a separate literature review of quality of life issues relating
to their breast implants. Each study had one or more of the following
problems that constrain interpreting the results. There was a short
duration of follow-up, typically three months to three years; lack of an
appropriate control population or baseline survey; use of a different
survey before and after surgery; small study size; low response and a
high loss to follow-up; apparent exclusion of participants with adverse
outcomes. Some were limited to a single practice, some had instruments
that were not validated, there was a lack of clear description of
inclusion and exclusion criteria, and some of the outcomes were of
unknown clinical meaning.

Quality of life measurements after breast cancer reconstruction with
implants is complicated by numerous factors related to the diagnosis of
cancer and the stress of rapidly making decisions on treatment and
reconstruction options.

In addition to the Core Study data, the sponsor provided data from the
Adjunct Study. The sponsor continues to enroll patients into the Adjunct
Study designed to address the needs of reconstruction and revision
patients. The data presented are on low-bleed gel-filled implants from
Mentor\'s Adjunct Study, which started in 1992. Because there was no MRI
cohort, the study does not add to the evaluation of rupture rate of the
devices over time. The Kaplan-Meier data were provided in the FDA\'s
Panel memo. Because the follow-up rates are low, interpreting the data
is, at best, difficult.

Thank you. Dr. Dawisha will now present rupture information.

DR. DAWISHA: I\'ll check my watch. It\'s still morning. Good morning.
I\'m going to discuss the sponsor\'s rupture information, their proposed
labeling, and their proposed post-approval plans. Some of these slides
are redundant from yesterday, but I\'m going to just go ahead and read
them anyway, so that they are entered into the record.

We have discussed silent ruptures before. A silent rupture occurs when
the patient, neither the patient expresses any symptoms or the physician
is unable to discern any physical signs with the rupture. MRI is
currently the method, the radiographic method with the greatest
sensitivity and specificity to detect silent rupture with a sensitivity
of 80 to 90 percent and a specificity of 90 to 100 percent. Remember,
again, that with the sensitivity of 80 to 90 percent, MRI will miss
anywhere from 10 to 20 percent silent ruptures.

In contrast, symptomatic rupture is associated with symptoms such as
flattening of the implant, lumps around the implant, or extrusion of
silicone gel through the incision site. When a silicone gel implant
ruptures, the gel is usually found within the capsule, which is called
an intracapsular rupture. Extracapsular ruptures occur when the gel is
found outside of the fibrous capsule. Intracapsular and extracapsular
ruptures can either be silent or symptomatic. But as you will see, the
majority ? in fact, all ? of the ruptures in Mentor\'s Core Study were
silent.

Shown here are several key questions regarding implant rupture. These
questions were also raised at this same Advisory Panel meeting in 1991
and \'92. \"What is the implant rupture rate over the expected lifetime
of the device? How often and when do intracapsular versus extracapsular
ruptures occur? How often and when do intracapsular ruptures become
extracapsular?\" And finally, \"What are the health consequences to the
patient as a result of rupture?\"

FDA believes that the answers to these questions are crucial for
determining the safety of the device and for providing informed consent
to patients who are considering whether or not to get silicone breast
implants. To address these questions, the sponsor relied primarily on
their Core Study data and the published literature.

Recall that the subset of patients who were getting MRI screening for
silent rupture were getting this at years 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8 and 10. And
this group, I will refer to as the MRI cohort. The follow-up compliance
for the MRI cohort is 80 percent at the first screening and 90 percent
at the second screening, and this was true for the augmentation
reconstruction and revision patients. The sample size for the MRI cohort
is based on estimating a hypothesized rupture rate of 5 percent at 10
years, and the non-MRI cohort is the remaining two-thirds of the Core
patients who did not undergo MRI for silent rupture screening.

You should note that there were no symptomatic implant ruptures reported
in either the MRI or the non-MRI Group in the Core Study. In addition,
there were no silent ruptures reported in the non-MRI cohort. Therefore,
all the ruptures reported in Mentor\'s Core Study are silent and are in
the MRI group. The Core Study data that I\'m going to show you are
through three years. However, it is partial through three years, because
about 26 percent of the patients had not had their three-year visit at
the time of database closure. And also recall that MRI screening was
scheduled at Years 1 and 2 with no screening at Year 3.

The Kaplan-Meier rate of first occurrence of rupture is shown here only
for the MRI cohort on a by-patient basis in the left column and on a
by-implant basis on the right column. Recall that there were no ruptures
in the non-MRI group and all of these ruptures were silent.

The rupture rate shown in the previous slide describes eight implants in
six patients in the MRI cohort. Of these, two implants and one revision
augmentation patient have been confirmed as ruptured via explant. One
implant in this patient had intracapsular rupture. The other implant
initially had MRI evidence of intracapsular rupture, which then
progressed to extracapsular rupture over the 10 years between the first
and second MRI.

Of the eight implant ruptures shown in the Kaplan-Meier rate, four were
intracapsular and four reported extracapsular gel. Of the eight implant
ruptures, one implant with intracapsular rupture progressed to
extracapsular rupture over ten months, which I have just described. You
should note that half of these six patients had missed their Year 1 MRI,
which limits the ability to determine the progression of intra to
extracapsular rupture from these data.

Because Mentor\'s Core Study data is complete to two years, they
summarized an MRI case series of their product reported by Drs. Sharpe
and Collis of the U.K. in an attempt to provide a long-term rupture
rate. They referred to this in their presentation as their Long-Term
Study. In this case series, Dr. Sharpe retrospectively reviewed his
augmentation plastic surgery records for women having Mentor implants,
identifying about 200 women.

He invited them to have an MRI screening for silent rupture and about
half of these eligible women agreed to participate. Note that the
protocol that was provided by the sponsor specifically excluded patients
who had their implants removed, patients with Baker Grade III or IV
capsular contracture, and patients who had surgical interventions or
clinical evidence of rupture.

However, subsequent to performing this one MRI, Dr. Sharpe identified
several patients who had violated these exclusion criteria. All the
patients in this case series had textured Mentor implants placed in the
subglandular position, which represents a minority of the Core
augmentation study patients.

Although the sponsor showed a curve of these data, which appeared to
have multiple data points, there was only one MRI which was performed.
Therefore, these data described point prevalence rather than a rate over
time. Of the 19 implants with suspected rupture via MRI, 18 were
explanted and 11 were confirmed to have intracapsular rupture at explant
resulting in a point prevalence of five percent for silent rupture in
this case series with a median implant duration of 8.8 years.

Because only half of the eligible women participated in the MRI; because
of the differences in patient characteristics, implant type, implant
placement compared to the U.S. Core Study; and because one, rather than
serial, MRI was performed, the ability of these data to predict a
long-term rupture rate or a rate over time is limited.

You\'ll recall this slide from yesterday. To address the frequency of
intracapsular and extracapsular gel, Mentor relied on the published
literature. Keep in mind that this literature is not specific to Mentor
implants, and it serves as supportive information.

Serial MRI studies have been performed in Scandinavian women, which
report the prevalence and incidence of silicone implant rupture,
published by Dr. Holmich and colleagues. These studies report rupture
rates only for augmentation patients and only for patients who did not
have their implants removed within the first three years.

With a median duration of implantation of 12 years, the point prevalence
of rupture was reported to be 32 percent of implants if definite and
possible rupture is considered. About one-fourth of these were
extracapsular.

Note that the authors distinguished third- generation implants, those
implanted after 1988, as having the lowest rupture rate compared to the
first- and second-generation implants. However, the duration of
implantation is also the shortest for third-generation implants, which
could account for the lower rate.

After performing two serial MRI examinations, these authors report an
incidence of 8.9 definite or possible implant ruptures per 100 implants
per year. Although the authors of this study, of the second study,
estimated a 10-year rupture rate, this is based on the assumption of a
constant rate of increase resulting in a linear shape of the rupture
curve. As we saw yesterday, other shapes of the rupture curve could be
selected, which would lead to higher rates.

Note that most of the implant ruptures were silent, most diagnosed via
MRI ? that\'s 48 of the 56 implant ruptures ? rather than at a
reoperation.

This slide summarizes two other MRI studies describing silent rupture.
Again, these studies report silent ruptures via MRI from a variety of
manufacturers and are not specific to Mentor implants, serving as
supportive information.

The first study, reported by Dr. Brown of FDA and colleagues, studied a
cohort of augmentation patients with a median duration of implantation
of 16 years, finding a prevalence of 55 percent for definite implant
rupture with extracapsular rupture found in 12 percent of these cases.

The second study, reported by Dr. Gaubitz and colleagues, includes women
with a mean duration of breast implantation of nine years.
Approximately, three-fourths of these women had implants for
reconstructive purposes and one-fourth for augmentation purposes. The
prevalence of rupture in this cohort was 24 percent of women with 12
percent of these having extracapsular rupture.

To address the health consequences of rupture, specifically for their
implants, Mentor referred to the Core Study and to the Sharpe and Collis
case series.

In the Core Study, only one patient, which I had mentioned earlier, has
had explant to confirm rupture. Although this patient reported no local
complications and was satisfied at the time of her replacement surgery,
the sponsor acknowledges that it would not be meaningful to perform an
analysis comparing this patient to the non-ruptured cohort.

For the Sharpe and Collis case series, some of the patients who had
rupture confirmed at explant also had a rheumatological evaluation. Note
that the number of patients actually evaluated was not provided in the
summary by the sponsor nor was the nature of this rheumatological
evaluation given.

Only one patient with rupture was reported as having myalgic
encephalitis with no specific diagnostic criteria given, and no
comparison was made to women with intact implants. Due to the small
numbers of women with ruptured implants in both the Core Study and the
Sharpe-Collis case series, the ability to address the rupture health
consequences specifically for Mentor implants is limited.

Therefore, Mentor relied on the published literature to address rupture
health consequences, recognizing that the literature is not specific to
their product. There are case reports of silicone granulomas found in
axillary lymph nodes and in the chest area, as well as in distant areas.

The reference by Dr. Gaubitz that I mentioned earlier describes the
presence of silicone in the liver of asymptomatic women using magnetic
resonance spectroscopy, a finding which was statistically significantly
higher in women with ruptured implants.

Turning to the Danish literature, in comparing the self-reported signs
and symptoms collected one year before MRI and autoantibody levels in
146 women with intact implants versus 92 women with ruptured implants,
there were no statistically significant differences. However, the
self-reported symptoms were collected about one year prior to the MRI.

In this study, women with extracapsular rupture were six times more like
to report breast hardness than women with intact implants. Whether these
patients also had capsular contracture, which is associated with breast
hardness, was not specified in the report.

In the only published study to report on local symptoms over time
following implant rupture, Holmich in 2004 found that women with
ruptured implants were two times more likely to report pain in the
breast or a change in breast shape compared to women with intact
implants over a two-year period.

Of the intracapsular ruptures from the first MRI, 10 percent had
progressed within the two-year period of the second MRI with 9 percent
converting from intracapsular to extracapsular rupture. Note that about
half of these conversions were spontaneous and were not associated with
trauma or closed capsulotomy. Of the implants with extracapsular rupture
from the first MRI, there was progressive silicone effusion in 14
percent, none of which were associated with trauma or any symptoms.

In summary, for the data related specifically to Mentor\'s implant there
is two full years of comprehensive rupture information from Mentor\'s
Core Study data. All the silicone implant ruptures reported by Mentor
are silent, diagnosed only via MRI. Based on the MRI in the Core Study,
half of the implant ruptures were intracapsular and half had
extracapsular gel. Of the implants with suspected MRI rupture in which
both scheduled MRIs were performed, one implant showed progression from
intra- to extracapsular rupture.

One- to two-year Mentor Core Study data, as well as the Sharpe-Collis
data, are limited to characterize the expected lifetime rupture rate,
how often and when an intracapsular rupture becomes extracapsular, and
when a silent rupture becomes symptomatic. Because of this, Mentor
relied on the published literature to address these issues.

In the literature, keep in mind the caveat that it is not specific to
Mentor implants and for the most part is pertinent to augmentation
women. Although there have been numerous publications regarding the
health effects like connective tissue disease and breast implants, only
one publication, the Holmich 2004 reference, describes the health
consequences of women specifically with ruptured implants followed over
time, and this reference describes local breast symptoms and is over a
two-year follow-up period.

In the literature, serial MRI data are available only from one study,
again from the Danish cohort, and this is over a two-year period. Like
the Core Study, in these studies of Danish women, the majority of
ruptures are silent, diagnosed only via MRI. Most rupture are
intracapsular with 25 percent as extracapsular.

The literature on a Danish cohort of women provides some information
regarding the progression of intra- to extracapsular rupture and the
health consequences of rupture. About 9 percent of intracapsular
ruptures progressed to extracapsular within two years, and about half of
these are associated with trauma and half occur spontaneously. Fourteen
percent of extracapsular ruptures had progressive silicone seepage over
two years, no case of which was associated with trauma or any symptoms.

There is evidence of the presence of silicone outside of the breast
area. The incidence of rupture, again for augmentation implants with a
median duration of implantation of 12 years, is about nine ruptures per
100 implants per year. According to the American Society of Plastic
Surgery website, for the year 2004, that would be about 22,500 implant
ruptures per year in the U.S. for the augmentation population alone,
assuming that only half of the women who get augmentation implants in
the U.S. would get silicone implants.

Although extracapsular rupture occurs less frequently than intracapsular
rupture, I would like to share with you the case history of the patient
who had extracapsular in the Core Study, because it did occur within
three years in this patient.

This patient had bilateral augmentation breast implantation at the age
of 31. She enrolled in the Mentor Core Study six years later as a
bilateral revision augmentation patient after developing severe capsular
contracture and rupture of the right implant. Her first MRI, as part of
the MRI cohort, occurred 16 months later showing no evidence of rupture.

At her second MRI one year later, the local reader noted bilateral
keyhole signs suggestive of rupture. The central reader read her films
as indeterminate. Her third MRI, performed 10 months later, was read as
having more prominent keyhole deformities, confluent folds, and bubbles
within the silicone signal in both implants consistent with implant
rupture. There was also silicone signal extrinsic to the capsule on the
right implant, which was believed to represent extracapsular silicone.

Both implants and capsules were removed three months later and they were
reported to be ruptured in the surgical explant op note. This note did
not specifically state whether either implant had either intra- or
extracapsular rupture, which is why I relied on the MRI findings to
determine that the right implant had extracapsular rupture.

The implants, which were part of the Retrieval Study, were returned to
Mentor. A large tear measuring 21 centimeters was noted in one implant
and a hole measuring 7 x 6 centimeters was found in the other implant.
No reason was given for the cause of the tear or the hole. Note that
this patient did not report any complications or symptoms associated
with her implant rupture. And her plastic surgeon, who was evaluating
her annually, also did not report any changes with her implants
suggestive of rupture.

Most of the Panel questions that we have asked you deal with implant
rupture. In considering the safety of this product, we would like you to
consider not only whether the sponsor\'s data are adequate to
characterize the rupture rate over time and the health consequences of
rupture, but also whether the existing data provide a reasonable
assurance of safety. Because most silicone gel-filled breast implant
ruptures are silent, if you are considering an approval recommendation,
you will need to carefully consider your recommendations for the
screening method and frequency of screening for silent rupture.

If you believe the sponsor\'s data provide a reasonable assurance of
safety and effectiveness, then you will need to comment on the adequacy
of their proposed labeling recommendations and their proposed
post-approval plans. In one of our Panel questions we ask about three
labeling issues: the method and frequency of screening for silent
rupture, the clinical management of suspicious and silent ruptures, and
the potential health consequences of extracapsular and migrated gel.

To address the first issue, Mentor\'s label indicates that patients
should have annual or biannual examinations, including an assessment of
implant integrity. However, the method of this examination is not
specified. MRI is suggested to be considered if there is clinical
suspicion of rupture. All the ruptures for Mentor\'s product were
silent. Yet, both of these recommendations address symptomatic rather
than silent rupture.

While the label does indicate that most plastic surgeons recommend the
removal of a ruptured implant, even those with intracapsular rupture,
there is no mention of whether or not to remove an implant with silent
rupture. With respect to the health consequences of rupture, the
proposed label instructs patients to monitor for lumps or changes in
implant shape, which relates to symptomatic rather than silent rupture.
And there is no mention of other symptoms which may be associated with
migrated gel.

What about Mentor\'s post-approval plans? Mentor proposes to continue
the Core Study with yearly physician follow-up and continued MRI every
other year to assess for silent rupture in the MRI cohort. You should be
aware that, as patients have their implants removed or have
contraindications to MRI, they are no longer in the MRI cohort of
primary rupture data. Over time, as more patients in the MRI cohort have
their implants removed, their MRI data would not be used for determining
the rupture rate.

Mentor also proposes to contract with the American Society of Plastic
Surgeons and the Plastic Surgery Education Foundation to use their
voluntary registry, which is called the National Breast Implant
Registry. Upon patient agreement, primarily short-term and local
complications, such as infection, hematoma, wound healing and unplanned
reoperation would be collected when patients come back for a follow-up
visit.

However, there are no scheduled follow-up visits and there is no
screening for silent rupture, and there is also no specific rupture
information collected in this registry. Mentor also proposes to develop
a training program with input from the plastic surgery professional
societies with a requirement that surgeons attend a training session in
order to receive their product. However, this training material does not
include silent rupture screening method or frequency, nor does it
provide recommendations on whether to remove ruptured implants.

In addition to rupture, you will need to consider all the complications
and benefits for this product. Although the data is often presented with
augmentation and reconstruction shown side by side, the risks and
benefits from these patient groups should not be compared. For example,
the reoperation rate for reconstruction patients appears higher than for
augmentation patients, but this rate should be considered in the context
that the reconstruction women are already having breast surgery.

And, finally, because revision patients start out as either primary
reconstruction or primary augmentation patients, consider the revision
patient risks as a continuum to that for augmentation or reconstruction.

Thank you. I would like to now introduce Ms. Phyllis Silverman, the FDA
statistician who reviewed this PMA.

MS. SILVERMAN: Thank you. Well, let me be the first to say good
afternoon. I\'m Phyllis Silverman, the statistical reviewer for the
Mentor PMA. You have already been familiarized with the study design and
the clinical results of the sponsor\'s studies. I will comment on the
statistical techniques employed, pointing out their strengths and
weaknesses. My comments will focus on the Core Study.

The study was descriptive in nature. Results are presented mainly as
means with confidence intervals or rates estimated from survival curves.
There were no specific claims, target values or formal control groups.
The sample sizes were chosen to afford reasonable precision in the
estimation of rates. Thus, the acceptability of the rates and their
precision must be evaluated from a clinical perspective weighing the
risks and benefits of implants.

The statistical techniques that were used in this PMA are shown on the
slide along with the area of application. I will focus on the primary
statistical methods used to support safety to help you gain a better
understanding. You are all familiar with means and confidence intervals.
Therefore, I will begin with the Kaplan-Meier survival analyses.

In the case of breast implants, these can be thought of as time-to-event
analyses. A Kaplan-Meier analysis was conducted on the time to first
occurrence for many of the adverse events. At each considered time
point, for example two or three years, the analysis gives the estimated
probability that a patient will experience that adverse event from the
time of implantation up to the time point in question.

The advantage of this technique is that it allows women who were not
followed for the entire duration of the study to contribute information
to the analysis for the time that they were in the study. If they cease
to return for follow-up without experiencing the event in question, they
are considered censored.

However, it is important to understand that this technique is based on
the assumption that the censoring mechanism is independent of the
occurrence of the adverse event. In other words, it assumes that the
reason a patient has not returned for a follow-up visit is not
associated with the fact that she has or has not experienced that
complication.

If patients are lost to follow-up because they experienced adverse
events, then the actual rates should be larger than the estimated rates.
Recall that lost-to-follow-up was no more than seven percent in the Core
Study. However, recall also that 26 percent had not yet reached their
three-year follow-up. We must assume that these 26 percent would
experience complications at a similar rate to those who had reached
their three-year check-up. Panel Members should evaluate whether these
assumptions about the lost and the \"not due\" are reasonable.

I will now point out some of the possible biases in the Kaplan-Meier
analysis. One thing that will make the Kaplan-Meier estimate less
accurate is when the exact time of onset is not known. If there is a
large time interval between the occurrence of the event and the
recording of the event, the rates will be less accurate. Because not all
complications prompted an immediate trip to the doctor, it is likely
that many complications were not reported until the next follow-up
visit.

Correlations among adverse events were not investigated. If adverse
events are positively correlated, fewer patients will be affected,
although the ones affected will tend to experience more adverse events.
The sponsor did provide tables which addressed this issue somewhat by
looking at the occurrence of \"at least one complication\" or \"any
complication.\"

And finally, if a patient who experiences a first complication is
removed from the pool, that patient is not a candidate to experience
another complication. This is called the problem of competing risks. In
the Core Study, a patient who experienced an adverse event did remain in
the pool of candidates to experience another adverse event. The only
exception was when a patient experienced implant removal without
replacement.

To analyze whether any increases in the signs and symptoms of connective
tissue diseases were due to the implant or due to the increased age of
the patient, the sponsor used Generalized Estimating Equations. GEE is a
type of longitudinal analysis that can adjust for a covariate, such as
age. There were several significant increases over the three years of
follow-up that were beyond what one would expect from aging alone. These
were noted in the augmentation and revision cohorts and are enumerated
in the FDA Panel memo.

Three examples would be fatigue, exhaustion and joint pain. These
findings are difficult to interpret due to the sheer number of
comparisons performed and the fact that these signs and symptoms were
self-reported. Adjustment for multiple comparisons is not done in a
safety evaluation because the more comparisons performed, the harder it
would be for any one of them to be statistically significant. However,
there were some consistencies across cohorts, such as with fatigue.

Two other measures that I would like to clarify for you are prevalence
and incidence. The point prevalence is defined as the percentage of
patients seen at a given follow-up visit who are experiencing a specific
event. It may be thought of as a snapshot in time. Any event that was
resolved before the snapshot, such as a rupture that was explanted,
would not be captured.

Prevalence does not tell you anything about the occurrence of new events
not seen at the previous follow-up. For this, one needs incidence.
Incidence is defined as the number of new cases per population per unit
time, but it can also be expressed as a proportion. It is subject to
biases from patients who did not return for follow-up and may vary from
one time interval to the next, so that a cumulative incidence measure is
sometimes more informative.

The MRI Core Study got a good start on measuring incidence at years one
and two, but the next scan is not due until year four. Because of this,
Mentor did not use the two-year MRI data to address the question of
long-term risk of rupture.

So this brings us back to the Sharpe and Collis data. The Sharpe and
Collis participants received a single MRI exam. This measured the point
prevalence of silent rupture. If any women had their implants removed
before the study was initiated, they would not have been invited to
participate. Dr. Dawisha has pointed out differences in patient
indication, device texture, and device placement with the Sharpe and
Collis data as compared to the Mentor Core Study. Of particular note,
these were augmentation patients only.

The sponsor devised a methodology for estimating cumulative incidence
from prevalence data, using standard statistical techniques, and this is
discussed in the sponsor\'s briefing memo included as a supplement to
your Panel pack.

The accuracy of this is dependent on the complete accounting of all
women in the cohort. Recall that half of the women invited to
participate declined. Further, because only augmentation patients were
considered, the per-patient and per- implant rupture rate at 12 years is
likely underestimated and may not be applicable to the general breast
implant population, which includes revision and reconstruction patients.

In summary, I find that for the Core Study, clinical assessment is
necessary to evaluate the acceptability of the complication rates and
that there is minimal bias from loss to follow-up in the first three
years. However, the estimate of long-term risk of rupture from the
Sharpe and Collis data is limited in its ability to apply to the overall
Mentor Core Study patients.

This concludes FDA\'s presentations. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. We\'re now open for questions to the FDA
group.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Anybody from the Panel? Dr. Miller.

DR. MILLER: I have a couple of questions for Dr. Berkowitz. Is there any
way you can make some inferences about the likelihood of some of the
components of the breast implant appearing in breast milk from some of
the pharmacokinetic studies that were done? I know you didn\'t look at
this, but can you take some of the kinetics that were studied in that
work and make some inferences about what to expect in breast milk?

DR. BERKOWITZ: That may be available in the literature.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Please speak into the microphone.

DR. MILLER: Or is it possible to do?

DR. BERKOWITZ: It would depend upon the availability of literature on
the data, on the concentrations of those things in breast milk. That
would probably be the best way to evaluate that. I mean, one could do
animal studies, presumably, and look at that deliberately.

DR. MILLER: I also wonder, you know, given the profile that is
demonstrated by the studies you presented, how common is it for a device
with this kind of profile, which to me appears extremely benign, to, in
spite of that, have significant clinical toxicities that are not sort of
heralded by that toxicology work. Is that a common thing to see such a
benign-appearing device where the toxicology data gives no indication at
all about clinical injury that the device can cause?

DR. BERKOWITZ: I think you have to realize that these are relatively
short-term studies done in animals, and it\'s really difficult to
extrapolate, because you don\'t know what the pharmacokinetics are in
the animal versus people. I mean, the only thing to do would be to do
longer-term studies in animals, like dogs, where you could go on for
years. But then again, the pharmacokinetics in the animals are likely to
be different than they are in people. So you don\'t know what \-- I
mean, a negative result would not be meaningful and a positive result
wouldn\'t necessarily be helpful.

DR. MILLER: I understand those limitations, but I guess I don\'t do this
type of work, of course, so I\'m just trying to get a sense of what kind
of context to put this into in terms of how predictive is it, how well
does it correlate to clinical problems.

DR. BERKOWITZ: Well, the clinical problems is a difficult point. That
is, we can find out that there are, say, immunological problems, for
example. It\'s not always clear that they will correlate directly to
clinical problems. But, in fact, the group at the National Institute for
Environmental Health in North Carolina, for the immunotoxicology
testing, most of the tests we looked at were the tests that they
considered to be the Track 1 test. Those are the most likely to find
problems.

And so we have done \-- so for that immunotoxicity testing, presumably
we have done the tests which are most likely to detect problems that
might show up in humans. On the other hand, again, they are relatively
short-term tests. And I don\'t know how else to answer that.

DR. MILLER: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Other questions from the Panel? Dr. Newburger.

DR. NEWBURGER: I don\'t know whether to address this question to
Commander Allen or to Dr. Lerner, so here it goes and whoever\'s area it
is, please, help me out.

I\'m looking at the patient accounting chart in our briefing document on
page 51, and the patients who have had explantation of devices are no
longer counted in any of the follow-up. The reason that this is
important to me is I would like to know what happened to these patients.
They are obviously not included, then, in quality of life, global
satisfaction or signs and symptoms questionnaires afterwards. And since
this represents close to four percent of all reconstruction patients and
five percent of the revision patients that are seen in the three-year
follow-up, this could be meaningful.

So can you explain to me why were these patients not followed as far as
that could be done, even though their devices were explanted, and do you
have a sense of what happened to them?

DR. LERNER: I think the sponsor earlier addressed that same question,
and their answer was that once a patient had a device explanted without
replacement, they basically stopped their participation in the study. So
we only have the data that they present to us. We don\'t have access to
those patients or any further information. So it was purely a part of
the study design that they would be eliminated from consideration for
any further issues.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes.

DR. NEWBURGER: One of the reasons that I ask that is that, during our
break, I was given a note by an individual who is attending this open
Panel meeting ? which I gave to FDA, obviously ? who is a young woman
who was in the Adjunct Study who had adverse events that made her \--
she feels quite sick.

She had an explantation, and she wrote in this note that when she looked
at her data, it was reported as ?no complaint?. Okay. So I\'m concerned
about the record-keeping, the bookkeeping, if we\'re actually getting an
accurate picture here.

DR. DAWISHA: I can\'t speak to the Adjunct Study specifically, but I
guess what I would like to point out is that, for the Core Study,
obviously when patients have their implants removed and they do not get
re-implanted with Mentor implants, they are no longer followed.

But for complications and then in the MRI study, if they are an MRI
patient, they continue to have complications recorded per the protocol
for the study and they continue to have MRIs. However, because this is
their second implant, the data for those patients are looked at
separately.

So that was the point I was trying to make for the MRI cohort, that if a
patient gets an implant removed and then gets another Mentor implant,
they are still followed in the study. They still maintain the follow-up
durations and they still get their MRIs, but the rupture data from that
set of patients is looked at in a separate group and is not put with the
initial patients.

That doesn\'t totally address your question about this Adjunct Study
patient, and I don\'t know that we are really the appropriate people to
answer that question. I think the sponsor should probably answer that
one.

CDR ALLEN: Yes. Can I add to that? I agree with Dr. Dawisha that that
question probably should be directed to Mentor in terms of why there was
a discrepancy. But in terms of a standard PMA process, it does include
BIMO inspections in which the sites and the sponsor are audited in terms
of data integrity issues and looking at record-keeping and that sort of
thing, but I can\'t speak to that specific patient discrepancy.

DR. NEWBURGER: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: May I ask a question, Commander Allen?

CDR ALLEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: In order to help the Panel extrapolate, if you will,
between devices, we heard differences between the first, second
generation, and the third generation, but in order to help interpret
some of the literature, could you summarize for us the differences in
design between the Mentor product and the Inamed product as far as
design? Are you familiar with the differences?

DR. PROVOST: Excuse me, Dr. Choti. I\'m not sure that that\'s an
appropriate question, because evaluation of the data in this PMA is to
be based solely on the data relevant to this product and not a
comparison.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I understand. All right. I withdraw the question. Any
other questions from the Panel? Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Just a couple of fact questions. You talked about the different
layers in this device. Could someone tell me what the relative thickness
is of the layers, either the sponsor or the FDA?

CDR ALLEN: I would have to direct that to Mentor, because I don\'t know
that right offhand.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: I\'ll ask Dr. Barber to come up and give us that
technical information.

DR. BARBER: I don\'t have it specifically, so I\'m going to have to
answer from memory. Smooth shells. Minimum, nine thousandths; average,
12 or 13.

DR. LI: That\'s total thickness?

DR. BARBER: Yes.

DR. LI: How about the relative thickness of the layers? There\'s a
barrier layer ?

DR. BARBER: That\'s more difficult. The barrier layer is two to three
thousandths.

DR. LI: So, say, nine thousandths total and the barrier layer is two
thousandths, ballpark?

DR. BARBER: Yes.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. BARBER: Probably maximum.

DR. LI: And how about for the textured?

DR. BARBER: Beg your pardon?

DR. LI: And for the textured implant?

DR. BARBER: Textured, total 18 to 20.

DR. LI: And, again, the barrier layer?

DR. BARBER: Same.

DR. LI: The same. And is that a symmetric device or is the textured
layer heavier? I\'m sorry. Is that a symmetric device of the three
layers or is the textured layer thicker?

DR. BARBER: You\'re asking a difficult question. Because it\'s so
roughened, you know, it tends to be thicker, but not as much material.
You know, it\'s full of pores.

DR. LI: I understand, but you must have some idea of roughly what that
thickness is.

DR. BARBER: And I thought that was four to five.

DR. LI: Okay. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: If there are no other questions for the FDA, thank you
very much. We\'ll take a break for lunch and we\'ll resume at 1:10.
Thank you.

(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed at 12:37 p.m. to reconvene at 1:22
p.m. this same day.)

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

1:22 p.m.

DR. KRAUSE: Okay. I think we\'re approaching critical mass, so I think
we can start the afternoon. Before I turn the afternoon part of the
meeting over to Dr. Choti, I would just like to quickly remind everyone
that if you haven\'t as yet done so, please sign in outside at the
tables.

Also, there should be what\'s left of the agendas out there for the rest
of the day, a Panel Roster, and also information on future meetings of
this Panel and other Panels, or at least how to access the information
on those types of things. Okay?

So now, I\'m going to turn the meeting back over to Dr. Choti, and then
we can get started for the afternoon. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you, Dr. Krause. Good afternoon. It\'s now time
for the Panel to discuss the information presented by the applicant and
the FDA. Do we have opening questions or discussion from any of the
Panel Members? Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: I have two questions for the sponsor, actually. I would like
some clarification on two issues. One was the thickness of the gel
barrier, and the second one has to do with some of the issues we heard
earlier that Commander Allen mentioned, that there\'s these BIMO
inspections with regards to data and record keeping, and I was wondering
if they could address sort of where they\'re at on those issues.

MR. LEVINE: Yes, thank you, Dr. Bartoo. I will answer the second
question and then turn the first question back over to Dr. Barber.

Just a point of clarification for the group on the program that was
talked about, I guess, right before the lunch break, and the patient
with information or accusations about information not being kept or
adverse events not being reported. This is not a formal IDE classic
clinical study. This is a program that was developed under the FDA\'s
guidance for urgent need following the gel moratorium in the early
1990s.

Again, this program was developed with the FDA\'s guidance and
collaboration. It is not a classic IDE clinical study. It was developed
to serve, essentially, the significant population of reconstruction and
revision patients who wanted access to our products. This program has
been in place for over a decade, and given the size and scope of this
program \-- just as a point of reference, we have 111,000 active
patients enrolled in this program right now.

But given the size and scope of this program, it\'s impossible for me or
anyone here to comment on an individual patient\'s situation without
specific information or names. So my plea would be if we have specific
information and names, we would be very happy and willing and would
aggressively research that as we\'re here.

I should also point out, just as a final thought on this, that this
program is actively audited by the FDA and within the last 60 days, the
Adjunct Program has been audited and, to our understanding, it meets the
Agency\'s \-- and how we\'re collecting and managing data in it, it
meets the Agency\'s satisfaction. So just as a point of record.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is this the Adjunct?

MR. LEVINE: This is the Adjunct.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: This is what you\'re talking about?

MR. LEVINE: Yes, yes.

DR. KRAUSE: And before we go on with the rest of your answer, for those
individuals out there who believe they are in a study and haven\'t been
appropriately followed, there is a number at FDA you can call and an
individual you can speak with. So I\'m going to give you that number and
the individual\'s name right now. If you don\'t get it, you can come up
and ask me during a break or something and I will give it to you again.

The individual\'s name is Mike Marcarelli. That\'s M-A-R-C-A-R-E-L-L-I.
He is the Director of Bioresearch Monitoring. Okay? His phone number is
(301) 594-4720.

So if you feel that you\'re in a study and you\'re not appropriately
being monitored and you have complained to the appropriate individual
who is supposed to be monitoring the study with the company, and you
don\'t feel you have gotten satisfaction, call this number. Okay? And
then you will be coming at it from both ends and, hopefully, it will be
resolved. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Would you recap the question for us?

MR. LEVINE: Dr. Bartoo, I believe your second question, or your first
question was on \--

DR. BARTOO: Shell thickness.

MR. LEVINE: \-- shell thickness. Right. I\'m going to turn that one over
to Dr. Barber.

DR. BARBER: This is just a clarification, Mr. Chairman, to make sure the
record is right. Dr. Li asked me about the thickness of the shell and I
now have better data, so that if you have a pencil, I\'ll give it to
you.

The shell thickness for a smooth shell is 15 thousandths to 22
thousandths, and that is separated by section. The first section is 1 to
2 thousandths thick. The barrier layer is 4 to 6 thousandths thick, and
the outer layer is 5 thousandths, 7 thousandths thick, and the texturing
then would add about 4 to 5 thousandths.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you.

DR. LI: So the texturing layer is on top of the other three layers,
then? Okay.

DR. BARBER: It\'s added.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: Yes, I would be curious about the sponsor\'s response, or
maybe specifically addressing some of the questions raised by the FDA
regarding the rupture rate projections. When I listen to the sponsor\'s
presentation, it appears to make reasonable assumptions, and be based
upon meaningful data and provide a not conclusive, but a meaningful
prediction of life of these devices.

And when I listen to the FDA\'s presentation, I hear valid and
significant sounding questions raised about how those projections are
done, and I just need some help resolving some of that. Maybe the
sponsor could respond to some of those points raised.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: What I would like to do is ask Dr. Gene Poggio, who is
our statistician, he was speaking earlier, but he is the most qualified
to deal with the calculations. It\'s not modeling, as you may have heard
in previous days, but we\'ll have Dr. Poggio address it. He\'s asking
for a slide to come up.

DR. POGGIO: Hi. Gene Poggio. I\'m assuming your question is largely
about the Long-Term Study and the estimation with that.

DR. MILLER: Right. If you could just \--

DR. POGGIO: Certainly.

DR. MILLER: Yes.

DR. POGGIO: So, Dr. Dawisha mentioned that from the data we had that it
was cross-sectional data and that it provides a point prevalence
estimate. That is correct, but it is also possible to use that to
produce a cumulative rupture rate curve, but let me explain that a
little bit.

So, I should explain at the outset that this is a little unconventional
and that almost always when one is trying to estimate a survival curve,
one has longitudinal data, and so that is what we\'re kind of all used
to. We didn\'t have that option here, but we had cross-sectional data,
so that at one point in time MRIs were taken on a cohort of patients
that had a range of ages of implant duration, ranging from about 4 to
12. So that\'s what we have.

There is no standard method in the literature for how to estimate a
survival curve or a cumulative rupture rate from that, but we resorted
to standard mathematical statistic methods to derive an appropriate
estimate. So in this slide, let me just give you kind of a technical
explanation, briefly, and in the next slide, I will kind of work through
an example.

So from a statisticians point of view, we derived a maximum likelihood
estimate, the standard way to derive an estimate, subject to the
constraint that the curve is non-decreasing, that is that the cumulative
rupture rate doesn\'t go down. And mathematically, you can just think of
having data, say, at 4 years, 5 years, 6 years, 7, 8, 9, 10, and picture
those buckets.

And within each of those buckets, you have a certain percent of
ruptures, and so that you would write down the likelihood as the product
of what statisticians call binomials, assuming each one are independent,
and the maximum likelihood estimate is basically the proportion within
each of those buckets that are ruptured.

A critical assumption in this, which I think we would all accept, is
that once an implant is ruptured it remains ruptured. If that weren\'t
true, this wouldn\'t work. So you know, when you see someone at 10 years
and you do an MRI and it\'s indicated as ruptured, you don\'t know when
it happened. You just know that sometime between zero and 10 years they
were ruptured. So that\'s a critical piece.

And in terms of getting confidence intervals, we use another standard
statistical method, the jackknife procedure, to get an empirical
estimate of the variance. Let me just walk through an example on the
next slide.

So suppose we have 100 implants that were implanted 10 years ago and we
do an MRI on all of them, and suppose we see 10 ruptures. Then we know
that an estimate of the cumulative rupture rate at 10 years is 10
percent. We don\'t know where along the curve between zero and 10 that
happened, but it is an estimate of the cumulative rupture rate at that
point in time. I\'m putting aside in this for the moment ruptures that
occurred and were explanted.

Then suppose we also have another 100 implants that were 11 years of
age, and suppose we did an MRI on those and we saw 12 ruptures. We would
then estimate the cumulative rupture rate at 11 years to be 12 percent,
and that would be two points on the cumulative rupture rate curve. And
that is actually the way the estimate works out.

The complication is, because we know the curve can decrease, if it does,
if the observed values decrease, the maximum likelihood estimate
actually ends up combining adjacent intervals, so that it no longer
decreases. But it\'s a formal basis for producing an estimate. It\'s
completely legitimate. We spent some time deriving the estimate and
figuring out how to do this because, as I mentioned, it\'s
unconventional.

But anyway, that\'s what we did and, hopefully, this provides some
intuitive explanation why it\'s reasonable as well as a kind of formal
technical explanation. Does that answer your question?

DR. MILLER: Yes, it helps. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes. Question?

DR. LOCICERO: Back to that one point. In each bucket, how many patients
were there? Were there sufficient numbers to make statistical
differences?

DR. POGGIO: I would \-- they are spread roughly evenly across that time
period, but I think the important thing is the confidence interval at
the end tells us. I mean, presumably the reason you\'re asking that
question is how well do we know the numbers, and that is really
reflected in the confidence interval at the end. So it\'s not \--

DR. LOCICERO: The other thing is your distribution. At 12 years you have
similar numbers to 10, to 9, et cetera.

DR. POGGIO: The numbers, it is roughly, and the confidence intervals at
the end, because of the nature of the estimate, reflect not only the
number in the last box, because the estimate at the end isn\'t just
dependent on the patients in the last box. It depends in part on the
patients in the earlier boxes, too. So anyway, the confidence interval
at the end reflects the variance in the estimate based on all the data.

DR. LOCICERO: I have another question for the sponsor. There was a brief
mention that there was some difference in the rupture rate between
styles. Could you give us that data, and are there any significant
differences?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, there were only two styles, there was textured and
non-textured, and I think in Dr. Barber\'s analysis he felt, on a
theoretical level, there might be a higher rate, a theoretical higher
rate of rupture, in the textures.

We only had one patient, and I believe that patient had smooth, but let
me check \-- I would have to get back to you on what the confirmed
explanted patient, our only confirmed rupture patient, whether that was
smooth or textured. Those were both textured devices.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Other questions? Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: Could the FDA clarify their response to the sponsor\'s
response about the Smith and Collins? How you interpret it.

DR. MANNO: What was the question, please? I couldn\'t hear it.

DR. CALLAHAN: For the FDA to respond to the sponsor\'s response about
the modeling with the cross \-- well, not modeling, but estimations with
the cross-sectional data?

DR. DAWISHA: I\'m not the statistician, so I don\'t know that I can
address the statistical assumptions that were made, but I believe Dr.
Poggio earlier made the comment that there is an assumption underlying
this method. And I believe he stated that the assumption is that there
is a constant rate of increase in this assumption. I believe he stated
that. And I would be curious to know what the assumptions are that are
used in this methodology. I\'m not a statistician, so I can\'t comment
on the method, other than to say that I have never seen this used
before.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Silverman?

MS. SILVERMAN: Yes, it has not ever been used before, because they
devised it specifically for this data. And I was familiarized with this
before the Panel meeting, and my feeling is that this method
theoretically would provide a reasonable estimate of the rate if they,
in fact, captured all the women they \-- if there were no women that
were explanted before four years that were ruptured, they would have to
account for all the women, as I mentioned in my talk.

And also, you would have to assume that the 50 percent of the population
that were not \-- that did not agree to participate with the MRI, that
they would have ruptured at the exact same rate as the women that agreed
to be ruptured. And if you assume that, then, yes, possibly it\'s a
reasonable estimate. But it still doesn\'t account for the fact that
they were augmentation patients only. They were subglandular only. They
were textured only. You still have those other kind of demographic
variables that are playing factors.

DR. POGGIO: Just to clarify. It does not assume a constant failure rate.
And it is true, as far as we know, it\'s never been used before, but it
is valid. It uses standard techniques to derive the approach.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: May I ask in follow-up on that curve, so what would you
estimate based on that analysis what the curve of the failure rate is,
if not linear?

DR. POGGIO: It\'s really, I would say, somewhat analogous to a
Kaplan-Meier estimate, so it doesn\'t assume a functional form. There is
no \-- in the same way, when you get a Kaplan-Meier \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I understand that. But let\'s say if we were to try to
predict the rupture rate beyond that, and we saw the FDA\'s, yesterday,
different curves, different models, do you have a feeling of what
pattern this most closely fits with based on this Long-Term Study?

DR. POGGIO: I\'m someone who is very nervous about extrapolating very
much beyond the data going beyond a few years I feel comfortable with,
but I think if you look at the numbers and, you know, see a 9 percent
rate at 12 years, and, as I said, what we did before to assume it was
the constant rate just from 6 to 12, which was the faster rate, and you
extrapolate that, even using the upper bound of it, you are still
already out at 25 years. It\'s hard to imagine a median life that\'s not
in excess of that independent of the shape of the curve.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: But your 50 percent rupture rate at 25 years is based on
a linear progression. Is that right?

DR. POGGIO: Linear? Assuming that it\'s a constant rate from 6, that
using the rate to the upper bound, which goes beyond what we really
think is our best estimate, so it\'s very aggressive in terms of picking
a very high constant rate on that basis.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: But if you\'re saying it wasn\'t really constant up
until that last timepoint, why would you then assume it becomes constant
at the furthest timepoint? Am I understanding it correct?

DR. POGGIO: I\'m just saying that we\'re picking. In lieu of picking a
curve that goes up very quickly, we\'re picking a constant rate that we
think is quite high. So you could pick a curve that even accelerated
somewhat and pick our rate between 6 and 12 and go from that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: But the rate is different. It\'s not constant between
let\'s say 0 and 5.

DR. POGGIO: Between 0 and 6 it\'s very close to constant and it\'s very
close to 0 during that whole period, is our estimate.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: All right. Follow-up? Dr. Blumenstein, comments?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: On this issue?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: No.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: That\'s not fair.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I mean, there is just a variety of methods for
extrapolating data and using data in this fashion, and I don\'t feel
comfortable with any of it. But you do the best you can and there are
various, obviously, various approaches to it and people have taken, as
we can see, different methods. So I would like to go ahead and set my
computer up to make some comments.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Please, go ahead.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Maybe somebody else could talk.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes, Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: This is for the FDA and it concerns the preclinical data.
There were a number of objections to the studies performed by the
sponsor. Going back to the Draft Guidance document, it appears to me
that they performed the studies recommended in the Draft Guidance
document. So are you criticizing your own draft document?

CDR ALLEN: Could you clarify which preclinical test you are talking
about?

DR. LOCICERO: Yes, the preclinical testing for modes and causes of
rupture, fatigue testing, bleed gel or gel bleed and gel cohesion.

CDR ALLEN: Well, I\'ll take the easy one first. Gel cohesion. They did
do the testing as described in the guidance. With regard to fatigue
testing, the way the guidance is written up is that we\'re not quite
sure about the correct methodology that we believe that modes and causes
of rupture data should be there in order to help define the proper test
methodology. And I think that was what our message was in our FDA Panel
memo.

With regard to gel bleed, the sponsor did provide a methodology as
described in the guidance, and there are a few outstanding issues that
we believe can be resolved in order to close out that issue. And the
last one, with regards to modes and causes of rupture, you know, as
described in my presentation, I think that they provided, you know,
ample information up through 10 years. And, you know, although I do
believe that whether it is pre-approval or post-approval, they should be
continuing their studies and following through on the steps that they
said they were going to based on their findings.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Okay. First of all, I feel \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Speak clearly into the microphone, if you would.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: First of all, I feel like the sponsor has done an
excellent job implementing and managing a well-designed study with
excellent follow-up. The analysis appears to be confidently done and are
presented well. The FDA also did a good job, an excellent job. It has
been a pleasure. So I had some data sources. I had the text from the
FDA, text from Mentor, tables on the original CDs and tables on the
supplemental CD that Mentor provided to me this morning.

What I wanted to point out was that there are \-- and the reason I\'m
making this presentation is because I\'m not sure that all the Panel
Members have gone as deeply into the CD data that we had to see the
things that are there. And what I wanted to do is to go to this point
about that there are significant sign and symptom changes from the GEE
model adjusting for age.

And this is just, and I just did this quick little graph: heres?
fatigue, exhaustion, combined fatigue, joint swelling, joint pain,
combined pain, frequency of muscle cramps, hand numbness and combined
fibromyalgia. And it\'s a little bit hard to see. It\'s a very busy
slide, but these are the ones that from the GEE significance tests that
were less than .05, out of about 30-something symptoms assessed, these
are specific connective tissue disease signs and symptoms.

Here, of the 30-something, I\'m not sure all of them could be labeled as
having been thought to be related to connective tissue disease. I\'m not
sure quite how that list got together. But anyway, these are the ones
that are significant. And I think it\'s important to view this list and
to look at this. You can see that the percents are quite small and the
changes are really small. But nonetheless, we have these. These are
significant by some standard of significance. There is no correction for
multiple testing or anything like that.

One shouldn\'t regard this as being strictly like hypothesis testing
that we do for a primary endpoint in a clinical trial. But this is
really a guide to a signal that exists in the data. Looked at another
way, they pooled some of the symptoms together. And in this case, I
pulled out all of them that were listed. The dotted ones are not
significant. The solid ones are. And the solid ones are skin and
appendix, appendices, joint CNS and, there is a third one, but I can\'t
find it right now. That\'s it.

There are three of them on this list of combined \-- of sign and symptom
categories that were statistically significant. Here are the p-values.
And again, I think it is important to see that the ones that aren\'t
significant look like this. There are some that look like they go up
that aren\'t significant. And there are some that are significant that
don\'t look like they would be significant.

And I think what you have to understand is that these are from the GEE
model, and there is an underlying adjustment for age that you don\'t see
from just a graph of the proportions with these symptoms at the
different points in time.

All right. So the bottom line is, this GEE model that was fit is of the
simplest variety. There are many more refined models that could have
been fit that are possibly more sensitive. It\'s important to note that
even without using these more refined models that we have signals that
we should be looking at. And while there is no control group here, and
this is said over and over again that the data are difficult to
interpret, because there is no control group, you must also keep in mind
that that same comment applies to any efficacy analysis.

There is no difference here between what we are doing for these signs
and symptoms and what you do for efficacy. But the point is that we have
something here that we need to look at. So in my own opinion, the
reference of these findings to the Saline Study or literature is largely
irrelevant. What we have here is a well-designed study with subjects
serving as their own control. And that these findings are consistent,
that is the specific list of signs and symptoms and classes of signs and
symptoms are consistent with our a priori expectations, and we have
adjusted for age.

And also, it is important to remember that these signs and symptoms
changes track well with some of the quality of life changes that we have
seen. So, in my opinion, I find these results disquieting. And my
conclusion is that the follow-up interval is too short to estimate
reliably the relationship between these symptoms and connective tissue
disease diagnosis. So we are in the state of inconclusiveness, not
negative, not positive, but we\'re in a state of inconclusiveness with
respect to what the significance of these things are.

I have a suggestion. Create an individual patient symptom score that is
used as some kind of a statistical method. This kind of thing is done
often. People applying for loans at a bank. They take and put your data
into an equation and come out with a probability that you are likely to
pay back the loan. Well, the same kind of statistical method here could
be used to extract a score of some kind that ranks patients according to
whether their symptoms are higher or lower or their change in symptoms.

Find patients who have these high symptom scores and study these women,
plus a sample of women with low scores, in a supplemental study. You
might even think about assaying tissues if you could get that. Assess
their lifestyles. I think there is a big issue here about whether these
things might be related to lifestyles, and so that would be a way of
doing that. But put them under intense follow-up. Find out what is going
on with these women, because there is something going on here.

Another suggestion is to assess the association between these symptoms
and the changes in quality of life that we have seen that are also in
the same kind of direction. There may be a relationship between them
that we\'re missing because we\'re not seeing the data on that.

Finally, I have a recommendation for the FDA. I recommend that the
breast implant guidance be, in the future, modified to include
monitoring of these studies by an Independent Data Monitoring Committee,
as we do for other trials in this phase of development. And I would
include advocates on both sides of the issue here and include an
independent statistician, and it\'s okay if you want to put a plastic
surgeon on that committee.

DR. MILLER: Thank you.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: And the bottom line here is, your best friend is the
one who tells you the truth, rather than what you want to hear. And I
think that that would go a long ways towards, you know, getting us past
some of these issues. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Other questions from the Panel or comments? Yes, Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Yes, I would be remiss if I didn\'t say a little about
laboratory testing. If you can go ahead and set that up? First, I want
to talk a little bit about the lifetime fatigue testing. Again, I think
it was actually a spectacular effort on your part to do the work you
did. And with the approach you took, you did it about as well as one
could do it. So there\'s no dispute of that.

The issue is just how much can we take to heart of the value that you
generate using that method? My own experience in this is that it\'s
better than a sharp stick in the eye, but it\'s not a great predictor of
the lifetime of the device. Especially when you don\'t really have a
validation or have devices that are out in the six, seven, eight-year
time period where you better start to expect to see these things.

So my only comment is, you know, you can come up with 61 years or 47
years, but until there is some validation, we don\'t really know how
much to believe that particular value. So it could be right, but it
could be off by a factor of 4 or 5. We just, in my experience, we just
have no idea where we are at this stage. Would you agree with that or do
you have another comment on that?

DR. BARBER: Certainly, Dr. Li, we agree with you that there is wide
variability 4 or 5 X, but certainly, the standard deviations that we see
are in the range of 30 percent.

DR. LI: Yes.

DR. BARBER: Which is large. So I guess my feeling rests here. Looking at
where we have been with these devices and talking about 10 years. When
you talk about 25 years, which is a reasonable estimate, we\'re talking
about a long life. Is it as long as you want? No. But it is a long life.
And you are uncertain of it, that\'s the problem. But certainly, we are
at a point in collecting data, our complaint data in the 18^th^, 19^th^
year when you have a significant number of advices out there, overt for
sure, but that should be some reflection of what else is happening.

If you make projections from that, you are in the 25 to 30-year time
frame. That\'s significant. And I can only say you\'re right. We
haven\'t validated it and we\'re certainly looking for any better method
that we can get. We haven\'t found any yet, and certainly do recognize
the variability in cyclic fatigue testing.

DR. LI: Right. Again, it isn\'t a matter of criticism of your work.
It\'s just the nature of the test.

DR. BARBER: I didn\'t take it as a criticism.

DR. LI: Okay. The second issue is, you are starting to \-- you do,
however, the statisticians have projected a failure rate 10, 25 years
out. So, given that there is a failure rate, what do you believe the
mechanism of failure is out at that time? In other words, if they are
rupturing at whatever incidence you want to pick, what is the mechanism
of failure at that point?

DR. BARBER: And I\'ll go back to what I said about our modes and causes
failure. And, of course, we don\'t stand static. We reported what we had
at the time of submission to the FDA. We have continued with that. And
all of the populations we have looked at says the same thing about modes
and causes. After you get through about 10 to 12 years, you just see a
decline to essentially nothing.

So it says to us, there is a next mode coming. It will come. There is no
doubt about that. No device is going to last forever, and we\'re
practical in those terms. The question is, when will it start? What we
are convinced of about studying device, is studying how it mechanically
reacts in the body, the radius area which is subject to the most cyclic
fatigue and most volume in the whole device. We believe that\'s where it
is going to fail.

The question is, when does it start? When can we start collecting those
data? We have yet to see that kind of failure and that\'s what the FDA,
I know, was referring to when they said you can\'t predict, because you
haven\'t seen it yet. And we agree with that. We hope it is a long time
before we ever see one of those failures. But certainly, we\'re looking
forward to at least being 25 years.

DR. LI: And if I may make the same assumption that perhaps Dr.
Blumenstein didn\'t look as deeply at the micrographs as I did at the
statistical data, I would like to show a couple of the photographs that
were supplied on the cross sections to show some of the things, perhaps,
that could steer you into making some of these predictions. If I could
just have four of these, if you don\'t mind.

As one of the features that keeps coming up in this is that, somehow
during some of the procedures, either implantation or revision or some
time during the lifetime of this implant, the implant is somehow
disturbed or damaged by some surgical instrument, scalpel, forceps,
needles, whatever. And the question is, and I\'m not disputing that
those things happen, but I have a hard time picking up those mechanisms
in the photographs that are supplied me.

The photographs, these are electron micrographs. In the first case of
the simulated blade cut, it was labeled the simulated blade cut, and
then a couple of pictures of cross sections of failed retrieved devices,
and again, while I\'m doing this my caution to the audience is, these
are not meant to support or denigrate the device, I\'m just showing
these pictures as examples of phenomena that could occur.

And again, all implants have defects. If you look closely enough, if you
give me an electron microscope, I\'ll find a defect in anything. So
don\'t get overly alarmed at what you see here. So this is labeled as a
simulated blade failure, and I presume this is a fold that somehow got
\-- well, what\'s unusual to me is, I have never seen a cut surface look
like that from a scalpel or a razor blade.

These vertical striations, I think they are referred to, are quite
unusual for a cut on a brand new piece of elastomer. So either the blade
had a very unusual texture to it, in which case you should be not using
that blade to prepare your samples, or there is something highly unusual
about the material. I\'ve just have never really seen a cut surface look
like this.

The other thing that is a little concerning to me is if you look away
from the striations, you actually see these little holes and pockmarks.
Now, those are a concern to me, because those could be defects in the
material that are unavoidable, but these defects can serve as sources of
starts of cracks and damage from those sources. So, every one of these
things is a potential crack-starter. And you seem to have several of
these in here.

Next slide, please. Now, if the striations - this is one of my confusing
photos - are from a cut blade, in this photo there just seems to be a
band of it, and none of it goes to the surface. So I don\'t know how you
get that feature in the middle of a sample without it rising at least to
one surface or the other.

Next photo. Here, this was a retrieved breast implant where they took a
cross section of the rupture or tear. The thing about here is, if these
are striations, they go all the way through the sample. Meaning, someone
actually took a scalpel and went all the way through the sample to do
it. So either that was a pretty gross procedure that was done in this
implant, or those striations are something else.

Next. The same issue. Next. Now, this is the last slide, and this
actually goes to, one of the things that is not discussed is, can the
implant itself play a role in the failure of the device and not some
external force? And this goes back to one of the tenets of fracture
mechanics is that every material has a flaw. Diamonds have flaws. Rubies
have flaws. Everything has got a flaw.

Now, this particular picture that you described has got a flaw right in
the middle of the sample, and classic fracture lines radiating from it.
So, if you just walked into my office and laid this picture on my desk
and said explain it, I would have said well, I don\'t know what this
material is, but it looks like there was some force applied to it, and
it started at this flaw.

Next picture. This actually, I raised this for a couple of reasons. This
is this fishbone patter, I believe you were referring to. But to the
audience, if these are fracture lines, fracture lines always occur
perpendicular to the force that is applied. So, if this is the crack
that is opening, which this is the crack that is seen as the tear, to
open this tear, you have to kind of pull in the up and down direction.

When we pull in an up and down direction, these cracks are now in the
wrong direction. So, if there is a tear here, and these are fracture
lines, you\'ve got forces pulling this way and this way. Right? So that
is you are basically having a biaxial force, if those are indeed
fracture lines, right?

Now, the good news here is, once you start to have micrographs like
this, you know the size of the cracks. You know the size of the lesion.
You can actually then go in and measure in laboratory samples the forces
that are required to create these type of openings, and those will give
you much more accurate examples of not only the magnitude of the load,
but the direction of the load to create those same phenomena.

Also, I noted in one of the, I think it was one of the FDA Panel
Members, who said one of the cracks was 21 cm long. Well, given that you
know the structure of a reimplant, you can actually then create and
measure how much force it takes to create, open, a crack 21 cm. So with
the retrieval analysis and your skills that you clearly have, you have
\-- I\'m kind of getting excited here, that you have the means for the
first time, actually, to calculate the magnitudes of the forces and the
direction of forces that are actually responsible for these ruptures.

And if you can do that and throw in a little fracture mechanics about
flaw sizes, I think, you know, maybe in another year, you could have, in
fact, perhaps an excellent model for predicting when these fractures
will occur. And then if you start to get a feel for how many defects,
or, for lack of a better word, in your sample there are, you can make an
extremely good estimate of how these things perform. So I basically am
saying this because there are some features here, I think, or avenues
you may not have pursued, but you have the beginnings, I think, of an
excellent program to finally understand what\'s going on here.

DR. BARBER: You don?t need a response from me, do you?

DR. LI: Only if you like.

DR. BARBER: Very quickly. The only comment that I would make here is
that, as you know, this came from the report that I wrote, I believe,
folding and rolling, and the forces on those samples at the end of that
fold are very complicated. But you are absolutely right. We have a
wonderful opportunity.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Other questions from the Panel? Board discussion? Let me
ask the sponsor, perhap, Dr. Cunningham, in the Core Study the silent
ruptures, the ruptures which were all silent, 50 percent of them, 4 out
of 8, were extracapsular. That seems different than what the literature
supports that most of the ruptures are intracapsular. Can you speculate
as to why, in the Core Study, it was so different?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: The speculation that I have, I think, is based on my
clinical experience, and that has to do with the fact that those
patients were revision patients, and they were revision patients with
ruptured implants. Let me show a slide, if I could. Three of the
patients with suspected extracapsular silicone had previous devices. Our
central reviewer determined that one of the patients in the
reconstruction as intact, the two revision patients had previously
ruptured non-core implants, and our sincere feeling is that that\'s
legacy gel from the previous ruptures that they had.

Sharpe and Collis didn\'t determine any extracapsular gel. I think if we
had MRIed those patients before their implants, we would have seen that
silicone there, and that is my understanding of it. That\'s what I
believe about it.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So you don\'t think there is anything distinct that
somehow extracapsular, the incidence of extracapsular rupture is higher
with this device?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, these devices are not confirmed as ruptured. They
have not been removed. We don\'t know. In some of those cases, the
reviewer, the central reviewer felt that they were not ruptured, and the
local reviewer felt that they were. And in a situation like that, the
tie goes to the most conservative estimate, that would be favoring the
local reviewer, that they are ruptured. Certainly, if there was a
clinical reason to remove their implants, or if they had their implants
removed, we could answer that question. But at this point, we don\'t.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Although it brings up the case mentioned by the FDA of
the patient that the local reviewer called the rupture. The central
reviewer did not, and a subsequent MRI or whatever a year later showed
that, indeed, there was extracapsular rupture.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: We have just had, in response to the FDA comments, we
felt it was important to go back and review those slides, so I would
like Dr. Gorczyca to come up and introduce himself and give you some
information about that.

DR. GORCZYCA: Thank you very much. I\'m Dr. David Gorczyca. I\'m a
radiologist. I did all the original research on MR imaging of silicone
implant ruptures in the 1990s. That\'s a pretty good point, but to
clarify from the beginning, is that both the central as well as local
reviewer did call these ruptured intracapsular implants. And actually in
our data, they are ruptured.

The only question is, the extracapsular component. This individual
actually had three different MRIs, and the third one only at the local
reviewer\'s point, she questioned, there was a question that was
equivocal that there may be some extracapsular rupture. The central
reviewer did not think there was any extracapsular rupture. But the more
important point is, that it was considered intracapsular rupture for the
data point.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I just have one point for clarification about HIPAA
regulations. My understanding is that, if you choose to follow people in
the study beyond the time that a device is explanted, if you write into
your HIPAA consent form that you will follow them, they certainly can do
so. It\'s not that HIPAA says you can\'t follow these people any more.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: But as you indicate, these patients signed up for a
study, and we would have to reconsent them for this tail follow-up,
particularly if we are going to ask for things that are beyond the
purview of the study. I mean, I\'m not trying to be difficult. I would
love to know what that is about. And I would love to collect that data.
But I think there are some constraints on us, and we could change the
protocol, but that\'s what we would have to do. That would be our
hurdle. That\'s what I believe.

DR. NEWBURGER: I was just questioning that, because in the guidance
documents I think that it was, this study was meant to follow signs and
symptoms.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Yes, but while they are in the study. If they are
explanted, they are not in the study. I mean, we could amend the IRBs.
We could amend the protocol. We could amend the HIPAA signatures. Those
are things we could do. Those are things that we could accomplish. But
they are barriers at this time.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: One more question about the ruptures. The revision patients
seem to have a higher incidence compared to augmentation and
reconstruction. And do you have an explanation for that?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, the only rupture, confirmed rupture that we had
out of the 1,007 patients, was a bilateral patient in the revision
cohort. And I think, given the very small number of suspected ruptures
that we had, that the ones in that cohort sort of skewed things. I
don\'t know that we can say absolutely that the reconstruction group has
a higher rupture rate. The rupture rate is so low and one patient was a
bilateral patient.

DR. LEITCH: Okay. I have just one other thing. You know, you say these
confirmed ruptures, what is the game plan for the people who have the
MRIs that suggest rupture, what are going to be done with those
patients?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, they have all been informed, of course, of the
reading of the MRI. And it\'s an issue that they would discuss with
their plastic surgeon and determine how to manage it. And to this point,
those patients have decided to observe the phenomenon and not to have
additional surgery. So they would be engaged in an informed consent type
of discussion about, what does it mean? How real is it?

I think they are aware of the fact that the reading may not have been
unanimous between the central reviewer and the local reviewer, in some
cases, so they have elected to be followed at intervals with the MRI
Study. Now, these are patients who also know that they are going to get
an MRI every other year for 10 years. So I think, you know, their margin
of safety and feeling of confidence is probably high.

DR. LEITCH: So you\'re not going to follow them differently because, you
know, once they have been identified to have a problem, you\'re not
going to, say, follow them annually with an MRI?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: I don\'t believe that there are plans to follow them
outside of the bounds of the protocol.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: If there\'s no further general discussion? Yes, Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Just one quick question. As I understand it, you know, you have
very few instances of failure, but you had one woman who had bilateral
implants and they both ruptured. So, is there something \-- what
happened there?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: You know, I have to tell you, frankly, I\'m very puzzled
by that, as well. It seems to be such a very strange situation. The
patient had a lot of other issues that may have obtained. She may have
been in a relationship or some situation that wasn\'t good. We believe
she sustained trauma. She also had some vascular problems, which may
have been trauma-related. So, we do believe this patient is a unique
situation.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: Are you aware of any studies from saline cohorts, quality
of life studies?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: That would reflect what?

DR. CALLAHAN: Changes in quality of life over time. You know, it seems
like we\'re always looking at the changes with the silicone, and I
wondered if there are any studies in the literature from saline where
they look upon \--

DR. CUNNINGHAM: With the saline protocol that was submitted and approved
by the FDA, there was a breast examination questionnaire that was a
specific instrument related to breast issues, as you heard Dr. Anderson
speak. There were questions in these global, more general health
oriented instruments that were agreed upon between the sponsor and the
FDA that may not have asked relevant questions.

This breast questionnaire has been accepted, and is published, and that
does show significant changes over time. I could ask Dr. Anderson to
speak on that a little bit more. I\'m not sure we\'ve got the specific
data from the saline here, but that was an instrument that was designed
and has been published, and that deals with specific breast indices, and
that showed significant improvement in that saline group that has been
approved.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes, Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I\'m not sure that this question is even relevant, because I
haven\'t heard it discussed in either of the two times I have been up
here, but I have been sitting here thinking. In terms of the rupture,
you have the worst-case scenario of different causes of rupture being
related to the clinical placement of the rupture as being one of the
large offenders in this area. Have you ever looked at, is there any
relationship between the geographical location and the response in that
term, and even farther to the doctor doing it?

The reason I\'m thinking in this area is, that it might give you some
information in your educational material, as you, you know, further
develop that.

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Well, I frankly think that\'s a fascinating question,
and I guess it goes to the fact are people in Colorado more likely to
have ruptures than people, say, at sea level? And I just asked our data
registry person and the Colorado group did not have any higher rate of
failure or of complications. We only had one rupture, of course, so I
think it\'s an interesting question. I can\'t begin to think how
geography or height or sea level or barometric pressure would factor
into this. I would have to believe it\'s a very minor factor.

And then we did do a Cox regression with regard to physicians and
physician practices. And, except for the revision cohort, you could not
tell a difference. There were three practices in the revision cohort
that had a slightly higher complication rate. They were academic centers
where more difficult cases, and I think the case selection mix could
logically predict that they might have more challenging cases than some
of the others.

DR. MANNO: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. It\'s time to move to the FDA questions, if
we could, please. May we have the first question projected? The first
question relates to the primary rupture rate information. As you have
heard, Mentor has provided a two-year and three-year and partial
three-year data. We have seen information on the Core Study and the MRI
cohort, as well as reported rupture rates in the non-MRI cohort. Mentor
has also provided supplemental sources, such as the literature and the
Adjunct Study.

The first question: \"Considering the rupture information from their
submission, and given that the majority of ruptures from silicone
gel-filled breast implants are silent, please discuss whether Mentor has
adequately characterized the rupture rate and how this rate changes over
the expected lifetime of their device.\" Let me start with Dr.
Newburger.

DR. NEWBURGER: I don\'t feel that the characterization of the rupture
rate is adequate, at this time, for several reasons. There were a
certain number of patients, of course, that were explanted, which
changes what the population being looked at is. But besides that, I
guess I need a third data point. And since everything has to be assessed
on the basis of MRIs, and we only have two MRI data points, I don\'t
have a level of comfort that makes me feel that is characterized. I have
trouble taking the long-term data, because it\'s a different location of
implantation, and due to the approximations with this model.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. LoCicero, we\'ll go the other way around.

DR. LOCICERO: The sponsors provided good Core data showing that there is
a relatively low rate of rupture in the first two to three-years. Their
long-term information, although it\'s just a slice in time, begins to
look a lot like curves of other mechanical devices that are inserted in
patients with rupture rates beginning to rise at seven-years, and this
is more likely to be a realistic type curve. The actual magnitude may be
different. But I\'m much more comfortable with this data.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I basically agree with Dr. LoCicero.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I think I\'m more in agreement with Dr. Newburger in that sense
in that I think the short-term data, the two-year or three-year data is
excellent. The rupture rate is virtually nonexistent. Again, I\'m a
little uncomfortable in projecting out very far in the absence of
actually a known failure mechanism. Again, I\'m a little \-- I can
understand the concept that these things could be damaged in the
patient, but I just really haven\'t really seen much evidence of that in
the photographs.

So again, in the absence of some mechanism and the absence of actual
data, I think it is characterized well in the short-term and not as well
as I would like to see it in the long-term.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: I\'m comfortable with the characterization in the
short-term and somewhat comfortable with the long-term, not completely
comfortable because of the limitations of the sample, you know, that
were pointed out by the FDA.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: Again, I think the key word is adequately characterized.
Have we characterized it? No. Do we know the rupture rate? No. I mean
there are unknowns, and it\'s hazardous. I assure the degree of
discomfort with making projections beyond the data that we have, I\'m
uncomfortable with that. I think the issue needs to be tempered, though,
with what are the consequences of rupture?

I mean, if we know for sure that the ruptured implant was a harmful
hazardous thing, it would be not appropriate to proceed without knowing
the rupture rate. But with the question about what the consequences of a
rupture are clinically, I think we have a good sense of the rupture
rate. And I\'m satisfied. Not that I want to stop searching to
understand better. The more we search, the more we will understand. But
I think for practical purposes, I think we have a good enough handle on
it.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: Well, it seems to me that, you know, the early results show
minimal problems with rupture in the first three years. The use of the
other data is, of course, a bit more speculative. But it does give you
some data which I think you could feel comfortable with up to the
10-year period. You know, the speculation for 25 years and the 60 year
thing, I think what the comfort that you have about the fatigue data is
that, you know, implants aren\'t going to just fall apart at 10 years.

But, you know, what happens from 10 to 25 years and the way that curve
goes, I think, you know, we don\'t have the data well enough to do that.
So I think we can have some level of comfort to the 10 years and I think
as has been pointed out by Dr. Miller, what are the sequelae of the
rupture? And, you know, it seems like maybe in your data, you\'re going
to have the opportunity to watch that if patients are declining to have
implants removed, if a rupture is identified.

Clearly, you want to follow those patients and I might encourage you to
consider doing the MRI on them at an annual rate, so that you can have a
better sense of the timing of what happens with an intracapsular rupture
and at what point it could become extracapsular or extend in any way.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: Basically, I agree with Dr. Leitch. I don\'t think I have
anything further to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: I\'ve moved on the comfort scale to the point where I think
that the short-term data is excellent and I think the way the
projections have been done give me a higher level of comfort. But I\'m
not all the way there yet.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I think the data through the end of the data collection
period for which there is follow-up are excellent.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: I think the data collection and rupture rate up to 10 years
is an acceptable data finding. And again, it is what is the consequences
of a rupture from the overwhelming body of historical data, even some of
the information that we received from the toxicologist, from the FDA to
suggest that there are no serious systemic side effects from a silicone
gel rupture.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So to summarize the answer to the FDA Question No. 1
\"Has the sponsor adequately characterized the rupture rate and how are
the rate changes over the expected lifetime of the device?\" I think
it\'s fair to say the consensus of the Panel thought that predicting the
early rupture rate is adequate. There were some mixed feelings regarding
the ability to predict the rupture rate as time goes on.

Some felt perhaps more comfortable up to the 10-year mark and others had
concern beyond that. So I think that we had probably a mixed view
regarding the question long-term and a consensus regarding short-term.
Does that answer your question?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: May we move to Question No. 2. Considering the
information presented on the consequences of rupture, this addresses
some points brought up in the last question. From the Core Study
supplemental sources, \"Please, discuss whether Mentor has adequately
characterized the consequences of rupture for their device with regard
to four specific areas: (1) The frequency of observed intracapsular,
extracapsular, migrated gel, as well as the destination of the migrated
gel; (2) The local health consequences of the ruptured implants; (3) The
incidence, prevalence and timing of silent ruptures that progress to
symptomatic ruptures; and (4) The incidence, prevalence and timing of
intracapsular ruptures that progress to extracapsular ruptures.\"

Let\'s start with Dr. Leitch.

DR. LEITCH: I think because of the low rupture rate that is observed in
the Core Study, we don\'t have much data about the outcomes on these
patients with respect to change over time, if an intracapsular rupture
is identified, and that data will have to be gotten. I think what we
have is historical data and I think that data gives us some of the
worst-case scenarios compared to these implants.

But I think we don\'t have all the data that we could have on that. But
we do have some historical data that suggests that change over time
happens in a certain percentage of the patients, but not a high
percentage of patients. And that the health consequences are primarily
those of local problems and the need for reoperation.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: As Dr. Leitch mentioned, with such a low rupture rate, of
course, you are sort of caught in your own trap of having such a good
device, but you don\'t have much data in terms of actual ruptured
implants. So, therefore, I mean, for your particular implant, you really
don\'t have a lot of data for frequency of intracapsular versus
extracapsular and you have to rely upon other literature to give you
that information.

So it\'s a question of is that other literature relevant to your device,
which I think one could argue it is probably fairly similar, that\'s
basically what we have been looking at on all these devices. So I would
have to say for your particular device, I couldn\'t say yes, you have
that data. But there is other supporting evidence.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: I have nothing to add to Dr. Bartoo.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I have nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: I am also in agreement with Dr. Bartoo and Dr. Leitch. And
the only thing else I want to mention is when they looked at some of the
local health consequences when they compared the silicone gel implants
versus the saline implants, actually consistently, except in the
reconstruction patients, the saline gel, the silicone gel performed much
better in regards to reoperation infection, rupture and patient
satisfaction.

I guess we will get more information about silent ruptures becoming
symptomatic or intracapsular rupture becoming extracapsular ruptures as
those number of patients who decided not to have their implants removed
after rupture.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I agree with Dr. Bartoo as well, keeping in mind the
short follow-up. So in terms of local complications, we just have a very
short period of time to watch.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: The sponsor did a very good job in looking at what data is
available and they were in a unique position that they can pick out
their devices from other studies. And I think they did the best job they
could based on what information is available. On the last two points,
the silent ruptures going to symptomatic and the intracapsular to
extracapsular, we still have little data anywhere.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I agree with Dr. Bartoo.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: Nothing to add. I agree with Dr. Leitch and Bartoo.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I have nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So in response to Question No. 2 regarding the
consequences of rupture including the frequency of intracapsular and
extracapsular and gel migration, the local health consequences of
ruptured implants, the progression from symptomatic \-- from silent to
symptomatic and the progression from intracapsular to extracapsular, I
guess the Panel was in relative agreement that the data provided by the
studies conducted by Mentor were limited in response to these questions.

But there was a level of comfort based on the literature regarding the
responses to these specific questions. Does that generally answer your
question?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, yes, it does. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Let\'s move to Question No. 3. It\'s regarding Mentor\'s
labeling. \"Mentor\'s proposed labeling includes recommendations for:
(1) The method and frequency of screening for silent rupture; (2)
Clinical management of suspicious and confirmed intracapsular and
extracapsular rupture; and (3) Potential health consequences of
extracapsular and migrated gel. Please, discuss the appropriateness of
these recommendations and the extent to which the proposed labeling is
supported by the available information.\"

Perhaps someone can review those recommendations as well. Can we start
with Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I\'ll defer to my surgical colleagues on that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Do you have any comments regarding that? Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: What were Dr. Li\'s comments?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Let\'s move to Dr. Miller and we can \-- if you have
some comments.

DR. MILLER: I was hoping you wouldn\'t do that, because, could you just
\-- I need to review what the specific recommendations are. So what page
on these are labeling?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Provost or if someone can \--

DR. MILLER: What page of the labeling do we find these specific
recommendations?

DR. PROVOST: We could direct that to the sponsor.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Could we do that? So the Panel is having a little
trouble responding to this question about whether we think the
sponsor\'s labeling recommendations are adequate, since many don\'t know
what those recommendations are.

MR. LEVINE: We\'re looking for that right now. Give us 15 seconds, 20
seconds.

DR. LEITCH: Well, I think I have found it. It\'s under our data
labeling. I assume this is the product \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Can you use the microphone more clearly?

DR. LEITCH: The product insert and believe it or not it doesn\'t have a
page. It\'s, I guess, page 1 under labeling, the labeling tab. And the
follow-up examinations recommended \"Patients should be instructed to
have follow-up examination on an annual or biannual basis, including
assessment of implant integrity.\" And then with respect to rupture \"If
there is a clinical suspicion of intracapsular or extracapsular rupture,
consideration should be given to performance of magnetic resonance
imaging examination. Rupture is confirmed by any means, X patient is
recommended.\"

So I think the thing that is left out \-- well, I don\'t know, does the
sponsor want to say something else about that?

DR. CUNNINGHAM: Regrettably, we don\'t have the projector attached to
this computer, so let us get a hard copy.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So while we\'re doing that, Dr. Leitch, you just went
over those. So the question is?

DR. LEITCH: So with respect to that, you know, what is left is a bit
vague and open to the physician is including assessment of implant
integrity and how would that be done. I do think, as I have said, that
both speaking with the patient and the physical examination can assist
in that assessment of implant integrity. But I think, you know, if that
recommendation is going to be made, that perhaps some guidance should be
given as to what technique would be used to assess implant integrity
with MRI being the most accurate one for that purpose.

And some mention should be made of mammography screening as would be an
age appropriate, you know, to say that, so that people don\'t forget
that in the follow-up of these patients, who if they are good enough to
come to the plastic surgeon for their follow-up and think they are
having a breast exam, that they don\'t assume that that completes their
screening for breast cancer.

And then with the clinical suspicion of an intracapsular rupture, I
would say make a strong recommendation to obtain an MRI to evaluate that
concern. And I do have the recommendation for explantation being
recommended. They could make some caveats on that with respect to the
age of the patient and other health concerns that might make the risk of
removal more significant than the risk of leaving the implant in place.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch, one thing that\'s not evident to me is how
to manage the silent rupture. You didn\'t comment about do you think
that routine MRIs should be done.

DR. LEITCH: Well, I think, again, if you look at, you know, their
reported rupture rate at this moment, you know, and trying to say well,
what\'s a reasonable recommendation for MRI exams which are expensive, I
think it would be, you know, sort of hard to make the case to do the
first one really before five years, you know, assuming that, you know,
the next couple of years show this very low rupture rate.

But, you know, my thinking is for this, depending on how the rupture
rate plays out over the next few years, somewhere between three and five
years would be the first MRI and then another, say, at 10 years and then
in responding to any symptomatic issue that might give you concern that
there could be rupture, that you would go ahead and introduce an MRI at
that point.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: But again, all their ruptures were silent at least in
their Core Study.

DR. LEITCH: Right.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And the labeling does not address the silent rupture.

DR. LEITCH: That\'s what I\'m saying.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So you think we should recommend three years?

DR. LEITCH: Yes. I mean, I think there should be in the follow-up
examinations, rather than just saying including assessment of implant
integrity there should be, you know, well, how would you do that? And
one of the ways you would do that would be an MRI at intervals as a
recommendation.

Again, if your rupture rate at five years, let\'s say, were 5 percent or
6 percent, that means doing 100 MRIs for six people who \"need it\" of
whom half of them may refuse to have their implant removed. So again,
you know, I think those discussions you can have with the patient are
if, you know, right now your implants aren\'t bothering you, you think
everything is okay, we could do an MRI to assess their integrity.

But if we got an MRI that said that they are ruptured, but in the
capsule, would you have them removed? The patient says yes, I would.
Then for her it may be worth it to do the examination. If she says no,
then for her it may not be worth it to do.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Do you \--

DR. LEITCH: If you don\'t give them an example of an examination they
can do, they don\'t have any idea what to do.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And do you think that the labeling should make some
recommendations regarding how to manage the intracapsular silent rupture
detected on MRI?

DR. LEITCH: Yes, yes, yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Should recommend explant?

DR. LEITCH: I would say you should recommend consideration of explant
but, as I said, with those caveats. If the patient is elderly, has other
intercurrent medical problems, then for her the risk of removing the
implants may be greater than any risk she might experience from leaving
them in place as opposed to a 25 year-old who has a long time to live in
which the gel could extravasate, get into her parenchyma and then be a
problem for her in terms of being screened, you know, for breast cancer
in the future.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: I have nothing further to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: Nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: Nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So Dr. Ewing, let me \-- so you think routine MRI scans
should be on the labeling or not?

DR. EWING: I think that \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Use the microphone, please.

DR. EWING: I agree with Dr. Leitch that looking at their data at least
after five years. I don\'t think that it would be very helpful to do
routine MRI in the first early years, perhaps three to five years for
evaluation. And then thereafter, at 10 years, as I discussed before.

And again, I agree with Dr. Leitch in having the discussion with the
patient that if she has a possibility of a silent leak and is not
interested in having her implants removed, then no, I would not do a
routine MRI. But if she would, then maybe perhaps every two years
thereafter.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And that should be somehow spelled out in the labeling,
you think?

DR. EWING: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: All right. Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: Since the way to detect a silent rupture is going to be
by MRI, I think without the data to give us a rate of rupture, the
timing of that first screening MRI is in doubt. I think there has to be
something about MRIs, but I couldn\'t comment on the timing.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And what about the recommendations on the labeling
regarding detection of a silent rupture of any kind? Do you think we
should recommend on the labeling to have it removed?

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: I agree. I would just say that the first MRI should be
done sometime between 5 and 10 years and it should probably say MRI or
other comparable examination since 5 to 7 years from now, we may have
some new device. Maybe the 64-channel CT scanner will be a better test.
We don\'t know. And I would recommend explant.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I have nothing to add and I would recommend explant.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Li?

DR. LI: No comment.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: I have nothing to add. I just want to clarify though with
the clinicians. This third thing we were supposed to ask, the potential
health consequences, are you happy with the way those are listed out?

DR. PROVOST: And, Dr. Choti, if I could just comment that the labeling
issues are also summarized in the FDA Panel memo. It starts on page 106
and the potential health consequences information starts on page 107.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. I\'m sorry. Dr. Callahan, you were saying?

DR. CALLAHAN: Oh, I just wanted to make sure that the clinicians were
happy with that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think that absent evidence that a ruptured implant is
harmful, particularly systemically, I\'m not sure we need to search for
ruptured implants. I think absent data to show you when we need to do an
expensive test like an MRI, I think it\'s just a total guess as to when
to start doing a screening test like an MRI. So I\'m not sure that we
should recommend a time that they will go for a screening MRI.

I think if a patient is asymptomatic, that I like the idea of the breast
self-exam. I mean, if nothing else, it gets somebody in the habit of
doing a breast self-exam and that\'s a very beneficial thing for health.
It\'s difficult, on a clinical exam, to determine a ruptured implant,
but it\'s not impossible and it may be possible to pick up some of
these. I think physical examination on a regular basis and discussion
with the patient about how they are doing on an annual or a biannual
basis is probably adequate follow-up.

As far as what to do with a discovered ruptured implant, I think that\'s
something which I don\'t think \-- you can state this in various degrees
of strength. I mean, I don\'t think it should be stated in a way which
makes the patient feel they have to have the implant removed. I think it
should be stated in a way which some recommend the implant be removed.
Consideration should be given to the implant being removed.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Should there be a distinction in the labeling between
the strength of removal recommendation based on intracapsular versus
extracapsular perhaps?

DR. MILLER: I think that\'s a discussion which can be taking place. I
mean, I think the information needs to be placed there and maybe
reflecting some of the discussion we have had here. I think until we
know that it\'s a harmful thing, that we need to be conservative in what
we recommend people do. That\'s how I would feel about it.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Provost, this is a difficult one to summarize. Dr.
Leitch, you have an added comment?

DR. LEITCH: Well, I just want to say I think all of the clinicians here
do have patients that have implants in place and, you know, these are
the really old ones. And the patients have made a choice that they do
not want to have them removed. They are not bothering them and they are
perfectly happy with them.

And so I think, you know, that\'s why you can\'t just say you have to do
this or that to the physician, because there is a patient component in
choice and weighing risks and benefits, and so that may govern the
decision more than having an absolute recommendation, which may not be
appropriate for every single patient that a physician sees or for that
patient herself. But knowing what those options would be, I think it\'s
important to have it in the document.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So, Dr. Provost, I think \-- oh, I\'m sorry. Yes, Dr.
Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I\'m sorry. Just one last question or comment. This also
includes the potential breast implant complication wording, this
discussion now?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: You mean \--

DR. NEWBURGER: Or is it just for MRI screening?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes, it does include the potential complication.

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay. Then I would like to add a suggested change under
what are potential breast implant complications, the section on
connective tissue disease stating that there is no published data that
shows that this is so. I would like it to include something saying but
there may be increase in certain signs and symptoms.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Okay. So to recap, I think based on the sense from the
Panel that it\'s a difficult thing to pin down in labeling based on the
individual patient, based on some perhaps unclearness about the rupture
rate. The timing of the rupture rate and the consequences of the rupture
may likely dictate the label recommendations regarding follow-up and
management of silent rupture. And for that reason, I think that the view
of the Panel regarding this question reflects the responses to the first
questions. I think that somewhat summarizes it. Is that all right?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, yes. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: May we move to Question No. 4? Question No. 4 relates to
the post-approval plans, which were summarized. Mentor, as you recall,
proposes continuation of their Core Study with yearly physician
follow-up through 10 years with MRI continuing to years 4, 6, 8 and 10.
The same safety and effectiveness data will be collected and patients
who are explanted without receiving replacement implants will be
discontinued from the study.

Their post-approval study will not collect data on children of women
with breast implants. In addition, Mentor proposes using the existing
registries, which involve participating physicians who voluntarily
collect limited local complication data when patients return for a
visit.

So the question is \"Please, comment on the adequacy of these
post-approval plans to address any of the post-approval concerns that
you may have.\"

Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: Well, what I wonder is, the plans that they presented at
the end that included some things like the continued consent form, are
those really the continued plans?

MR. LEVINE: Yes. There have been \-- since the time we submitted the PMA
filing in August, there have been ongoing conversations with the
American Society of Plastic Surgery, the American Society of Aesthetic
Plastic Surgery to try and find ways to continue to strengthen and make
more robust the physician training component of this.

One of the things that we have worked on with them is that we think that
limiting access to these products to physicians that have gone through
the training is an important element in this. I mean, we don\'t want
products to be used by people who are not familiar with how they should
be used and how patients should be counseled in terms of, you know, the
appropriateness of the product for them.

We have agreement from both of those two professional societies that we
will, by certificate of participation, have on our website and on the
societies\' website a listing of those physicians that have been cycled
through the training effort. And we would propose that the training \--
we\'re saying that within 90 days post-approval, we would have had the
training program, essentially, in effect and anyone that had \-- you had
a 90 day window to continue under the Adjunct Study if you\'re an
Adjunct Study investigator, to continue to access the product.

But on day 91, we\'re going to say that we assume that you will have
been trained through a variety of mechanisms. There is a plan in place
with the professional societies to do both a teaching CD as well as a
webcast self-prompted training exercise and program that would allow
for, you know, the training elements that we\'re talking about as well
as an on-site training that would be offered at ongoing professional
trade shows and conferences over time.

As an example, the Aesthetics Society\'s show or surgical conference is
coming up in May. We would propose that that would be one of the first
that the trainings would be offered at. So again, I think what you\'re
looking at represents kind of the old view of how we have approached
this, and I think the comments that I made earlier really reflect our
desire and our intent in terms of post-approval commitment.

DR. CALLAHAN: Well, then based on that, I like the post-approval
commitments and also particularly the things you have said about the
training and the continued commitment to get formal, signed consent and
also the focus groups to really look at the literacy and the reading.

The one thing I didn\'t see in this that I think would be nice would be
to follow the people who are explanted to see, you know, right now who
you aren\'t following because of the way this study was designed, but to
follow those individuals over time.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think the list of items \--

DR. CALLAHAN: Explanted without replacement.

DR. MILLER: \-- that was reviewed in the sponsor\'s presentation is an
excellent set of commitments, that I would insist that that be followed
through on. And I want to emphasize that the access needs to be limited.
Don\'t just assume that physicians are going to have this training, but
a mechanism needs to be created that documents they have gone through
it, and there\'s ways to do that even online where a person has to
provide evidence that they have been adequately trained before one
device is shipped to them.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So you\'re saying rather than just voluntarily saying
they did the training, in order to get access to the device there should
be some documentation of successful completion.

DR. MILLER: You know, documentation. I mean, I know there\'s a way to do
this. I have to take HIPAA training and EEO training and all kinds of
training on my computer once a year, and they know if I have done it or
not. And if I haven\'t done it, then I get a knock on my door and
somebody sits there until I do it. So something like that needs to be in
place for this.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I also was happy with the commitments that were being made.
I agree with Dr. Callahan about the follow-up of the patients that are
explanted, and I think the reason to do that is that you can lay to rest
a lot of the concerns that you hear from Panel Members about long-term
outcomes of implant patients.

Now, the way you would have to do that is you would have to make an
amendment to your study and I don\'t necessarily think you have to
re-consent everybody. You would just re-consent people, you know, when
they have implants removed. Then they would be re-consented to see if
they would agree to follow-up. And then if they decline to follow-up,
you can say that.

I mean, you have that data. We tried to do this. The patient formally
declined further follow-up. But you have at least made the effort to
accomplish that and would help to be able to answer these questions,
because when you take all the people out of the equation, I say well,
those are the ones that have all the problems and you\'re not following
them, so you don\'t know about them. So I think it\'s important to get
those people back on track for a follow-up.

The physician training, again, as I said yesterday I will say again
today. I think the surgical societies would be supportive of this and
having documentation that, you know, the person has a certificate,
whether it\'s online or whatever, that indicates that they have done the
training, so you have confidence and you have it on file. This person
has done the training. Then you can feel more comfortable that your
product is being handled as you expect it will, so your outcomes will
continue to be as they are.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: Well, I would like to commend this company again, because I
think your Core Study has been excellently executed and analyzed and is
well above many of the quality of clinical trials that I have seen in
medical devices for many, many years.

I agree with Dr. Callahan about adding back in the follow-up of the
explanted patients mostly to put the question to rest, I think.
Otherwise, we\'ll always be a little bit, you know, nervous or unsure
about what\'s going on.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: I agree with what has been said. My only concern is having
heard some of the testimony, I am a little concerned about the follow-up
or not following up children of women born with implants. And I realize
it imposes a further burden on the sponsor, but I truly believe that it
might be worthwhile to try and put this into the post-approval. And
given their performance thus far on following through, I\'m sure that
they would do a good job if they committed to it.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I think that the company is to be commended for showing
a great willingness to do follow-up studies. I would like to reiterate
what I said in my slides about considering a substudy or something along
those lines focused on the women who have large increases in the
connective tissue disease signs and symptoms.

I would also like to encourage the company to put a little less weight,
maybe a lot less weight, on the registries and instead focus their
resources on designed studies. And finally, I don\'t think that the
company needs to wait for the FDA to put out a guidance that says have
an Independent Data Monitoring Committee. I think the company should go
ahead and do that for all their future studies.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: I agree with everything that has been said. I also want to
add that I think an online certification process to put the implant in
is a very easy thing to do. You know, again, I have to also do HIPAA
certifications every year and various other certifications every year
online, and that the persons who are eligible should be identified as
being either a board-certified plastic surgeon or at least
board-eligible.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: First, I would like to say that I\'m not being
hypercritical. I think you all have done a terrific job in terms of
designing this study, following through and it\'s certainly in a lot
better shape than when we reviewed the five-year post-marketing saline
implant data. This is just a real turnaround.

I would like to make a recommendation for a very stringent registry,
again not relying on the existing registries. I think that if this
device is approved, it\'s reasonable to assume that more than 50 percent
of individuals will use a silicone implant as opposed to saline and it
will probably be well over 200,000 individuals in the next year, which
gives a tremendous opportunity to capture that one in 10,000 incidence
of unusual events.

And I would encourage you to take advantage of this opportunity to
really define that, so that people such as myself who take care of
patients over the very long-term have a sense of what signs and symptoms
may be secondary to, so that we can advise our patients appropriately.
Other than that, I have nothing to add, except that I would like to see
children maintained on the registry of children of women receiving
implants.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: All of the suggestions that have been made have been
really great. As I have emphasized before, I want to emphasize the fact
that registries are a real problem. The Adult Cardiac Surgery Registry,
which is set up by the Society of Thoracic Surgeons has been available
for about 20 years. It currently has the support of industry in a big
way.

In spite of that, it requires every independent cardiac surgeon or every
group to pay \$13,000 a year to have access to the data, just to the
data form, and then you have to enter all the data. It took 10 years to
develop the General Thoracic Surgery Database. That now costs each
general thoracic surgeon who\'s in independent practice or group
\$13,000, independent of what industry is supporting the organization.

It\'s a pain in the butt to fill them out. You don\'t make money off of
it. It\'s a problem. It\'s a lot of data and it\'s probably going to be
a lot of garbage. So I would suggest that you be very careful in getting
involved in a registry.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I don\'t have too much more to add, but I would echo the
previous comments on just some really basic information on the children.
And I have said this before. In such things you can get the information
from the mother, that a woman who has had an implant, did she breast
feed her child, how many children are involved and are there any medical
problems of any kind and get just a general description to see if it
falls anyplace in the neurologic or the connective tissue disease
category.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I have the same kind of general misgivings about registries.
However, on the other hand, if it takes 10 years to get to a good
database, you have got to start sometime. However, knowing all the
problems that other registries have encountered, one might look at
setting up your registry perhaps in some different manner, so you don\'t
have to just collect garbage data for 10 years before it gets good.

So I think I would resist just joining some existing registry just to be
part of an existing registry. I think you have a unique opportunity here
perhaps to build one that actually could develop some actually useful
information in a shorter period of time, because otherwise I think you
would just be pouring money down a hole.

The other thing I want to encourage you is you have an excellent
laboratory program in testing these implants. You\'re tantalizingly
close to being understanding of how these devices perform and that is
going to be important not only to allow you to predict how this
particular device performs, but if you develop some subsequent model or
some subsequent modification, you will have a model that actually we\'ll
have some confidence in and we won\'t have to keep wrestling with having
to wait 10 years to figure out exactly where we are in this. So I would
encourage you, if nothing else, to step up your laboratory programs in
these areas.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. And perhaps the educational program and the
access program will be able to link \-- the link in opportunity to
collect more data, whether it be registry or web-based studies or so
forth.

So to summarize Question No. 4 regarding the pre-approval plans, I think
there was a consensus somewhat from the Panel in general that they are
enthusiastic about many of the post-approval plans.

There were some specific recommendations from Panel Members, three of
which felt strongly about including data collection on children of women
with implants and some specific issues regarding the registry and how
useful some of the information is, as well as the laboratory testing,
and also following-up of the explanted patients as recommended. Thank
you. Does that answer your question?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Let\'s move on to Question No. 5. \"Based on your
answers to the Questions 1 through 4 above, as well as other safety
data/information and preclinical testing provided by Mentor, please,
discuss whether you believe there is reasonable assurance that this
device is safe over the expected lifetime for the proposed indications
of breast augmentation, reconstruction and revision.

With respect to rupture, you should consider that most ruptures are
silent and that there is difficulty in ensuring routine MRI examination
for women with breast implants. You should also consider data from
revision patients as a continuum for patients originally undergoing
breast augmentation or reconstruction.\" So Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: I think that they have presented reasonable assurance that
this product is safe for patients. Most medical devices\' lifetime or at
least expected lifetime is, approximately, 10 to 15 years and I think
that this product certainly falls within that category.

The chief local problem that can occur is reoperation and even that is
pretty minimal at 10 years. And as long as the patient who is getting an
implant understands that, at some point, 5, 10, 15 years from now that
she may need to have the implant replaced and have a reasonable
discussion with her surgeon. I think that that meets expectations.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yet, the sponsor is saying the lifetime they define as
25 to 50 years. So that\'s okay. Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: Over the expected lifetime of this device, if it\'s 25
years, I don\'t have the assurance that the device is safe. 80 percent
of augmentation, 80 percent of breast implants are used for augmentation
and over half of these are in the 19 to 34 year age group. So I guess
we\'ll find out pretty soon what the life expectancy of the device is.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: I agree with Dr. Ewing. I think we now have some
information with a curve that looks very similar to other devices that
are implanted in patients with failures beginning at about seven years,
which would lead us to suspect that a lifetime would be somewhere in the
range of 10 to 15 years. It may turn out to be much better than that,
but if we say 10 to 15 years for lifetime, I would say it\'s safe.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: Again, I agree with Dr. LoCicero.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I believe the fatigue data and the, what is it, 100 patients
have gone 10 years gives me some reasonable assurance in the absence of
data in the Core Study in the 6 to 10-year period that it\'s reasonably
safe. I don\'t believe there is any reason. The data does not allow me
to really go beyond 10 years.

Their lifetime data could be off by a factor of 4 or 5, but even if
it\'s 60 years, a factor of 4 is what, 15 years. If it\'s off 5 \-- you
know, so I don\'t think really, to me, there is nothing that lets me go
past 10. So if they are going to say the expected life is 10, then I\'m
reasonably assured that we\'re good for 10, but not beyond that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: I agree with Dr. Li.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think that they are safe as long as a woman understands
the risks of local problems and she considers the benefit she can derive
from this device to outweigh a well-presented set of risks. I think the
device can be considered safe.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Can you comment on the three specific indications,
augmentation, reconstruction or revision?

DR. MILLER: I think the same comment applies to each one. Each one of
these are different settings where the implant is indicated and the
incentive of the patient to get the implant will vary based upon these
indications. And these are just things which influence the degree of
benefit she may expect to receive. So as long as she anticipates a
benefit that outweighs the risks, they are a safe device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I would agree with that. I think the data that we have
reviewed, both historical data and the data from these implants that
have been presented, suggest safety. I think in terms of lifetime, I
think just, you know, while the 25 years is median, which means that 50
percent would have failed so, you know, somebody might not consider that
\"the lifetime.\" You know, that\'s a median failure.

So I think we are looking more in this 10 to 15 year time frame and
that\'s what we can really speak to in hopes that, you know, some of
this fatigue data is true and that it will be longer than that. But
again, with a well-informed patient, I think for all of the indications
it is safe and patients can determine whether or not for them it is
worth it to have a device that might have to be replaced within a 10
year period of time. And if they think that it is, given all their
issues, then they can make that choice to participate.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So, Dr. Provost, to summarize Question No. \-- oh, I\'m
sorry. Dr. Bartoo. I\'m trying to move.

DR. BARTOO: That\'s okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Sorry.

DR. BARTOO: That\'s all right.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Okay.

DR. BARTOO: In the sponsor\'s Core Study, I think they showed that the
complication rates are reasonably low and actually in comparison to
saline studies are favorable. They have done some long-term, showed us
some long-term data, which seems to show us safety in terms of ruptures
out to 10 years, and they also supported it with the outside literature
that shows, you know, no concerns with regards to systemic problems in
the long-term. So I think there is very reasonable assurance of safety.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: Once again, I\'m concerned about the fact that we have not
actually defined what we think life span is. If we define it in the 10
to 15-year range, yes, I do believe that they have given reasonable
assurances and that the data is good. If we have some indeterminate
figure beyond that, I am less comfortable.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Should we skip Dr. Blumenstein? No. Brent?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I don\'t think that there is adequate data for
assurance of safety and I base my opinion on the fact that there is a
complete lack of understanding of what the meaning of the connective
tissue disease sign and symptom change data show, and then how those
data relate to the other things that are seen like the decrease in the
quality of life and things of that nature.

I think that there needs to be a lot more study of these things before
we can conclude that we\'re safe and there needs to be a lot more
follow-up, so that we can discover the relationship between these signs
and symptoms and the possibility of obtaining a diagnosis.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. So, Dr. Provost, there is somewhat of a mixed
Panel view regarding Question No. 5. Many felt that there is assurance,
that there is a reasonable assurance of the device\'s safety over at
least some period of time, but there were several Panel Members that
felt that they were not assured.

There was some little bit greater feeling about what the definition of
lifetime is and what beyond 10 or 15 years means, but at least I would
say up until 10 years many, but not all, felt that they were assured.
Does that answer your question?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: One more, we have Question No. 6. \"Please, discuss
whether you believe that there is a reasonable assurance that their
device is effective for the proposed indications of breast augmentation,
reconstruction and revision.\" So the question is effective. Dr.
Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Well, I think that some of the measures of
effectiveness are self-evident and I think, however, that there are
issues concerning what the meaning of the changes in the quality of life
are, and so I have a residual doubt, though not large.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: I think that the sponsors did provide a reasonable assurance
that their device is effective, meaning one of the ways of effectiveness
is quality of life and that question was answered on two planes, one
asking the patient if you had this procedure to do over again, either
augmentation, reconstruction or revision, somewhere between 99 to 97
percent of those patients said that they would do this procedure again.
I would love to hear that from my patients.

And they also had \-- most of the statistic quality of life instruments
were a wash as far as improvement or non-improvement, but there was one
quality of life instrument that they used, the Rosenberg Scale, that
showed that there was a significant improvement in self-esteem when this
product was used for all three indications.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: In terms of the quality of life surveys that were done, I
believe that there was only one that really showed significance,
positive improvement in quality of life, and that was for the delayed
reconstruction patients. I don\'t have a good sense, other than
increasing chest size, that this really is all that effective. These are
not, of course, patients that I do the procedure on or follow-up in a
short-term.

But I\'m concerned by the fact that people are dropped out when they are
explanted, so that the high percentage of people who are reporting being
satisfied will not include those patients who were explanted.
Furthermore, there is a big drop-off in the patients being queried with
these questionnaires between year two and year three. So I don\'t know
that there is an improvement in quality of life.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And you think quality of life is an important \--

DR. NEWBURGER: I do.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: \-- measure of effectiveness?

DR. NEWBURGER: I do.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. LoCicero?

DR. NEWBURGER: Because this is entirely elective.

DR. LOCICERO: The sponsors had a primary objective and their primary
endpoint was that of increased chest size and they met that completely,
so I feel like this is an effective device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I think they have met the effectiveness question.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: For all three indications?

DR. MANNO: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I agree.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: I think they met their primary objectives of
effectiveness. I would like to see \-- I don\'t know quite how to
interpret the quality of life data, because we don\'t know how. You
know, I would like to see sort of a comparison over time with saline.
But you know, they didn\'t get significantly worse, so I\'m not
concerned about the quality of life. And if the primary effectiveness
objectives are increase in chest size, I am comfortable with that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think that the effectiveness is well-documented, and just
a comment or two about the quality of life. I mean, I consider it a
tremendous success if you can take a woman, remove her breast and she
would have no change in her quality of life after that. I mean, you
know, it would take a study with about 10 people in it to take a woman
who wants a breast reconstruction and say no, you can\'t have it and do
a quality of life assessment on her. She would probably be at the bottom
of the scale.

You know, so we have to be careful how we interpret these quality of
life studies. The quality of life outcomes, multiple factors affect your
composite score on these quality of life instruments, and it really
takes an instrument specifically designed to address a specific question
to really get reliable data. This whole field, there is a softness to it
that is still emerging.

And I apologize to my quality of life colleagues who may not like that,
but that\'s how I view it and I think there is some validity to that. I
value the quality of life data. I want to get quality of life data, but
we have to be cautious how we interpret it. And I\'m satisfied with the
quality of life data that, given the limitations of it, I think it\'s
good data that\'s showing these are effective devices.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I would agree that the device has been shown to be effective
and with respect to the quality of life issues, I also think the fact
that you don\'t see a decline in the quality of life, particularly for
the reconstruction patients, that, you know, that\'s great, you know,
because they have a lot of things that are going on that could make
their quality of life substantially less and so, you know, having that
neutral environment is good.

The other, you know, what Dr. Blumenstein showed, I think, you know,
that is to be noticed and looked at. But still if you look at the
overall picture in terms of, you know, effectiveness and all for the
vast majority of patients, because those are very small numbers which he
is speaking to in terms of decrease in certain areas.

And so every device, every drug, has some proportion of patients that
have issues, but it\'s not the whole group and so I think for the whole
group, this is an effective device without indications of severe
declines in quality of life.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: The sponsors clearly showed on their primary endpoints that
they met those, and even though the quality of life data may be a little
bit concerning or questionable, I agree with Dr. Miller in his comments
about that. So I think there is reasonable assurance of effectiveness.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: I have nothing to add.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So, Dr. Provost, in response to Question No. 6, do we
believe that there is reasonable assurance that the device is effective
as proposed for the three indications, I think there was a majority or
somewhat of a consensus that, depending on how efficacy is defined, that
the device \-- that many were assured that it was effective, is
effective.

DR. PROVOST: Yes, thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. We\'ll now take a 10 minute break and resume
with a public session afterward. Thank you.

(Whereupon, at 3:20 p.m. a recess was taken until 3:35 p.m.)

DR. KRAUSE: Okay. I\'m going to turn the meeting back over to Dr. Choti
for the public speakers session.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you, Dr. Krause. We\'ll now proceed to today\'s
open public comment session of this meeting. We ask that all persons
addressing the Panel speak clearly into the microphone, as a
transcriptionist is dependent on this as a means to providing an
accurate record of this meeting.

Both the FDA and the public believe in transparent process for
information gathering and decision making. To ensure that transparency
at an open public hearing session of the Advisory Committee Meeting, the
FDA believes it is important to understand the context of an
individual\'s presentation.

For this reason, the FDA encourages you, the open public hearing
speaker, at the beginning of your written or oral statement, to advise
the Committee of any financial relationship you may have with the
sponsor, its product or, if known, its direct competitors. For example,
this financial information may include the sponsor\'s payment for your
travel, lodging or other expenses in connection with your attendance at
the meeting.

Likewise, the FDA encourages you at the beginning of your statement to
advise the Committee if you do not have any such financial
relationships. If you choose not to address this issue of financial
relationships at the beginning of your statement, it will not preclude
you from speaking. We will begin with those individuals that have
notified the FDA of their intent to testify during the open session. May
we begin, please. Good afternoon.

MS. ALINA: Good afternoon. Thank you. My name is Amy Alina. I am the
Program Director at the National Women\'s Health Network, which is a
national advocacy organization supported by our members. I have no
financial relationship with the sponsor.

In some ways, the data that you have seen today do look better than what
you saw yesterday, and I want to acknowledge that. Certainly, the
reported rupture rates are lower. But in fact, the support for Mentor\'s
application is significantly weaker than what was presented and turned
down by this Committee yesterday. Several of you have noted that the
sponsor did a good job supplementing the data from their studies, but
again, I want to point out that the company made the choice to come to
the FDA with this limited data.

If you were to approve the Mentor application, you would be doing it
based on a Core Study that collected only partial data through the third
year, 75 percent of women had completed three years, an Adjunct Study in
which the company lost 90 percent of the patients by the fifth-year, and
the Sharpe and Collis Study, based on one doctor\'s practice of
augmentation patients only, which systematically excluded women who
experienced problems. So it\'s that kind of cherry-picking that makes
the data almost useless and it\'s easy to see why the FDA referred to
this study as discredited.

As for why rupture rates matter, starting in the early \'90s women
raised questions about whether the signs and symptoms they were
experiencing might indicate that they were developing some kind of new
connective tissue disease that was associated with implants, and FDA
asked companies to look for these signs and symptoms to indicate whether
that might be the case.

We\'re starting to see signs and symptoms in the studies in small
numbers, but significant, and it\'s not yet conclusive. We need more
information. We have to have more data to answer these important health
questions. There is simply not enough data to answer FDA\'s questions
about rupture, about the health consequences of rupture and it\'s not
enough to answer women\'s questions either.

It\'s important that we get this data pre-approval in order to be able
to give women a good informed consent, which is a concern that Dr.
Newburger expressed yesterday. As Dr. LoCicero said yesterday, the data
that were presented were \"magnificently manipulated,\" but that there
wasn\'t enough information.

And I think that that is still the case when you look at this
application. The data is short-term. We need more information in order
to be able to determine a reasonable assurance of safety, and so I would
encourage you to, again, vote to recommend non-approval and tell the
company that the data they are collecting is very important for women
and very important for clinicians to be able to understand what this
device will do. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Yes. Good afternoon.

MS. NAWAR: Good afternoon. My name is Michelle Nawar. I have a Masters
in Public Health from the Harvard School of Public Health. I have no
conflicts of interest.

The PMA seeks approval for styles 4000 and 8000. These two styles are
not part of the Core Study. There is no data on these two styles in the
Core Study, only in the Adjunct Study. This is important because the
Adjunct Study has no MRIs, it only looks at local complications, and has
90 percent loss to follow-up at five years. Nonetheless, you have been
asked to approve these two styles for which the safety data is weak.
With such poor data specific to these products, the only course here is
non-approval.

Mentor has told you they will adhere to post-approval conditions.
However, their history indicates otherwise. In their saline study, they
lost 95 percent of the augmentation patients to follow-up at five-years.
When the FDA demanded more, they managed to increase the follow-up to 24
percent at year six. The follow-up data was so weak, they couldn\'t do
quality of life analysis.

On Monday, you heard from one of the patients lost in the Silicone Gel
Adjunct Study, Shannon Scott. She told you her story. Today, you asked
about this. Mentor stated today they have no records of her. I have her
Adjunct Study consent form right here. It took me less than an hour to
get it from her. Is Mentor cherry-picking, as my colleague here said,
cherry-picking the patients to skew the data? We must consider the data
we have here as incomplete at best, manipulated at worst. The problem
is, we do not know.

Mentor acknowledges their implants wear with age. In Mentor\'s study
they only had MRIs in the first and second year. In addition, Mentor
eliminated from the study anyone who had their implants removed and not
replaced. Women who had their implants removed because of rupture would
not be part of this study. Furthermore, after six to eight years,
failure will not be linear. Other than the discredited Sharpe and Collis
Study, there is no data that shows rupture rates at 10-years.

There are clear follow-up problems that raise concerns about the data
presented. As Dr. Blumenstein pointed out, there are concerns about
autoimmune symptoms not answered by these data or by the IOM data.
Questions regarding platinum levels and leakage and who will pay for any
recommended MRIs remain unanswered.

Yesterday, you denied a PMA that contained more long-term data. Today
you heard less. I urge the Panel to not approve this device. Why rush
this device to market when there are other options available? Women
deserve better. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Next?

MS. MULLEN: My name is \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Good afternoon.

MS. MULLEN: Good afternoon. Short intro, long statement. My name is
Betsy Mullen. I am the founder, President/CEO of WIN Against Breast
Cancer. I am representing WIN ABC today and I speak from the perspective
of an advocate and breast cancer survivor who has had a mastectomy, and
as a woman who cares very deeply about the availability of silicone gel
implants and a woman\'s right to choose.

I am not being reimbursed for addressing this Panel. WIN ABC has
received small grants from Mentor Corporation that total less than
\$20,000 over the 11-year period that WIN has existed that in no way
have influenced my position on this issue.

Like many breast cancer advocates, I became involved in this issue
following my own breast cancer challenges. Diagnosed in 1992, I
underwent a mastectomy with immediate latissimus dorsi reconstruction
and a saline implant. This was unfortunate timing, just after the
voluntary moratorium, so silicone gel implants were not very accessible.

Last year, I underwent a revision of that reconstruction and the implant
was exchanged with a tissue expander, which will later be replaced by a
silicone implant to correct the poor aesthetic results, including
extreme wrinkling from the saline implant.

WIN ABC and I, personally, have helped scores of breast cancer patients
hearing many women state that they would rather die than lose a breast
to cancer. That fear keeps some women from even getting screened; for
others, once diagnosed, it influences and delays treatment decisions
that give them the best outcomes. When we let women know about their
breast reconstruction options, which can include skin-sparing
mastectomies, they are often able to reframe their attitudes and gain
the fighting spirit so crucial to cancer survivorship and quality of
life.

Quality of life is important for all patients, for all people. No cancer
treatment and no medical device are perfect. Panel Members, with all due
respect, I read FDA\'s memos that were made public prior to this
meeting, and I am very disturbed about FDA\'s review on QoL and their
views. FDA seems to be questioning the benefits of breast implants. The
benefits are self-evident.

The Adjunct Study was initiated in the interest of public health.
Medicare and insurance pay for implants as a medical need. Thus, there
is Governmental recognition of a medical benefit. It is insulting to
breast cancer survivors and other women to question the QoL benefits, to
question this when we are fighting so hard to keep access available for
ourselves and our constituents.

It is offensive and disconcerting that FDA would suggest in its Panel
Memo that some patients focus on appearance while others are just
relieved at recovering from cancer. If you or a loved one had testicular
cancer and wanted a testicular implant, we would not judge you as being
focused on appearance. If patients recover from cancer with a sense of
wholeness, of feeling good about their bodies, is that not meaningful?
Is that not measurable? It is very meaningful to cancer patients.

Silicone breast implants, for a large subset of patients, are the best
option to restore the natural look and feel of a breast following a
mastectomy. We need to treat the whole person and make sure that
patients\' medical and psychosocial needs are met, that they are
empowered and informed to make treatment decisions based on good science
and evidence-based medicine. We want to widen the treatment options for
patients, not limit them. We want the public to be well-informed by good
science, not bad hype that makes good headlines.

I can report first-hand that misinformation often results in creating
tragic barriers to women and men seeking life-saving breast cancer
screening and treatment services.

I cannot count the times women have called our organization following a
sound bite on the news about \"the dangers of implants\" or that FDA has
\"banned implants.\" Hype destroys hope. Misinformation leads to
disintegration of health.

The recent headlines about rupture rates in the range of 90 percent are
a case in point. Statistics such as this taken out of context are
uninformative, misleading and dangerous. The one 90 percent number from
FDA\'s memo to the Panel was an exaggerated number based upon one
particular method of projecting, essentially a worst-case scenario, and
was also skewed because it included information on one particular type
of implant that is not representative of others. The actual data
submitted to FDA by the companies are more in line with published
studies that estimate rupture rates at 15 percent at 10 years.

Also in the past week, a few organizations opposing SBIs continued to
spread misinformation regarding silicone breast implants. Despite study
after study reaffirming that there is no connection between breast
implants and connective tissue disease or other long-term effects, these
groups continue to raise this issue. These actions are a disservice to
breast cancer patients and survivors and to all women.

Breast implants have been studied for decades and have been under
intense scrutiny for a large portion of that time. The science is sound
and ongoing. Every day, women seek breast cancer treatment options that
include reconstruction with silicone gel implants, often their best
reconstructive option, an option that can result in a new lease on life
at a time when life seems so fragile and precarious, a choice that means
hope, healing and vitality to the all too many patients confronted with
a breast cancer diagnosis.

Providing access only through clinical trials creates an unnecessary
barrier and additional burden and stress in the lives of
already-challenged cancer patients.

It is my hope that your insight and wisdom will result in preserving the
availability of silicone gel implants and the opportunity and right of
women to make informed treatment decisions relying on sound science and
evidence-based medicine and to choose whether or not to use them. Women
make critical decisions every day of their lives for their children,
families and themselves. Please, don\'t underestimate our ability to
make this decision, to handle this choice. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Please, yes. Good afternoon.

MS. CRIGLER: Good afternoon. I am Sheila Crigler, an 11-year breast
cancer survivor, who underwent a bilateral mastectomy with
reconstruction using breast implants. I have no financial ties to
manufacturers or health care providers. I am here today to represent to
the Panel a statement from 18 organizations from across the United
States.

To the Member of the Panel, the undersigned 18 organizations and
individuals support the availability of silicone breast implants as an
option for all persons choosing breast reconstruction. We offer no
opinion or comment on the availability and use of silicone breast
implants for cosmetic or other purposes. Consistent with the missions of
our organizations, we endorse no product from any manufacturer. Our
comments are limited to the availability of silicone breast implants for
the 20 percent of patients with breast cancer, breast disease or other
medical needs only.

Breast reconstruction with silicone breast implants following a
mastectomy is a profoundly personal decision. We support the right of
each patient to select and receive individualized treatment options.
Further, we encourage all patients to make health care decisions in
consultation with expert clinicians after receiving an understanding in
depth information about the benefits, risks, unknowns and uncertainties
of all state of the art options for care.

Current options for post-mastectomy reconstruction are limited. Not all
are suitable or possible for every patient. External prostheses can be
impractical and saline-filled breast implants often may not achieve
acceptable symmetry, appearance or comfort.

Since patients differ by health status and by emotional, physical and
personal needs, they require a wide variety of post-mastectomy
reconstruction options. Breast cancer and prophylactic mastectomy
patients who choose implants do so with a different risk benefit
analysis than do those who choose implants for other reasons.

After losing a breast to breast cancer, most women with an implant
consider it as necessary or even critical for their healing, recovery
and quality of life. Various studies document the mental health and
quality of life benefits of reconstruction. Self-image and body image
are important to many who seek reconstruction regardless of age. Despite
the purported availability of silicone implants through clinical trials,
it has been very difficult for patients to participate in the studies,
as many physicians are unaware of the trials or are unable to offer
them.

Recent peer-reviewed studies, including NCI\'s meta-analysis and
long-term Scandinavian studies reaffirmed reviews published by the
Institute of Medicine, the U.S. Federal Courts National Science Panel,
the European Parliament\'s Scientific and Technology Options Assessment
and the British Ministry of Health. According to scientific evidence, no
link exists between silicone gel-filled breast implants and connective
tissue diseases or other autoimmune or rheumatic conditions.

These illnesses occur with the same frequency in women with and women
without breast implants. There is no survival disadvantage for women
with breast implants. Breast cancer patients considering silicone
gel-filled or any type of breast implant must receive detailed accurate
information about the device\'s risks, benefits and complications,
including incidence of capular contracture and rupture.

No breast cancer treatment or medical procedure is without risk. Neither
are other medical devices, which do not last forever. These treatments
and devices are not completely predictable or completely understood.
Silicone breast implants for reconstruction should not be held to a
different standard. We advocate ongoing data collection and reporting
based on long-term follow-up of all patients who receive silicone
implants for reconstruction.

Follow-up mechanisms including privacy- protected recipient registries
and physician tracking will facilitate medical professional education,
training and disclosure, data compilation and analysis, regulatory
oversight and prompt communication of significant findings to patients
and providers.

In conclusion, the undersigned 18 organizations and individuals
respectfully recommend that the Panel make silicone breast implants
available for mastectomy patients who seek reconstruction subsequent to
a breast cancer diagnosis, prophylactic mastectomy or other medical
needs. The American College of Surgeons, Breast Cancer Research
Committee, Living Beyond Breast Cancer, National Coalition for Cancer
Survivorship, Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation, Vital Options
International, Women\'s Information Network Against Breast Cancer, Y-ME
National Breast Cancer Organization are part of the 18 undersigned. I
did not, for time sake, read every one. And I thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Yes, good afternoon.

MS. SCHWARTZ: Good afternoon. My name is Debbie Schwartz. My mother,
Joan Sharlin, was warm, kind and a real people person. She killed
herself 14 years after receiving breast implants. At age 45, she
received silicone breast implants following a bilateral mastectomy. Her
twin sister, mother and father had died of cancer and given this family
history, the mastectomy was viewed as preventative surgery.

The reconstructive implant surgery was performed immediately following
the mastectomy with silicone breast implants manufactured by Mentor. 10
years later my mother developed symptoms similar to Sjogren\'s syndrome,
which is an autoimmune disorder. Her symptoms included severely dry
eyes, dry mouth, constant fatigue and shortness of breath. She went back
to the surgeon that performed the implant surgery after learning of
research about a link between silicone implants and illness.

At this time, it was discovered that the implants had, indeed, ruptured
causing a silicone leak. The silicone implants were removed and replaced
with saline implants, which were then removed a year later, since her
condition did not improve. Her symptoms worsened adding blurred vision,
hair loss, short-term memory loss, swollen saliva glands and
hypersensitivity to foods and medications she had previously been able
to tolerate.

She began experiencing pain in her left side where scar tissue remained
after removal of the implant. She had the scar tissue removed after her
doctor suspected that it may be involved with silicone invasion. The
tissue was sent to Mt. Sinai in New York for review and evaluation and
the evaluation revealed, and I quote from the report, \"Small amounts of
silicone particles infiltrating the tissue cells and tissues beyond. The
presence and location of the silicone gel particles in these tissues
indicate that they migrated from a ruptured or bleeding implant.\"

She changed dramatically after her illness set in. She no longer had the
energy level to keep up her frenetic pace and often went to sleep
immediately after coming home from work. She also withdrew from her
family and friends. Unfortunately, none of us really examined this
change in behavior until it was too late.

In 1995, after numerous doctor visits and no treatment in sight, my mom
bought a gun and killed herself. She was frustrated by her deteriorating
medical condition and her inability to live life on fast forward as she
also had. She was also frustrated by the inability of the medical
community to answer her questions about the potential link between
implants and illness.

The loss of Joan marked the loss of a wonderful mother, sister,
grandmother and friend and I ask as her daughter that you remember this
as you make this important decision. Several studies have shown a higher
prevalence of suicide among women with silicone breast implants. She was
not suicidal before getting the implants and, in fact, the goal of her
mastectomy was to live life as long as possible. These products should
not be approved until more research is done on this crucial and life
ending issue. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Good afternoon.

DR. DUDA: Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Duda and I\'m a
board-certified plastic surgeon in McLean, Virginia. I perform about 400
to 500 breast-related procedures per year, either cosmetic or
reconstructive for breast cancer patients. Over the past 13 years, I
have over 300 patients that have received silicone gel implants and I
have no financial relationship with either Inamed or Mentor Corporation
nor have I received any compensation for my travel to this meeting
today.

We are here today to gather information so we can make a well-informed
decision on the safety and efficacy of silicone gel breast implants and
hopefully this will be based on science and fact and not on emotion,
anecdotes, feelings and hysteria. In this very short time, I feel the
following focal points are critical in making this informed decision:

Number one is the safety. Research in the past 12 years has not shown a
correlation between the development of connective tissue disorders,
cancer or medical diseases in the presence of silicone gel. As
physicians, we would like to know why certain people develop cancer,
neuromuscular disease or any debilitating disease. And as patients with
these diseases, they would like to know a reason or cause for their
disease. It is human nature to want answers to problems. We don\'t
always have those answers.

Some women will develop connective tissue disorders and this is an
unfortunate debilitating disease that we have no answer for and these
diseases existed before silicone breast implants were used. The
incidence of this disease has not increased since the women have elected
to undergo silicone breast implantation nor is the incidence of this
disease statistically different in age-matched groups of women with and
without silicone gel implants.

Silicone gel is used more frequently in Canada, Europe, Asia and South
America that in the United States in the past 10 years. There have not
been reports outside of the United States relating silicone gel implants
with women\'s health and disease. A scientist analyzing the present data
might deduce that \"silicone risk\" to women\'s health is a disease of
only American women. And this is not a disease of only American women.
American women and all other women will continue to develop autoimmune
or connective tissue disorders regardless of your decision on the
silicone breast implants.

The second issue is the risks and all surgical procedures carry a risk
and have complications associated with it. Breast augmentation or
reconstruction carries risks. The patients are informed of the risk and
complications and they make an informed decision and they choose what to
do. The known risks associated with breast implants, whether they are
gel-filled or saline-filled are similar.

They are manufactured devices just like pacemakers, automatic internal
cardiac devices, mechanical heart valves, joint replacements, testicular
implants, any of these may fail and need removal or replacement at any
time. The risks associated with silicone gel implants, in particular,
failure have not been shown to be hazardous to women\'s health.

The third issue is issue of choice, that each woman with the benefit of
a qualified medical guidance must decide for herself if the benefits of
implants will achieve her goals and if the risk and potential
complications are acceptable to her. Breast surgery is private and a
personal decision and a woman should have the right to choose the type
of breast implant, just as she can choose what type of medications,
whether she can drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes or have an abortion.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: If you could sum up for us, please? Thank you.

DR. DUDA: Women should have \-- excuse me?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: If you could sum up for us, please?

DR. DUDA: Okay. We also have an improved product and I would hope that,
at this time, the Committee would consider allowing women to choose
silicone breast implants and it\'s my hope that, at this time, that
facts will be evaluated objectively and realistically and the science
will prevail over anecdotes and emotion.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. I would like to remind the speakers the light
box in front of you it flashes yellow when you have 30 seconds. When it
flashes red, your time is up. If you are still going, I will ask you to
sum up. And if not, the microphone will be cut off. You don\'t want that
to happen, so thank you.

DR. SARWER: Good afternoon. My name is Dr. David Sarwer. I\'m an
Associate Professor of Psychology in the Departments of Psychiatry and
Surgery at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. I\'m here
today to present information relevant to your consideration of the
effectiveness of silicone gel-filled breast implants. I currently have
two grants from the Aesthetic Surgery Education and Research Foundation
to support my research on the psychological characteristics of breast
augmentation patients.

I do not, however, derive any salary support from these grants. I am a
paid consultant to the Inamed Corporation for the purposes of these
hearings. I am not involved as a witness or party in any pending
lawsuits related to breast implants. My comments are based on my
research experience. Over the past decade, I have produced over 50
publications in the peer-review literature focusing on the psychological
aspects of plastic surgery and breast augmentation.

Therefore, I am uniquely qualified to discuss the psychological issues
related to the use of breast implants. Research over the past several
decades has illustrated the importance of physical appearance in every
day life. Physically attractive individuals are perceived more favorably
in a variety of social situations throughout the life span.

Furthermore, research has shown that dissatisfaction with one\'s body
image is an important aspect of quality of life. Given this knowledge,
improving one\'s appearance with cosmetic surgery can be considered a
positive self-care strategy. Presently, more than one-third of American
women are dissatisfied with their breast size. This dissatisfaction,
whether with small breasts or those ravaged by cancer, likely motivates
women to consider the use of breast implants to improve their body
image.

This has been supported by several empirical investigations that have
found increased body image dissatisfaction among women who seek breast
augmentation as compared to physically similar women who do not show an
interest in breast augmentation surgery. Numerous studies have suggested
that approximately 90 percent of patients report satisfaction with their
breast implants.

In addition, several studies, including my own nationwide study of the
psychosocial changes following cosmetic surgery to be published in the
next issue of the *Aesthetic Surgery Journal* suggest that women
experience improvements in body image following breast augmentation.

In conclusion, based on what we know of the importance of physical
appearance in our society, the desire to seek breast augmentation
whether for reconstructive or cosmetic purposes should be viewed as a
positive strategy for improving one\'s appearance and body image.
Without question, a woman\'s breasts are an important part of her
appearance, femininity and identity.

Based on the current evidence, it appears that the vast majority of
women who elect to receive breast implants will experience significant
psychological benefits. Patients and plastic surgeons throughout the
world in developed countries agree that silicone gel-filled breast
implants provide a superior aesthetic result. Given the psychological
benefits coupled with the lack of credible scientific evidence
associating silicone gel-filled breast implants to systemic illness,
American women similarly should be able to choose the best breast
implant products to enhance their appearance and body image. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Good afternoon.

DR. FEUSTEL: Good afternoon. I\'m Holly Feustel and I\'m receiving no
compensation for being here today. Approximately, 18 months ago, I stood
before this Panel and provided personal testimony regarding my silicone
breast implants. I spoke of the simple mastectomies I had at age 29 and
the reconstruction that followed. I chose to have this radical elective
surgery after spending a childhood watching my mother, grandmother and
maternal aunt and cousin lose their battle with breast cancer.

My three older sisters shared my despair and helplessness. Following
genetic testing, I made a very difficult decision, a decision that I
felt was right for me, my husband and our four young daughters. I chose
to have prophylactic mastectomies followed by reconstruction. Perhaps
the toughest decision for me was silicone versus saline implants. After
careful deliberation and extensive research, I chose silicone implants.

I chose silicone because the research convinced me they were safe. I was
also pleased with the natural look and feel of the silicone implant, an
important consideration for a young woman forced to sacrifice healthy
breast tissue. Although my childhood left me with emotional scars and my
surgery has left me with physical scars, I stand before you today, three
years after my implants were inserted, a healthy young woman filled with
hope and the promise of a bright future for me and my family.

I have grand hopes of a positive future for my four daughters. My hope
is that medical advances overcome the disease of breast cancer. However,
if my children are forced to make a similar medical decision, I want
them to have the freedom to choose the best implant for them, an implant
that will increase the quality of their lives. That is why I\'m here
today and I thank you for your time.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Good afternoon.

MS. JUDD: Good afternoon. My name is Gail Judd and I would like to thank
you for the opportunity to express my opinion on the availability of
silicone breast implants. I would like to make it clear that I am
receiving no compensation for appearing here today. I view this
opportunity as a privilege. I would like to share my personal
experiences with both saline and silicone breast implants.

Briefly, my mother in her 40s, maternal grandmother in her 60s, maternal
aunt in her 50s, maternal cousin in her 30s all lost their lives to
aggressive premenopausal breast cancer. I researched this type of breast
cancer and received genetic evaluation for the BRCA gene. Unfortunately,
my three sisters and myself were diagnosed as possessing this gene.
According to the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins we had a 99 percent risk
of contracting the same breast cancer that was the demise to our
relatives.

Armed with this knowledge and the goal of being alive to participate in
caring for our families, we all made the difficult decision to undergo
bilateral prophylactic mastectomies. My procedure was completed seven
years ago. At that point in time, the silicone breast implants had been
removed from the market. Therefore, I had reconstructive surgery
utilizing the saline implants.

The cosmetic results of my surgery were fair and this was something very
difficult to deal with as a young single mother. The saline implants
were also uncomfortable. The entire time I had this type of implant, I
was unable to sleep on my abdomen. Imagine attempting to sleep on two
round mounds that feel like an inflated surf mat. Think about hugging a
relative with this unnatural obstacle between you. I also had severe
visible rippling due to the skin flaps and the saline implant.

To illustrate the rippling, visualize a still pond that you have just
thrown a stone into. The waves moving outward from the point of contact
of the stone was how the skin appeared on my breast. I must confess that
my reconstructive results had adverse effects on my self-esteem. When
the silicone implants became available, I was offered the opportunity to
enter the study.

After careful research, I decided to undergo the surgery and have my
implants exchanged. The cosmetic results were a dramatic improvement and
with the more natural feel, I was able to sleep in any position and did
not feel discomfort in embracing a loved one. After reviewing the
literature, I have noted that problems associated with breast implants
may be related to the age of the implant. With this knowledge and the
recommendation of my physician, I will have my implants exchanged every
five years.

My first exchange was performed December 2003. I would like to elaborate
that, at this point in time, I selected to have my saline \-- my
silicone implants replaced with silicone implants. I\'m a goal and
health oriented individual. I have been in the health care profession
for 20 years. I eat a balanced diet, have regular medical evaluations
and exercise daily. Presently, at the age of 40, I am training and plan
to complete my first triathalon this June. I would have not selected the
silicone implant if I believed that it would be detrimental to my
health.

I am here today before you as a mother, a sister, a wife, health care
professional and a woman. I am asking for women to be provided with the
opportunity to make the personal informed decision on which implant is
best suited for their unique situation. I would like the role of the FDA
in this area to be one of making the research needed to make sure an
informed decision available to all women in an unbiased form. Thank you
for your attention and time.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you.

MS. HOFFMAN: Good afternoon. My name is Heather Hoffman and I\'m not
receiving any type of compensation for speaking today. I am here because
I believe women should be able to have the best opportunities and
choices for making decisions about their health and their bodies. My two
sisters have spoken before me. It doesn\'t make it any easier to speak
though. I have benefitted greatly as a result of the choices I have been
able to make about my personal health.

I am thankful and will do what I need to do to help other women share
the same benefits of choice. I do not need to go into detail about my
family history of breast cancer. My two sisters went before me and they
have already shared about the pain and trauma of losing our maternal
grandmother, mother, aunt and first-cousin to breast cancer.

For most of my life I believed that I did not have a choice, but I was
going to share the same fate as my mother. As a result of medical
advances in research and technology, I was blessed with the opportunity
to make a different choice. I no longer believe that I am going to die
of breast cancer like my mother. I was given the opportunity to have
genetic testing and I learned that I do share my mother\'s gene for
breast cancer, as do all three of my sisters, but I do not share her
fate.

As a result of learning about my genetic status and carefully weighing
my risks, I chose to have prophylactic mastectomies and breast
reconstruction. I made this choice because I wanted to live. The surgery
opened up more choices for me. I needed to choose a breast implant. I
chose silicone implants, because I wanted implants that would be safe
and look and feel natural.

I also had the benefit of having my other three sisters go through the
surgery before me, so I knew their results. It has been a year since my
mastectomies and reconstructions. I am grateful because I no longer live
in fear of cancer and I am healthy and I am pleased with the look and
feel of my breasts. My mother did not have any of these choices. She
could not beat breast cancer before it could pick a fight. Her choices
for breast reconstruction consisted of an artificial breast she could
take out of a plastic case and slip into her bra, a constant reminder of
what breast cancer took from her.

Because I chose silicone breast implants, my breasts look and feel like
real breasts. And the small scars from my mastectomies are positive
reminders that I had a choice and that I\'m going to live. Taking
silicone breast implants off the market limits women\'s choices. I want
information not limitations and I want to make my own decisions
regarding my health. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you.

MS. HOTTA: Good afternoon, Members of the Panel. My name is Tracey
Hotta. I am President of the American Society of Plastic Surgical Nurses
and I\'m certified in this nursing specialty. ASPSN is an independent
professional organization established in 1975 with approximately 1,600
members internationally. I have been a nurse for 21 years with 15 years
being dedicated to the field of plastic surgery.

My travel to this hearing was paid for by ASPSN and my accommodation was
paid for by ASPS. I have no financial ties to industry and my position
at ASPSN is an elected and unpaid officer.

The moratorium banding the use of silicone breast implants resulted in
mass hysteria amongst women who had silicone implants. Were these
implants harmful? We have been using these implants for years and
complications similar to the claims being made in the media were rare.
Nurses were then obligated to research and educate themselves about
silicone implants so they could counsel patients regarding their safety,
and along with the surgeons, discuss the options of undergoing surgery
to replace or remove the implants.

After years of research and clinical studies an abundance of sufficient
data was provided determining that silicone implants do not cause
systemic disease. Despite the moratorium, breast augmentation continued
to be one of the top surgical procedures being performed by plastic
surgeons. Women still wanted breast enhancement surgery despite what
they had heard in the media. The use of saline implants were providing
excellent surgical results, but not in all patients.

There were several indications where a silicone implant would be the
preferred choice. For example, tubular breast deformity where a
preformed implant is necessary to reshape the breast, mammary
hyperplasia where the use of a saline implant may result in rippling and
palpable folds and post-mastectomy patients who have no breast tissue
and require an implant to provide shape, projection and a natural feel.

ASPSN Member, Jeanette, states \"I am disturbed that based on the
current FDA rules of application for silicone gel implants, many women
have been forced to undergo unnecessary surgery. It is unconscionable to
have to use saline-filled implants in a patient knowing she will have to
endure another surgery to switch to a product that should have been used
initially.

The decision of what product would be best for the patient should be
between the doctor and the patient. It is hard for me to understand such
restrictions when I\'m watching my mother die from lung cancer from
smoking. The FDA has given my mother the choice to use a product,
cigarettes, that has known destructive side effects.\"

Nurses are an integral part of the care of the patient choosing to
undergo breast surgery. We, along with our physicians, educate our
patients extensively about all aspects of surgery they are about to
undertake so they can be properly informed prior to signing their
consent form.

Corinne from Texas states \"As a patient advocate all options should be
made available to the patient provided the data from studies are
available to the patients as well. This makes for a well-informed and
educated patients. Patients are provided with thorough education before
consenting for the use of these devices. I feel our patients should have
this option available to them.\"

Terri Pierce from Kentucky is a breast reconstruction patient of Dr.
Richard Williams. She states \"I want to thank you for making breast
reconstruction such a large part of your practice and that you continue
to make silicone gel implants available to your breast reconstruction
patients. This is especially important for us, because we are left with
little or no breast tissue to mask the implant. The work that you are
doing absolutely changes the lives of your patients. You give us hope
that we can come out on the other side of this terrible disease still
beautiful, feminine and whole.\"

Speaking on behalf of ASPSN as an advocate to our patients and as a
Canadian nurse who works in a practice where 60 percent of our cosmetic
breast enhancement surgeries are gel implants and 100 percent of our
reconstructive patients requiring implants receive silicone gel
implants, I strongly urge you to consider ASPSN\'s educated opinion when
deciding which implants will be made available to the surgeons and their
patients.

Patients deserve that right and privilege to be informed that silicone
implants are an available option and that this implant would be their
best choice to provide adequate correction to achieve their desired
result. There is a need for silicone breast implants in a number of
patients to improve their body image and enhance their quality of life.
After a thorough discussion of benefits and risks, the doctor and the
patient should be the ones to make the informed decision.

ASPSN looks forward to a fair Panel process and subsequent
determination. We strongly urge you to support this for the thousands of
women who have dramatically improved their lives with the use of this
device. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. That is the end of the open public session. I
would like to thank all of you for taking time out of your schedule in
order to testify in front of the Panel. And now, Dr. Provost, are there
any final comments from the FDA?

DR. PROVOST: FDA has no further comments.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: As far as sponsor, are there any final comments from the
Mentor Corporation?

MR. LEVINE: Mr. Chairman, we would just like to thank the Panel for your
efforts in these proceedings and towards your thoughtful review of our
science.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. If there are no further comments, we will
proceed to the vote. Dr. Krause will read the voting instructions for
the Panel at this time.

DR. KRAUSE: Thank you, Dr. Choti. The medical device amendments to the
federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the Safe Medical
Devices Act of 1990, allows the Food and Drug Administration to obtain a
recommendation from an expert Advisory Panel on designated medical
device pre-market approval applications that are filed with the Agency.

The PMA must stand on its own merits and your recommendation must be
supported by the safety and effectiveness data in the application or by
applicable publicly available information. Safety is defined in the Act
as reasonable assurance based on valid scientific evidence that the
probable benefits to health under conditions on intended use outweigh
any probable risks.

Effectiveness is defined as reasonable assurance that in a significant
portion of the population the use of the device for its intended uses
and conditions of use when labeled will provide clinically significant
results.

Your recommendation options for the vote are as follows: (1) Approval,
if there are no conditions attached. (2) Approvable with conditions. The
Panel may recommend that the PMA be found approvable, subject to
specified conditions, such as physician or patient education, labeling
changes or a further analysis of existing data. Prior to voting, all of
the conditions should be discussed by the Panel Members.

Not approvable, the Panel may recommend that the PMA is not approvable
if the data do not provide a reasonable assurance that the device is
safe or if a reasonable assurance has not been given that the device is
effective under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended or
suggested in the proposed labeling. Following the vote, the Chair will
ask each Panel Member to present a brief statement outlining the reasons
for their vote. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you, Dr. Krause. Is there a motion? Dr.
Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I move non-approvable.

DR. NEWBURGER: I second the motion.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein has moved for non-approvable, seconded
by Dr. Newburger. We\'ll take a vote. Those all in favor of the
non-approvable position, please, raise your hand. Let the record show
that there are two yes votes, Dr. Blumenstein and Dr. Newburger. Those
not in favor of the non-approvable position raise your hands. Let the
record show Dr. Leitch, Dr. Miller, Dr. Callahan, Dr. Li, Dr. Manno, Dr.
LoCicero and Dr. Ewing were all voting no for the non-approvable. So the
vote is 7-2 for no.

Can we hear another motion?

DR. LEITCH: I move approval with conditions.

DR. CALLAHAN: Second.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: A move has been made by Dr. Leitch for approvable with
conditions, seconded by Dr. Callahan. We will not vote at this time, but
we will offer motions for specific conditions. Does anyone have a motion
for a condition? Dr. Leitch made the motion. Do you have a condition?

DR. CALLAHAN: Well, I\'ll let Dr. Miller give a condition, too, but my
condition would be that there be an educational component which I know
the sponsor has said they are committed to, but I would want that to be
a specific condition, educational component, that would require that
physicians having access to the implants would obtain a training program
and documentation of certification in that in order to be able to obtain
the implants for use.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So a motion for the first condition of an educational
component, which includes a training program. Any discussion regarding
the first condition? This first condition is open for Panel discussion.
Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: Are you including hands-on experience in addition to
educational materials?

DR. LEITCH: I would not require hands-on experience, but I would, if
it\'s \-- I think the perfect would be a face-to-face educational
program, but I think having the option for an on-line would be
acceptable. But it must not be cursory. It should be with good detail
and, in fact, I would suspect the on-line should be essentially a
repetition of a face-to-face course that would have speakers and video
that would be highly instructive, not just sort of a write- off thing,
you know, two pages you check-off, you know, some answers and that\'s
the end of it.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: May I ask, Dr. Provost, if the sponsor has described in
their post-approval plans that it\'s still appropriate to incorporate
those, of course, as part of the conditions?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, that\'s right. I mean, they have described what they
want to do, but it is appropriate. You can make those conditions and
then we\'re all sort of in agreement that that\'s one of the conditions
of approval. So, yes, you can make those conditions.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Okay. We\'re still discussing the first condition. Dr.
Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think it would be nice if someone had to demonstrate that
they knew how to handle the device to somebody who knew how to properly
handle it. I mean, I would like to see a simulator maybe, I mean, at a
training session, at a meeting or something where somebody has to take a
device and implant it in a little latex model of a breast with a breast
cavity in it and show they know how to insert it properly. I mean, I
think that especially given the data which suggests a significant
component of device prongs are related to operator error, I think that
the requirements for training and confirmation of competency here should
be very high.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller, would you second that first condition by the
way, since it wasn\'t seconded?

DR. MILLER: I second that condition.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Any other discussion on the first condition?
Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: I agree with Dr. Miller that this should be a hands-on
experience in a workshop setting with the actual details to be left to
the discussion between the FDA, the Association of Plastic Surgeons and
the sponsor.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you.

DR. MILLER: If I could just \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes, Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: An analogous situation for this would be what is done now
for using reconstructive plates, plates and screws and this type of
thing. I mean, there are instructional courses that clinicians go and
take to learn how to do this. And it\'s a hands-on instructional
situation and I think analogous sort of thing for using the implants
would be appropriate.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I\'ve been told Dr. Leitch that the recommended changes
on your proposed condition incorporating a hands-on training program and
so forth, is that a friendly amendment?

DR. LEITCH: That would be acceptable to me. If a plastic surgeon says
that he would recommend that and thinks that society would do that, that
would be great and I would say that\'s okay with me.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So would you summarize for us this condition as you
describe it?

DR. LEITCH: That in order to be able to place silicone gel implants, a
surgeon would have to demonstrate and have documentation of
participation in a training course, which would include a hands-on
model, if not actual patient, but model hands-on experience to
demonstrate their capability after having an instructional component as
well.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Does that meet your approval the way she described the
modified first condition?

DR. MILLER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So you second that description?

DR. MILLER: Yes, I do. I second that description.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: All right. Okay. Is there any further discussion on that
first condition regarding an educational component?

DR. EWING: The only thing that I would add is that the surgeons who are
certified to do that, they must be either a board-certified plastic
surgeon or board-eligible. I don\'t think, you know, someone who is not
trained in plastic surgery should be participating in this education
process.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So a recommendation is that be added to the first
condition regarding board- certification or board-eligible in order to
participate in the training program and use this device. Dr. Leitch, is
that something?

DR. LEITCH: I must admit I would prefer that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think that is best that somebody who is comprehensively
trained to perform reconstructive surgery and plastic surgery should be
the ones to receive the training and implant these devices.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there any further discussion? Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I have a question. Can that actually be done? There are
people who have a third board in cosmetic surgery and are not ASPS
Members. I mean, can the distribution of this device be limited
specifically to, I\'m asking a legal question, board-certified or
board-eligible physicians?

DR. PROVOST: Dr. Choti, I would just like to comment that you can make
that recommendation, but that\'s not something that the FDA can enforce.
So the sponsor can take that under advisement in terms of who they want
to sell their product to, but that isn\'t an FDA-enforceable condition.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So is there, appreciating that, Dr. Newburger, some
recommendation you make to modify the condition in order to satisfy that
concern?

DR. NEWBURGER: No. Give them an A for effort.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any other discussion on the first condition as
described? So, Dr. Krause, can you restate the condition as described?

DR. KRAUSE: Just briefly, there is an educational component for
board-certified, board-eligible plastic surgeons where training would
lead to certification after which those particular surgeons could
receive the device.

DR. LEITCH: Hands-on.

DR. KRAUSE: Hands-on.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So now the motion has been made. We have discussed it
and it has been seconded. It is now for a vote regarding the first
condition as described above. Those in favor of that first condition,
raise your hand. Let the record show Dr. Leitch, Dr. Miller, Dr.
Callahan, Dr. Li, Dr. Manno, Dr. LoCicero, Dr. Newburger, Dr. Ewing, Dr.
Blumenstein unanimous for the first condition.

Is there a motion for a second condition? Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Perhaps Dr. Provost could help me word this, but my concern is
that given the data that is presented so far, I have a certain
expectation for performance beyond their short-term data. I would like
it conditioned such that the sponsor continue to supply the same type of
information they have been supplying and should at any given, if it\'s
an annual report, but should at any one of these given years the
performance is significantly worse than what we expect, that either the
FDA immediately review or reconvene the Panel for immediate re-review of
the data.

DR. PROVOST: You could make that recommendation. We could certainly \--
if at any time if we feel that the data warrants additional review and
input by the Panel, you know, we would convene a Panel and we can do
that.

DR. LI: My concern is one of the first part, we can ask that the same
type of information that they have been providing up to now be
continued.

DR. PROVOST: Right. I think they have proposed, as you heard, to
continue the Core Study out to 10 years collecting all of the
information that they have been collecting.

DR. LI: Okay. So is the addition then necessary? I mean, I don\'t want
to add an unnecessary one if it is already taken care of.

DR. PROVOST: Well, that\'s a proposal. If you make it a condition, then
that becomes something that is, you know, perhaps more enforceable in
that regard.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. PROVOST: So if you feel it is important, I would suggest that you
make it a condition.

DR. LI: Then I would.

DR. PROVOST: And it\'s one that the sponsor has said that they already
intend to do, so they shouldn\'t be unhappy when hearing that that\'s a
condition.

DR. LI: Well, their happiness isn\'t my primary concern, but I would
like to then, in that case, I would like to make it a condition then.

DR. PROVOST: Okay.

DR. NEWBURGER: I second that. And I would like to make a modification.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes, please.

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay. I would like to propose a Panel meeting in five
years to review the data, just as was done with saline implants. I think
to look at the data not only from the Core Group, but also to review the
data that becomes available through a registry, hopefully one with the
tightest follow-up possible. I\'m very concerned that we miss or that
patients who develop signs and symptoms are ignored and I think that the
time frame that would put it at eight years for the Core data and if
there is something that is going to be in the crescendo fashion, we
surely will pick it up then.

So I propose a re-review of the data available five years hence by
Panel.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So, Dr. Li, can you make a distinction between a
registry versus collecting the data? Which data set are you proposing?

DR. LI: Yes, I\'m sorry. The data I\'m referring to is the data
essentially as we received this time for the Core and Adjunct Study. I
have little faith in the quality and the type of data of a brand new
registry. So I consider the registry a completely separate issue.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay. I will accept that if after we vote on that, I can
propose to finding a registry.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: No, I think that that would be reasonable to have as a
separate condition. Any further discussion? So the proposed condition is
related to continued data collection. Dr. Li, also added is a five-year
Panel review of this data collection. Is that agreeable to your proposed
condition?

DR. LI: That is agreeable to me.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion on the second condition of
continuing the data collection? Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Rather than having another condition, why don\'t I add
to this one the one that I would have said and that is to add an
Independent Data Monitoring Committee to the continued Core Study.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li, comment on the modification of your proposed
condition?

DR. LI: Perhaps you could define better for me what an independent
review is?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: There is \--

DR. LI: Who would be the independent review?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: There is an FDA Draft Guidance on this topic. Rather
than going into the details here, I can give you a copy of it if you
would like.

DR. LI: Okay. But it\'s somebody that\'s not in the Company and not in
the FDA?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: That\'s correct. It\'s independent usually made up of a
statistician, an advocate in many cases and people with expertise in the
field, and they are independent of the Company. They meet, review the
data and with the focus on safety.

DR. LI: My knee-jerk response is perhaps I would feel more comfortable
if that was a separate condition, if you wouldn\'t mind.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I don\'t mind. I just was trying to save time.

DR. LI: Okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion? Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: There was some discussion earlier that people were hoping to
see the protocol amended to include follow-up of patients who were
explanted without replacement. So I don\'t know if people feel like
adding that to this motion or not. I\'m not sure if I\'m allowed to.

DR. KRAUSE: Yes, well, you can say it\'s a friendly amendment and if Dr.
Li agrees, then we can add it. If he doesn\'t, then we would not amend
his.

DR. BARTOO: Okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Again, I would prefer that to be a separate condition.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion on the second condition? Would
you state then, Dr. Li, how you summarize the condition?

DR. LI: Dr. Krause? I believe Dr. Krause has it.

DR. KRAUSE: Yes, basically, what I wrote down is that the proposed \--
that the condition is that Mentor be asked to continue the data
collection, 10-year data collection as proposed by them in their
material that they provided with their PMA and that the Food and Drug
Administration Center for Devices convene a Panel meeting when five-year
data is available or did you intend that to be five years from now?

DR. NEWBURGER: Five years from now.

DR. KRAUSE: Five years from now.

DR. NEWBURGER: Well, that would be \--

DR. KRAUSE: Okay. Okay. I just wanted to just clarify.

DR. NEWBURGER: Dr. Li, is that what you wanted?

DR. LI: That\'s what I understood you to say.

DR. KRAUSE: Okay. So with FDA convening a Panel meeting five years from
now.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So that is the condition as described. Those in favor of
Condition No. 2 regarding data collection, raise your hand. Let the
record show unanimous vote in favor of Condition 2.

Motions for another condition? Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I propose that there be added to the ongoing studies an
Independent Data Monitoring Committee following the FDA Guidelines on
that topic.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there anyone that seconds that motion?

DR. NEWBURGER: I second that motion.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger. Discussion on this third condition
regarding Independent data monitoring of the Core Study? Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Yes, a question for Dr. Blumenstein. Is your motion one that is
basically just good practice to do that or do you see something specific
in this particular study that would warrant it?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: This is always a good practice and that is why we have
an FDA Guideline on it.

DR. LI: But there\'s no \--

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: It\'s required. I mean, it\'s perceived to be required
methodologically for all Phase III Studies that are randomized, but it
isn\'t restricted to randomized studies.

DR. LI: But there is nothing about this particular application or
device?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Well, I think there is plenty.

DR. LI: Okay. Okay.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I think that having an Independent Committee looking
over the data would serve much the same purpose as this Committee has,
except that they would be an ongoing, meeting regularly, reviewing the
data, commenting on the conduct of the study and the outcomes.

DR. LI: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion on this third proposed condition?
If not, we will vote on Condition No. 3 regarding independent data
monitoring for the Core Study. Those in favor, raise your hand. Let the
record show that everyone but Dr. Ewing voted yes. Those not in favor of
that condition raise your hand. Dr. Ewing. Let the record show \-- is
that correct? Let the record show 8-1 approving that third condition.

Is there a motion for an additional condition? Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: I would like to make a motion that there be a separate and
distinct patient education and consent process.

DR. NEWBURGER: Is that distinct for the different indications?

DR. LOCICERO: I didn\'t make the distinction between them. However, they
should be distinct from a separate operative consent form. This is for
the device itself.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there a second to the proposed motion of a separate
patient education and consent process?

DR. NEWBURGER: I second that and I would like to propose also that there
be a separate consent for people undergoing augmentation, revision and
reconstruction, that it not be an identical consent.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. LoCicero, what is your feeling regarding that
modification?

DR. LOCICERO: Well, there\'s a separate operative consent form that
should go over the differences between those and the device is the same.
I would prefer that that come as a separate proposal.

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: What separate process are you proposing? A separate \--
an actual \--

DR. LOCICERO: This is one of the things that the sponsor already said.
They said that they would have focus groups to assess patient labeling,
continued commitment to formal signed and informed consents and I\'m
just expanding that that be an educational program for the patient and a
separate informed consent.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion on this fourth proposed
condition? Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I guess I\'m just still having \-- not quite clear exactly
what you are suggesting. I mean, you envision a patient coming to a
physician\'s office and then there being \-- if they are interested in a
breast implant, there is a set of instruction materials separate from
what they would get from their physician that they have to go through?
Is that sort of like a standardized bit of instruction? Is that what you
mean?

DR. LOCICERO: Yes, and the sponsor has already proposed much of that and
it\'s now new, other products have similar sorts of informational
pieces. That can be in the form of written, verbal, pamphlet,
audio/visual, Internet. The form I didn\'t necessarily define the form,
expecting that the sponsor should be able to come up with a reputable
set of information.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion on that proposed condition? If
not, a vote on Condition No. 4, a separate patient education program and
separate consent process for women receiving this device. Those in
favor, raise your hand. Let the record show it is unanimous.

Is there a motion for another condition? Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: Well, I\'ll do your motion that the study be amended, that
the Core Study be amended to include follow-up of patients who have
their implants removed with respect to issues of quality of life and
that those patients who have their implants removed would be reconsented
at that point for that.

DR. CALLAHAN: Second.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: The motion has been proposed and seconded. Any
discussion? Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Would you, please, allow symptoms to be added to the
list of things to be followed, please?

DR. LEITCH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion? Yes, Dr. Leitch?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I think the purpose of this is that they fill out the
same forms that they have been filling out, but it\'s just going to
extend to those particular. Is that correct?

DR. LEITCH: Yes.

DR. KRAUSE: I would like a clarification, since I\'m writing this down,
and I know you are interested in symptoms. Perhaps this be written the
other way that they collect the symptoms, you know, the information you
are interested on all patients, including those that are explanted and
have left the study that they be reconsented. Because it sounds like the
way it is now, it would only be collected on those patients and not
everybody else.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Well, I\'m satisfied the Core Study has those symptoms
are going to be collected if the Core Study is continued. What we are
doing is asking that the Core Study be modified so that patients who
have an explant aren\'t dropped from the Core Study.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there any discussion regarding expanding the Core
Study information regarding the children of the patients, as a
modification? Oh, I\'m sorry. I apologize. Yes, this is still
specifically regarding \-- so this is modification of the Core focusing
on the explant.

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes.

DR. CALLAHAN: Explant and not re-implanted.

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Explant and not re-implanted patients. I\'m sorry. So
it\'s not just an expansion of the data. Any further discussion this
specific condition? So can you restate that, Dr. Krause?

DR. KRAUSE: Yes, the way I wrote it down is that the Core Study be
modified to maintain the records regarding symptoms as Dr. Blumenstein
explained on patients who have been explanted and not been re-implanted
regarding quality of life and symptoms.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Those in favor of that Condition No. 5, raise your hand.
Unanimous for Condition No. 5.

Any other motions for additional conditions? Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I propose a condition of a registry and in the registry
of as many patients as they can possibly get to participate. They should
have as tight of data collection on these people as possible, including
signs and symptoms, including any MRI or mammography data that comes to
them. I also would like to include, although I don\'t know if this is
possible on a registry, the health outcomes of children who are born to
women with breast implants.

I don\'t think that there will be enough offspring in the Core Study
Group five years hence to really be able to give us particular
information. But perhaps Dr. Blumenstein could comment on that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So the motion is for a registry, including some specific
information that you stated?

DR. NEWBURGER: Right.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is that motion, proposed motion, is there a second?
There\'s no second for the proposed motion regarding \--

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Well, I\'ll second it, since she added children to it,
and I agree with the suggestion that that\'s where you will get the
biggest yield on children might just work.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there a discussion on the proposed registry for
Condition No. 6? Dr. Blumenstein, you were not a big fan of a registry
earlier.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Yes, but I think Dr. Newburger convinced me that this
might be the best place to do it, because there may not be enough
children in the Core Study to serve that purpose.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: And do you think that that is feasible in a registry to
collect information on children of patients?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Well, I think that\'s going to be a voluntary thing
anyway, so this is an appropriate place for it.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Further discussion on the proposed condition? Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Dr. Newburger, are you proposing that the sponsor set up a
registry for all breast implants or just theirs?

DR. NEWBURGER: Just theirs. What other silicone breast implants are
there available right now?

DR. LI: Well, they are available for augmentation and reconstruction,
aren\'t they? Excuse me, reconstruction and revision.

DR. NEWBURGER: For their implants, for their silicone implants.

DR. LI: Well, for the other sponsors also, I think, intending to be
available is my understanding.

DR. PROVOST: Excuse me, Dr. Li. They are only available under Adjunct
Studies.

DR. LI: Correct. But they are available.

DR. PROVOST: No, that\'s a study, so they are not. So the patients who
are getting gel implants in the U.S. right now are either in an Adjunct
Study or an IDE Study.

DR. LI: But does that preclude them from being in a registry?

DR. PROVOST: No, it does not.

DR. LI: So that\'s my point, that they are available to participate. I
guess my question is \-- well, maybe perhaps you answered my question.
You just mean the sponsor\'s implants?

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I guess I like, you know, the feel of tracking children. I
can\'t escape this sense that, you know, there\'s no data to suggest
that there is a problem with children. So there is a sense of just an
open-ended and let\'s just look, you know, why don\'t we just look and
check it out? You know, but I don\'t oppose that, but I just still need
a little convincing that it\'s necessary. That\'s one comment.

The other comment before I let you jump on that one is, you know, I know
the problem with the registry is the voluntarism of it and people not
participating, but is it not possible to make it a requirement that if a
physician implants a device, that he demonstrates an ongoing
faithfulness to the registry, and if there is a lack of participation
then he is no longer eligible to have the device.

I mean, I know that may be exotic and extreme, but I think that we need
that type of, you know, rigor on this issue.

DR. NEWBURGER: I think that might be difficult to do, because the
patients who have these implants are well and most of them are young and
they will change their geographic location, and it would be difficult
for the physician, who does the procedure, to necessarily be able to
follow-up on that particular patient or if there is a mechanism to
introduce it into the patient\'s hands, that might work better.

DR. MILLER: I think, you know, I mean, if a patient has a pacemaker and
he moved somewhere, you know, the doctor finds another cardiologist to
take care of his pacemaker and make sure that he\'s followed-up. I mean,
I think that an analogous sort of situation should be perhaps
considered.

If a plastic surgeon puts one of these devices into somebody that, you
know, there should be enough networking and awareness of who is doing
this or the company can help facilitate linking up, because they will
have a complete knowledge of all the authorized physicians, I mean, some
mechanism to help enforce this.

DR. NEWBURGER: The company could do that. On the other hand, a patient
is going to certainly check in to see if their pacemaker battery is
functional, because that\'s life and death. But if someone has a silent
rupture, they are not going to be symptomatic and they won\'t have the
same compulsion to pursue follow-up, and so I\'m concerned about that
type of compliance.

DR. MILLER: I mean, I think you\'re correct that there is going to be a
compliance problem but I think, in part, the onus is on the practitioner
to impress the patient that this, when they have one of these devices,
they are now involved in a process that will involve the rest of their
life and they need to participate responsibly. I mean, I know that many
will not, but I think that some framework needs to be, you know, placed
to help encourage that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So he is proposing a significant modification to your
proposed condition to put some teeth into it, including a requirement it
sounds like. Any further discussion? Well, first of all, Dr. Newburger,
so we can vote on your proposal, your condition, as you proposed it or
you\'re welcome to modify your condition based on Dr. Miller\'s
recommendations.

DR. EWING: Well, I think I may have a solution to both of their \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing, please, use a microphone.

DR. EWING: There is a way to register patients that may make it a little
less sort of carrot-and-stick to surgeons participating through registry
with the American College of Surgeons or one of the national plastic
surgeons societies.

For instance, when the sentinel node method of biopsy came on board and
everyone was doing it and it wasn\'t very well-regulated, the American
College of Surgeons encouraged surgeons to register with them and their
patients, you know, and their outcomes as sort of a way of registering
patients and that worked actually very well.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: What was the motive to register the patient?

DR. EWING: Just to participate in the national study and gather data for
a relatively new procedure, and I think plastic surgeons would be very
interested in tracking their own outcomes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I appreciate your sentiment, but I don\'t know that
plastic surgeons would be as motivated to gather data if there is a
questionable outcome. Last year physicians fees alone for breast
implantation were over \$1 billion paid by the patients. That\'s
excluding the fee for the implants themselves. I think that there may be
more self-interest involved rather than necessarily the interest in
learning more. I mean, learning is ideal. I would like to believe that,
but I would wonder if it would happen.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: There is another possibility and I think it could only be
a suggestion, and that is that the sponsor tie the warranty to the
patient responding to the registry on a regular basis.

DR. NEWBURGER: I like that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think it\'s possible that some underestimate the impact
that this has had on the mentality of the profession of plastic surgery,
and I think that there is a mood amongst my colleagues to do everything
possible to be rigorous in how we approach this problem and gather data.
And I mean, it\'s certainly not universally, but I can tell you most the
leadership that exists and I think that that will be translated down
through the entire profession regarding these devices, given the history
behind them in the last \-- since 1992.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So can you solidify that concept a little bit more about
enforcing this? So a plastic surgeon has done the training. He or she
has put many of these in and now, some of his or her patients are not
complying with entering those patients in a registry. What would happen
to the surgeon?

DR. MILLER: You know, I\'m making this up as I\'m sitting here, so I
don\'t know. I don\'t know how specifically to do this, but some way to
hold accountable the practitioner to participate in this. And you can\'t
make a patient, you know, participate in the registry, but the
practitioner perhaps needs to give an account for this individual who,
you know, I have lost them to my records, but this as far as I know
what\'s happened to them up to Time Point A, and some mechanism to
maintain accountability on the practitioner\'s part.

And it would be nice to have some mechanism to help maintain
accountability on the patient\'s part, tying to the warranty or
something. The problem with these registries is the lack of incentive to
participate. I don\'t think \-- what we need to do is try to create a
structure that will minimize that here.

DR. LOCICERO: Again, I just have to go back to our experience in
thoracic surgery. This is a bear to do and it\'s going to take you
awhile to develop your mechanism, what you want to record. There will be
a debate for a couple of years on exactly what data you want. It\'s not
going to happen now. We need to have something that\'s going to happen
now.

DR. MILLER: Well, I guess part of what I \-- I think that the amount of
data needs to be minimal. I think some way to know who has a device and
sort of have a sense of who is caring for them, you know, that sort of
minimal information, so that the devices don\'t go in and then everyone
just disappears. That\'s what I want to try and avoid.

And I think that it\'s amazing. I mean, the ability to gather data and
store it and analyze it is changing so rapidly that I know that for 20
years, the thoracic registry has been, you know, unpleasant and costly.
But I can tell you just as I see the information technology and
data-related tools that are being developed and imported to the setting
where I am, I\'m very impressed that these tools are becoming more
available.

DR. LOCICERO: Well, let me give you some examples. Wouldn\'t you like to
know if it\'s subglandular or submuscular?

DR. MILLER: Well, I mean \--

DR. LOCICERO: Wouldn\'t you like to know what incision was made?

DR. MILLER: I would.

DR. LOCICERO: By the time you take this to the national level, it\'s
going to become quite a discussion.

DR. MILLER: Well, let\'s have at it. Let\'s discuss it, you know. Let\'s
talk about it.

DR. LOCICERO: Well, that\'s for your group to do.

DR. MILLER: I know.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: There is a tradeoff. I mean, here we have some
recommending that information on children be added to it, I mean, and
the sponsor has proposed a registry with a variety of fields that
perhaps it would be useful to see what they are proposing as far as the
information to collect. And so it\'s a tradeoff between a robust ability
to capture everybody and that of collecting a diverse amount of
information.

DR. MILLER: I guess for right now, I wouldn\'t be inclined to try and
define what this registry should collect and what it should be like,
just that there should be activity to create one. I think that\'s what I
would like to see.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger, can you formulate that into a condition?
Actually, before you go on, can I add something? I\'m concerned about
silent rupture, about MRI, how often they are done and perhaps we\'ll
talk about that in the context of labeling.

But it would be extremely important, I think, to be able to track the
pattern of what is being done out there regarding follow-up both of
ruptured implants and of compliance or to recommended screening. And
I\'m not sure if the registry is in addition to the studies, whether the
registry would be the optimal setting in which to try to track patterns
of follow-up and how silent ruptures are managed.

So I would propose to incorporate that into, if it\'s not already in,
the sponsor\'s recommended registry, data points to incorporate that. Is
that a friendly modification of the condition?

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes. I think it\'s important not only to track what
happens with the device which, of course, this could give contributory
information to beyond what the Panel will find five years hence, but
also I think it\'s important to ask the questions, to look for, you
know, these patterns. I think there is an elephant that\'s on the ground
and it\'s covered with a sheet and we can all see kind of the outline of
an elephant, but we\'re not certain that that\'s what it is.

I think that there are a subset of individuals who do have some adverse
events associated with the implants, and I think that we have to pursue
this so that in the future people can have a truly informed consent. And
that is why I\'m interested in getting a registry with a large number of
people or as large as possible.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Do you think that a registry would be able to capture
the concerns we had regarding silent rupture, intracapsular or
extracapsular, gel migration, compliance to what may or may not be on
the labeling regarding these things? I mean, can we discuss this a
little bit in the context of adding this to the registry information?

DR. LEITCH: Well, I think you could. You know, if the implant comes out,
you know, that could be a kickpoint to collect a bunch of data. You
know, how was it discovered? You know, what was the reason for the
removal? If it was rupture, how was it discovered?

Again, in the registry, I mean, this is what Dr. Newburger was saying,
people are moving around, that you can, you know, again have a lot of
points of collecting data. You probably can. It\'s probably going to
have to be more in the event, you know, commonly in the event mode. So
if something happens to the implant, that could, you know, trigger a
point of data collection, which could get some of those things you\'re
interested in.

But again, I think for us to try to sort out, I think we have put forth
some things we would like to get out of it, but I think for us to
characterize all the things, I mean, for example, the tracking the
children thing, you know, I mean, the first things you\'re talking about
are all hard to get. Then you know, that\'s kind of a second layer of
stuff on the children. You know, that\'s a whole other deal.

So I think it\'s the kind of thing that we would have to say well, what
is the reason to do a registry and express those reasons, and then the
people that are actually going to run the registry are going to have to
sit down and say what is it, what data points is it reasonable to try to
collect at what intervals, and how are we going to be able to encourage
patients and physicians to participate? What\'s it going to take to do
that in order to have it done? But for us to design it totally here
today I think is not realistic.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: I was just going to say I think in some ways you\'re right
about this event, that, I mean, we can\'t design it today, but with the
fact that these could be young people and they are moving around, if the
registry followed the patients directly and then somehow got consent,
ask them about events, have you done this and then said who are you
seeing now or which doctor did this? And then, you know, the company or
whoever was monitoring went straight to that person, because I think
sort of depending on them to come in at regular times to the physician
is going to be harder.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: Yes. I mean, the practicalities of this I know are difficult
to sort out. And what data to get, I would love to have exhaustive data,
you know, but we can\'t get it practically. The minimum thing I would
love to be able to do is if a question arises, to be able to find out
where half a million breast implants are at one point in time, because
we know the serial numbers, we know the patient name and we have some
idea about how to track down the patients.

And a study like the Sharpe/Collis study where one individual had his
personal records, he could go and do this sort of point prevalence study
and get some data out of it. That was an important study. I think it
might be possible to, you know, track patients and serial numbers of
implants and if we wanted to perform a study like that, we could not
just depend on one practitioner, but we could depend on \-- we could
look at, you know, an enormous number of implants if we tracked it.

I mean, this is the type of thing I have in my mind, in my fanciful
world perhaps, but it\'s what I would love to have.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno? Sorry, go ahead.

DR. MANNO: We\'re getting too far afield here and I think that we\'re
demanding too much of the company. Some of this information the company
will need to have. They will need to have it in the event that there is
a recall. But we could sit here for the next three hours and give them
variables to put in here and it would be an insurmountable task for them
to do.

I would rather see that something be worked out with the company and the
professional societies involved as a public service type thing, rather
than saying in order to get this passed you got to do this. I just think
we\'re stepping on their toes too much.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Okay. Thank you. Dr. Provost?

DR. PROVOST: Yes. I just wanted to make a comment that might add some
more food for thought on this topic, kind of following-up on what Dr.
Miller said. At the FDA we do have regulations that we can make a device
a tracked device, which basically means that the sponsor must keep
records on where the devices are.

So if you had a concern, like you mentioned, that at some point in the
future there may be a need to find all of these patients, that is a
mechanism that we can use as a regulatory agency with the sponsor and
it\'s called a tracked device and that puts some additional
responsibilities on the sponsor.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I would propose then that the tracked device condition
would be a separate condition if that\'s okay. And so, Dr. Newburger,
can you restate your proposed condition?

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay. So for this, because someone proposing tracked
devices will be a separate condition, right? Okay. So I propose that a
registry be made, which can be voluntary, which will include outcome of
pregnancies, children, signs and symptoms, MRI data, tracking silent
rupture whenever available, mammography results, as well, and other
things that we might find of interest. And this can be voluntary.

I realize that there will be a low percentage recovery, but I would like
to have the ability to look for that even in a small way.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is it appropriate that we state that those
recommendations you made would be a modification of the current proposed
registry that the sponsor is recommending that they would do?

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes. I mean, I don\'t know. Can the ASPS do that within
their registry?

DR. MILLER: I mean, I don\'t know, but being aware of the ability to
track these devices, I become less enthusiastic about the registry, to
be honest with you. I mean, the main incentive for me for the registry
was to have some idea about the whereabouts of the devices, because I
agree with all the comments made about the limitations of registries. I
mean, they are expensive and labor-intensive and unless you get good
compliance, so that\'s, you know\--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I mean, the sponsor is proposing a registry already, so
I interpret this condition as specific modifications to their proposed
voluntary registry.

DR. LEITCH: Yes, but I think it\'s like we said on all these conditions.
If we state it as a condition, they have essentially more obligation to
follow-up on it, on the registry. But I think if we start ticking off
anything they have got to include in the registry, you know, then they
say well, they only said that. You know, if we didn\'t tick off
everything we might want, then we don\'t do that, but if we give some
guidelines.

I mean, I\'m sort of more saying do we want a registry or not? You know,
ask that question and then give them some guidelines of things we\'re
interested in. One of them can be the childhood thing and then they can
decide to do it or not, but for me it\'s harder for me to vote if we\'re
naming off all the things we want to do on it.

DR. NEWBURGER: I would like to modify my amendment. I would like to
modify my condition then.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Please, re-state your condition for which we can vote
on.

DR. NEWBURGER: Okay. I would like to have an establishment of a registry
for patients who have received the breast implants and I would suggest,
but not require, that it include signs and symptoms, children\'s health,
MRI data, anything that could document silent rupture. Those are
suggestions.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Let\'s vote on that. Dr. Blumenstein, do you second that
condition as modified?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I\'ll second it again. Does that mean I fourth it?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: You didn\'t use the microphone, so no one laughed. So
we\'ll vote on Condition No. 6. Can you read it for us, Dr. Krause?

DR. KRAUSE: Yes, after I tell everybody what Dr. Blumenstein said. He
said if he seconds it again, does that mean he \"fourths\" it? Okay. All
right. The minor joke has passed. All right.

Dr. Newburger\'s condition is that the sponsor modify their proposed
voluntary registry with a suggestion to include data on signs and
symptoms of CTD, mammography results, including also health outcomes on
the children of implant recipients, to include MRI data, explant data,
silent rupture data, intracapsular, extracapsular and those types of
data. Is that correct?

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Those in favor of that condition as read, raise your
hand.

DR. MILLER: Can I ask for a clarification? I\'m sorry.

DR. NEWBURGER: Yes, it didn\'t read exactly like that.

DR. MILLER: I just want to be sure. Can I ask for a clarification?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Yes.

DR. MILLER: I\'m sorry to interrupt the vote, but I just want to be sure
that, I mean, the specifics you mentioned are recommended.

DR. KRAUSE: Yes.

DR. MILLER: Okay. The idea of the registry is the qualification, but the
specifics are just recommended?

DR. KRAUSE: Right.

DR. MILLER: Okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: That\'s correct. Those in favor of the condition as
described, raise your hand. Let the record show that eight are in favor.
Those opposed? Dr. Li.

Are there any motions for additional conditions? Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Yes. I would like to add a substudy of the Core Study
that would focus on patients with an increased connective tissue disease
signs and symptoms score plus a subset of patients with a low score in
which the objectives of the study would be assays, including blood,
urine and tissue, lifestyle assessments, association with other outcomes
and more frequent follow-up.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there a second to that motion?

DR. NEWBURGER: I second that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger seconds it. Discussion? A question, Dr.
Ewing? Use the microphone, please.

DR. EWING: As part of your follow-up studies for evaluations of signs
and symptoms, the patient would have to give blood and tissue?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Yes.

DR. EWING: That\'s an IRB Study and you may not get patients who will be
willing to participate in that. So I was wondering what kind of
flexibility would there be in the company if they have patients who
don\'t want to participate?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I very well expect that there would be patients. It
would be totally voluntary, but it would be a substudy. They would have
to provide incentives perhaps to both physicians and to patients to
participate in the study, but it would provide extremely valuable
information to allow us to pursue this signal we\'re getting from the
connective tissue disease signs and symptoms. It will give us more data
and try to help us understand what\'s going on there.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Do you think the numbers in the Core Study are
sufficient, if it\'s broken down in these two groups of the substudy,
that it will be sufficient to answer those questions?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: It might be. I don\'t have the data with me. You know,
when you do assessments of whether there exists a certain level of a
toxin in blood, it doesn\'t take that many patients to do that. It may
be that the signals are so strong that it wouldn\'t require a lot of
patients.

I don\'t know. I would have to sit down and look at the details, but
this is the nature of the type of thing that I feel needs to be done to
pursue this intriguing finding that has come out of this study.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion? So the proposed condition is for
the sponsor to do a substudy of the cohorts of the Core Study looking at
identifying patients with high and low symptom score, to develop a
symptom score and stratify them into high and low symptom scores and
then study these patients more intensively with blood, urine, lifestyle
and so forth. Is that \-- Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: Are you asking that it be high and low scores or
individuals who change and increase?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: You\'re correct. I just didn\'t want to take the time
to correct it, because I\'m sure that everybody understands that what I
really meant was the changed scores, not the scores.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I wonder if this is something, which would be the nice
subject of a proposal to the NIH or something rather than requiring the
company to do it. I defer to you, Dr. Blumenstein. If you think
meaningful information on this could be gleaned from focusing on the
Core Study patients, then I think it\'s a good idea.

But I just wonder if a more comprehensive study is going to be needed to
tease out the information on this very low number of patients with these
symptoms. It seems like to get meaningful information is going to
require a pretty large study, a well-designed study.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I don\'t know how large and it may not be that it takes
that large of a study to do the kinds of things, to meet the objectives
that I have listed. I mean, it certainly would for the assessment of
lifestyle, but if that\'s not the primary objective \-- what I\'m trying
to do is to make sure that there is a way to follow-up on the
significant findings with respect to changes in signs and symptoms
related to connective disease, those that are related to connective
tissue disease, and we can\'t design the study here.

DR. MILLER: Of course.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: But if such a study were pursued, it would provide
leads. And I think to say that it could be done by NIH, it would
probably take a year to get such a study started and I think the time in
which this can be taken advantage, that these patients can be accessed
for a study like this, is very short and it needs to be done rapidly.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I agree with that. I think that we\'re starting to see
immunologic genotypes associated with certain types of environmentally
induced connective tissue disease-like syndromes, including a particular
kind of immunologic locus in patients who develop myositis who have
silicone breast implants, as opposed to those who have it without. And I
think that the immediacy of this, it could come out either negative or
positive, but I think the answers could be known in a very short time. I
don\'t think it would be onerous.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Just to make a comment, although I\'m sure that it would
be a well-designed \-- I think that experimental design is a good one. I
mean, it\'s something that was come up with relatively quickly. We
haven\'t validated this score. We don\'t even know how this score, this
change, what it even means or we don\'t have the \-- really to know
whether the sample size in the Core Study is sufficient to even answer
that question. So I personally would have a concern about requiring that
substudy in the Core Study. Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: I think that when you have identified a group of people who
do have something unique happening, you cannot ignore that group when
you can\'t follow them even though they are a small group. I don\'t
think it\'s right to ignore that group, and they have the opportunity to
study them here.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: No, I agree. I think though the proposal is to do a
separate study where urine, blood and special information is collected
on two as of yet not well-defined subsets within the Core Study.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I would trust Mentor, given that they are hearing our
concerns, that they would be able to devise a method of identifying the
correct kinds of subjects to include in this study. I would assume that
they are wanting to find the answers to these questions as well as we
are.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Further discussion on that proposed condition?

DR. CALLAHAN: So would you modify your condition the way you \-- I mean,
based on what you just said, how would you state your condition?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Oh, I don\'t see any modification. I mean, I\'m trying
to make it precise enough to where they understand the objectives and
not get into the details of designing the study.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So the Condition No. 7 is for the sponsor to design and
conduct a substudy of the Core Study in which a score of the change in
symptoms, high and low, be identified in these subset of patients, of
two groups of patients, be studied with a variety of parameters
including blood, urine, lifestyle. Is that a fair description of that
proposed condition?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I had four outcomes, assays, lifestyles, associations
with other outcomes and more frequent follow-up.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: I just wanted to add I agree with Dr. Miller that the NIH may
be a better forum for that type of study. I can tell you if I submitted
an IRB for this type of study, it would be six to eight months getting
through the system, minimum. And with a little more sort of \-- and to
power this type of study, you need, I would say, somewhere between 5,000
to 7,000 patients.

So that may be actually a better venue, because you would have national
participation. And I think the information that you would glean would be
extremely important, you know, in answering this question, but you would
want to do the study appropriately and with all the appropriate
measurements and participation.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. EWING: I think it\'s a great idea.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I\'m going to echo your thoughts, Dr. Ewing, perhaps in
different words. It\'s not a matter of the question is important or if
it\'s interesting, but through the volumes of data that we have, I think
all of us could pick out very interesting, very important questions that
aren\'t answered, and I just don\'t think \-- I\'m not quite sure it\'s
appropriate when we\'re trying to provide advice to the FDA on whether
or not this device should be approved to, essentially, attached research
projects to it, because it is what it is.

It\'s a research project, you know, because you\'re going to have to go
through IRB. You\'re running experiments they have not yet run. You
know, if this was an NIH grant, you would have to even ask the question,
you know, what evidence is there? I mean, you have shown this very
interesting phenomena in the data, but there would be some discussion
over the importance of that.

Now, it might be very important, but it would be a discussion item. So
I\'m just not quite sure, from my point, that we\'re adding, basically,
research topics as an approval condition.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: What the data are showing us with respect to connective
tissue disease signs and symptoms isn\'t just interesting. It\'s a
safety issue and it has implications with respect to the possibility of
identifying a subgroup of patients who might be particularly sensitive
to some kinds of silicone exposure or something along those lines. I
don\'t know what that is. It may turn out that it\'s just a phenomena of
being optimistic pre-surgery and pessimistic post-surgery. I don\'t
know.

DR. LI: I\'m not \--

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Regression to the mean. There could be a lot of
different explanations for it.

DR. LI: I\'m not disputing the importance of it. I\'m not impugning that
it\'s a good idea or a bad idea. What I am saying is if you gave each of
us five minutes, we could probably all come up with very important
safety-related or clinic-related problems that this data highlights, but
I would be loath to make them do a research project on each one of them
as a condition for approval.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Well, you will have your chance to vote.

DR. LI: Well, I understand.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: This is \--

DR. LI: I mean, this is the comments section, so that\'s my comment.

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: Right. And at least in my mind, this is the one
remaining hint that we have that there is something that we\'re missing
in assessing the safety of these data. This is that little thing that\'s
bothering me and it\'s real. It\'s real using sort of a blunt tool.
It\'s there. It\'s significant and I think we are obliged to see that
the finding is followed up in some way.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: Even as a researcher, I can\'t see this as strictly a
research project. This is my third time, fourth time, with the Panel
hearing people come up with what sounds like now a clearly defined
subset of people perhaps who do have a unique sensitivity that we may be
able to find and perhaps even get a test that predicts, I think Dr.
Blumenstein is saying, that may be clear enough that a very small
proportion of people will do this.

And we have asked them to look at capsular, intracapsular, things that
seem to have much less clinical significance than what I heard from the
patients who took the time to come before us over the last three Panels.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: All right. Let\'s vote on this proposed condition as
described. Those in favor of Condition No. 7, the substudy, raise your
hand. Let the record show that Dr. Blumenstein and Dr. Newburger voted
yes. Those not in favor of the proposed condition? Let the record show
that it\'s Dr. Leitch, Dr. Miller, Dr. Callahan, Dr. Li and Dr. Manno
and Dr. Ewing. Those abstention, abstained? Dr. LoCicero.

Is there a motion for another condition? Dr. Li?

DR. LI: A question for Dr. Provost. I don\'t want to trivialize this
but, you know, the sponsor has made a list of things that they have
volunteered as commitments post-approval. Does it provide any weight to
you or does it just kind of make a travesty of it if I make a vote that
says that I make these commitments conditions of approval?

DR. PROVOST: You can certainly make that recommendation.

DR. LI: Does it provide any benefit is my question or are we just going
to waste another 20 minutes, I guess, is my question?

DR. PROVOST: It does provide benefit, yes. Although, I will say that if
you want to just give us the broad outlines and say details to be
discussed between the FDA and the sponsor, that\'s okay, too.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. PROVOST: So we can work out a lot of the details.

DR. MILLER: We have actually covered many of these commitments in each
individual \--

DR. LI: But there\'s a few we haven\'t, so I just want to make sure we
cover the ones that we have yet to discuss. So Dr. Krause has made a
suggestion of the wording, that I move that we make all the commitments,
the post-market commitments provided by the sponsor, as conditions of
approval with the exception of the ones we have specifically discussed
as, you know, at least having different criteria.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there a second to that motion?

DR. MILLER: I second.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller. Any discussion? So it has been proposed that
as a Condition No. 8, that the sponsor fulfills their proposed
post-approval recommendations or plans. Is that a fair statement?

Those in favor of that, of yes for that condition, raise your hand. A
unanimous vote. Dr. Manno.

DR. MANNO: I have a question.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Use your microphone.

DR. MANNO: I have a question of Dr. Provost. You mentioned the tracking.
What is that called again?

DR. PROVOST: That would be mandatory tracking, so we discussed before
the idea of a voluntary registry, but this is a mandatory FDA-mandated
tracking of the devices in which the sponsor will be required to
maintain records on patients who receive their device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there \--

DR. MANNO: Excuse me.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Sorry. Go ahead.

DR. MANNO: Is it appropriate to make that type of \-- do we need that
type of amendment? We talked about it before.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: No, you can make that motion if you would like.

DR. MANNO: Okay. I move that the \-- I can\'t even remember now what you
said it was.

DR. PROVOST: It\'s tracked.

DR. MANNO: Tracking.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: That this is a tracked device.

DR. MANNO: Tracked device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is there a second for that?

DR. MILLER: I second.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller seconds it. Any discussion? Dr. Li?

DR. LI: Just a quick question. Is that tracking just \-- it\'s simply
just where that patient is physically?

DR. PROVOST: Yes, I believe so. Okay. Yes.

DR. LI: Okay.

DR. PROVOST: Yes, that\'s correct.

DR. LI: No other information, just where that patient is?

DR. PROVOST: No, right. And so the idea would be if there was a need to
find all the patients, the sponsor would be able to do that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So are we requiring a GPS in every device?

DR. LI: That would be great.

DR. PROVOST: No comment on that.

DR. LI: So operationally, how does that do that? Is then the sponsor
responsible to get the physicians to track the patients? Is that the way
it works? How that does actually work?

DR. PROVOST: I think I would like to \--

DR. LI: In other words, do they have a stick in this or do they just
say, please, track the patient?

DR. PROVOST: Right. I would like to ask Dr. Tillman to comment on that.
She is the Director of the Office of Device Evaluation.

DR. TILLMAN: The way the tracking regulations work is the company, as
Dr. Provost mentioned, is required to track the patients and the
responsibility is really one of the patient. So when the device is
shipped to the physician, there will be a card or something like that
that the patient will get. They will mail it in.

It\'s kind of like registering any kind of a consumer item that you buy.
And then the patients need to have the responsibility. If they move or
change their locations, it\'s their responsibility to notify the company
that they have moved. So it\'s fairly voluntary.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Can you give us some examples of some current devices
that are being tracked?

DR. TILLMAN: Yes. A lot of permanent implantable devices are tracked,
heart valves, endovascular grafts. Many life sustaining and life
supporting kinds of implantable devices are tracked.

But Dr. Provost\'s point is well-taken. The purpose of the tracking
regulation is simply to be able to notify patients in the event that the
product needs to be recalled or you need to get some information to
those patients. That\'s really the only thing it\'s really good for.
It\'s not for collecting any additional information about the device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: So, Dr. Manno or Dr. Miller, given those stipulations of
what a tracked device is, do you have any discussion regarding that?

DR. MILLER: I mean, with any one of these methods there are limitations,
but I think it would be useful to track the devices. And again, I think
we underestimate a little bit the controversy that has existed over this
for the last decade and a half has sensitized everybody, including the
patients and the practitioners, to the need to treat this differently
than they would have 15 years ago. And I think that patients, if they
get one of these devices and hearing all the controversy and the claims,
I think most of them will be inclined to participate in this.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Any further discussion on this proposal regarding making
this a tracked device? If not, let\'s proceed to a vote. Those in favor
of the condition to make this a tracked device, raise your hand. Let the
record show that all, but Dr. Blumenstein, voted yes. Those not in
favor? Dr. Blumenstein. So that\'s all right.

Any motions for any additional conditions? I would like to move that we
add to the labeling recommendation for MRI scan at year five and then I
will make it up as I\'m thinking about it, but at year five and then
every one to two years afterward. And as a sub-component of that, in the
labeling, this is a recommendation, and also as a recommendation to
consider implant removal if there is evidence of a silent leak on MRI
scan. Anybody want to second that?

DR. NEWBURGER: (Seconds by hand.)

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: The motion has been seconded. Any discussion? Dr.
Miller?

DR. MILLER: So these are recommendations? These aren\'t \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: In the labeling.

DR. MILLER: This is in the labeling that\'s going to the patient that
it\'s recommended that they do this?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: That we specify criteria for monitoring, for evaluation
of silent rupture and some recommendations in the labeling about what to
do about it, rather than something nebulous in the labeling. So I have
developed the specific specifications regarding that, which certainly I
would be open to modification. Yes?

DR. LOCICERO: I would just like to modify it, as I said earlier, that we
say that it\'s an MRI or other appropriately powered, or whatever you
want to say, examination since it may change.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I accept that modification. Dr. Leitch, you look
troubled.

DR. LEITCH: Well, the only thing with, you know, appropriate
examinations is somebody might interpret that to be, you know, a
mammogram only. Is that what your intention is?

DR. LOCICERO: No. It has to have the same power as the MRI.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: How about the word sensitivity?

DR. LOCICERO: Sensitivity. It would have to have the same sensitivity.
We currently don\'t have a test that is as sensitive, but we might
develop one tomorrow. So it\'s an MRI or an appropriate, comparably
sensitive examination.

DR. LEITCH: I guess I would say, you know, for a labeling for something
given today, I would say, you know \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Specify MRI?

DR. LEITCH: \-- you know, what we know, because I think if you say it
like you\'re thinking of saying it, that could be interpreted as doing a
mammogram or it could be interpreted as doing an ultrasound.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: You can say that about anything. The future changes, so
there might always be something.

DR. LEITCH: Right.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: What about the interval, Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I think it\'s not realistic to expect that the patients
would have MRIs at two year intervals. I think that that, you know, is
not realistic. And so, you know, I sort of picked the five years as, you
know, kind of a baseline where, you know, you\'re starting to see some
ruptures and then 10 years where you kind of think that maybe the tail
is going to go up a bit at that point.

And then, you know, maybe after that point, if the person is retaining
their implants, maybe you could make the case, you know, past 10 years
to do something. But hopefully, we\'ll have some more data upon which to
make that recommendation, the 10 year recommendation subsequent.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: But I still think, given that we don\'t have data on
either, I still am proposing first at five years and then every two
years after as long as the implant is in in an asymptomatic situation.
Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: Just to give the patient \--

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Please, use the microphone.

DR. EWING: Just to give the patient and the surgeon a little bit more
wiggle room. When I see recommended, you know, all the antennas go up.
You know, if I don\'t do this and something happens, you know, right,
you don\'t have a leg to stand on. Perhaps a softer word like
\"consider.\"

DR. MILLER: Yes. I think something like consider or something like, you
know, the greatest certainty about the status of your implant is
provided by MRI. Consider having an MRI at regular intervals, you know,
if you\'re concerned about the status of your implant. I mean, something
where it sort of like is the patient can make a decision. I do worry
about the word recommended, because recommended really on a piece of
paper means you got to do it or you\'re dead.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: No, it doesn\'t. No, it doesn\'t. I think in the
labeling, recommended means recommended. Other comments?

DR. NEWBURGER: I would like to add in this recommendation a statement to
say this does not, however, eliminate the need for routine mammography
or breast cancer screening appropriate to the patient\'s age and
clinical status.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I agree with that. What about the correlate that if a
silent leak, a silent rupture, is identified that the recommendation \--
again, it\'s not a requirement, but the recommendation that the device
be changed or removed? Any discussion on that?

DR. LEITCH: Make them two separate.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Pardon me?

DR. LEITCH: Make them separate.

DR. MILLER: I think that\'s reasonable. I mean, I can\'t argue with
that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: If there is no further discussion, Dr. Krause, can you
read that proposed condition?

DR. KRAUSE: I can try.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I made it.

DR. KRAUSE: The condition is that the labeling recommend that a patient
consider an MRI at five years.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: No, recommend. The way I proposed it is recommend.

DR. KRAUSE: Without the word consider?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: That\'s correct.

DR. KRAUSE: All right. The labeling recommend an MRI at year five and
then every two years later, and consider implant removal if there is a
detection of silent leakage. And then some wording after that that says
this does not alleviate the need for regular mammography at the
recommended intervals.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Those in favor of that proposed condition, as read,
raise your hand. Should I wait? No. Let the record show that Dr.
Blumenstein, Dr. Newburger, Dr. LoCicero, Dr. Callahan and Dr. Manno
vote yes. Those opposed to that proposed condition? No one. Those
abstaining? Dr. Leitch, Dr. Miller, Dr. Li.

DR. LEITCH: I agree with part of it, but not all of it is the problem.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: That condition, as stated, passes. If there are no
further proposed \-- there is a proposed further condition.

DR. LOCICERO: I just want to clarify. Is there anywhere in the
information, the insert or etcetera, that talks about the lifetime of
the device?

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I\'m sorry, say that again.

DR. LOCICERO: In the package insert and the other information that goes
with the device, is there somewhere that says the lifetime of the
device? I can\'t find it.

DR. LEITCH: Well, it\'s not stated as a number, but it\'s stated that
one would expect to have to have their implant reoperated on at some
point.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Are you proposing that \--

DR. LOCICERO: I was going to propose that the information say that the
device is not considered a lifetime device.

DR. LEITCH: I think it does say that.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I think it does say that.

DR. LOCICERO: It does say that? Fine.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: You\'re not proposing that it be changed out routinely
at some timepoint?

DR. LOCICERO: No, no.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Is that right?

DR. LOCICERO: Just the fact that it states that it\'s not a lifetime
device. Okay.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: I think that\'s specified. If we have no other proposed
conditions, we will now vote on the motion of approvable with conditions
with the following 9 conditions, 10 conditions.

PARTICIPANT: One did not pass. One didn\'t pass.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: One did not pass?

PARTICIPANT: One didn\'t pass.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Okay. The following 9 conditions include an educational
component with hands-on training program certification, including
board-certified or eligible surgeons. The second condition is related to
the continued data collection for the Core and Adjunct Study with a
Panel meeting to re-review this data collection in five years.

No. 3 is an independent data monitoring, independent data monitoring
from the Core Study. No. 4, a separate patient education program and
consent. No. 5, incorporation of the analysis of the explanted, but not
reimplanted patients, including symptoms. No. 6 is the registry,
voluntary registry with the additions that were recommended. No. 7 was
the one that did not pass.

No. 8, that all commitments made by the sponsor, all the recommendations
of post-approval, be followed through with. And No. 9, that the implants
be a tracked device and No. 10, you\'re right, there are 10, related to
the follow-up for silent ruptures, MRI and the recommendations in the
labeling.

That is the proposed vote. Those in favor of approvable with conditions,
as specified, raise your hand. Let the record show that those in favor
voted yes, Dr. Leitch, Dr. Miller, Dr. Callahan, Dr. Li, Dr. Manno, Dr.
LoCicero, Dr. Newburger and Dr. Ewing. Oh, I\'m sorry, not Dr.
Newburger. Hard to see here. Those not in favor of approval with those
conditions, Dr. Blumenstein and Dr. Newburger. The vote is 7-2 in favor
of approvable with conditions.

To summarize, after thorough review of the scientific data presented by
both the company and the FDA and after thoughtful consideration of
various points of view presented by the public, the Panel has voted 7-2
to recommend approval with conditions as outlined this afternoon.

It\'s important to note that the Panel, over the last two days, last
three days, constitutes recommendations to the FDA. The FDA will take
these into consideration as it continues its review of the Mentor
application over the coming months. The FDA\'s final decision will be
based on the Panel discussion and on review of all valid scientific data
available in support of this PMA application.

So again, I would like to thank everyone that participated in the
discussion today. Oh, I\'m sorry. Yes, I forgot. Let\'s go around and I
would like to hear everyone in order, their vote and reason for it,
please. Dr. Leitch?

DR. LEITCH: I have voted for approval of the PMA, because I believe that
the data presented for this implant and the review of the literature
supports it as a safe and effective device for patients who are
well-informed and desire to have it.

As I have said before, I think choice for our patients with breast
cancer is critical. I still want them to be able to get a saline implant
if they want to have it, but I want them to have the choice to have the
implant they think will work best for them, and I think the data
supports that that\'s a safe and reasonable choice for them.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Miller?

DR. MILLER: I think that we don\'t have exhaustive knowledge about these
devices, but I think we have sufficient knowledge to justify their use.
We have sufficient knowledge about their efficacy and about the safety
to justify their availability.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Callahan?

DR. CALLAHAN: I voted approval with the conditions, because I felt like
the data were sufficient, given the conditions we have put on to be
safe, that the product is safe and effective.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Li?

DR. LI: I\'m going to be just a touch lengthy, because I want to explain
to myself and to everybody else why you could vote yes on one of these
and no on the other. And I think I have reasonable reasons. One, they
are two different devices. They are made by two different companies.
Their chemistries are different. There\'s all sorts of manufacturing
differences. They are not the same device.

Second, this implant data, although it was short-term like yesterday\'s,
the difference is they had an extremely low rupture rate. One of the
consequences of that is we can\'t predict what the future rupture rate
is, because the short-term rupture rate is so low. So it\'s a little
awkward to penalize them for that, that we can\'t project a long-term
rupture rate, because their short-term rupture rate is so low.

So another question is so what about the long-term rupture rate? What we
didn\'t have yesterday is we didn\'t have excellent fatigue testing.
Although one could question the absolute value of their final device,
they did a fatigue testing on this device as well as anybody knows how
to do at the moment that predicts, they say, 61 years. I don\'t believe
that, but even if they are off by a factor of 4, that\'s 15 years.

The other thing they had that was not available yesterday was although
it was only 100 patients out to 10 years, it was, in fact, 100 patients
out to 10 years and the performance of that device was reasonable.

The other thing is this is the first set of statistics, I have been on
several Panels with Dr. Blumenstein, this is the first one I have
actually heard him say that it was a pleasure to read. So all jokes
aside, the statistics and the follow-up were excellent and we didn\'t
have nearly the questions on this that we had in the prior application.

Lastly, I think the post-approval commitments, I think, are above and
beyond what we normally ask for an implant. Dr. Miller yesterday voiced
concern that we\'re holding this implant up to a higher standard than
perhaps other implants, and I believe that we are holding it up to
higher standards than other implants, and I also believe that\'s
appropriate.

I think the difference is this device has a 30-year history that, at
best, is checkered, shall we say. Right? And I think given that history,
I think it behooves us to have a higher standard for this device. But
given the testing that they have done, their commitments for
post-approval, I believe they, in fact, have at least committed to, in
fact, a higher standard. So those are the reasons that will let me sleep
tonight. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Manno?

DR. MANNO: I wish I had said that. I voted yes much based on many of the
things that Dr. Li commented on, and I think that given the testimony
here, etcetera, from the public and what I heard from the public the
last time, if the doctors and the company provide the information, I
think we have got enough to approve this and that the recipients of the
device will have a choice.

And it isn\'t to have a choice, they can make a choice and it\'s tough
luck if it doesn\'t work. No, I don\'t mean that. I would like that
stricken. No, I believe it will work, I think, based on what I have seen
here and, please, I did not mean that the way it sounded.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. Dr. LoCicero?

DR. LOCICERO: Everything Dr. Li said plus I felt like the sponsor really
made an effort to follow the new Draft Guidance document and that was
very much appreciated. Their thoughtful analysis of what data they had
concerning their own particular device actually made a considerable
difference in today\'s presentation versus yesterday\'s presentation.

And finally, the conditions that we applied make me feel comfortable
that it demonstrates the Panel\'s commitment and continued concern about
the safety of the device. The fact that we\'re going to come back again
in five years makes me very comfortable that we\'re here to protect the
public.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Newburger?

DR. NEWBURGER: I voted \"not approvable\" not because of any defect in
the company\'s, the sponsor\'s, data collection per se. I voted \"not
approvable,\" because I feel that this is a 10-year study. I feel that I
don\'t understand why this was presented now.

I think that it\'s still too soon to accurately define what is happening
to that certain group of patients who have a statistically increased
incidence of connective tissue disease signs and symptoms, and because
of that I don\'t feel that patients can be given or can receive an
informed consent.

And my concern was since hundreds of thousands of patients will be
exposed to this, I felt that the urgency was not warranted at this time.
I would have felt much more comfortable with another timepoint.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Ewing?

DR. EWING: Well, I think Dr. Li said it all and very eloquently and
certainly has echoed my thoughts. In addition to it, I was very
impressed by the FDA\'s toxicologist\'s report in addition to Mentor\'s
very overwhelming data that suggests that this is a very safe device,
and also the number if my prestigious colleagues from around the country
that either came here or sent statements and all the national societies,
from surgeons and nurses who also presented letters of support and the
plastic surgeons who had actually undergone this procedure was all very
compelling support for this device.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Blumenstein?

DR. BLUMENSTEIN: I voted \"not approvable,\" because the connective
tissue disease signs and symptoms findings and the limited follow-up,
particularly in light of the connective tissue disease signs and
symptoms finding, prevents me from feeling confident that an adequate
product labeling or informed consent can be created. In short, there is
too much uncertainty.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Doyle?

DR. DOYLE: Ordinarily, I would gripe, because I don\'t have a vote. I\'m
really glad I don\'t have a vote. I have never been so conflicted over
something in my life and I kept trying to think of how, if I had a vote,
I would vote and I see-sawed back and forth. I think the data answered
the questions that the FDA asked in great part.

However, I am very concerned about the subset of women, and I think
it\'s a very real subset of women, who may have some sort of a
sensitivity. And I kept thinking what about people who are allergic to
peanuts? Do we keep the whole population from eating peanuts, because
some people are allergic to peanuts? And finally, I thought if the
peanuts were killing them, I think I might have to vote no at this time.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Dr. Bartoo?

DR. BARTOO: I didn\'t get to vote, but I would have voted yes for the
motion. And I think I said earlier in my 20-some years of medical device
experience, this has been one of the most extensive and well-carried out
studies I have seen. I think this whole industry has been held to a
higher standard in terms of compared to all the rest of the medical
device industry for the most part and you rose to the occasion, so
congratulations.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you. And I would like to thank everyone that
participated today and in the last few days, and particularly thank the
Panel. Perhaps this was an unexpected recommendation. Yes, Dr. Provost?

DR. PROVOST: Well, you can finish.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Well, I just wanted to say that although it perhaps is
an unexpected recommendation particularly in light of yesterday\'s
recommendation, but I think it does reflect the thoughtfulness of the
Panel and in the fact that they really, I think, focused on their
decision and their vote based on the evidence and the data. And so I do
want to commend the Panel Members on their thoughtfulness following any
closing statements. Dr. Provost?

DR. PROVOST: Yes. I just want to echo what you said, Dr. Choti, and on
behalf of the FDA express my sincere and deep appreciation for all the
Panel Members for serving on this Panel. I know with such distinguished
professionals as yourself, it\'s very difficult to give up three whole
days to come here and assist the Agency in this way, and we are very
thankful and appreciative of your efforts, especially the very
thoughtful discussions and deliberations that you underwent these two
days.

And I would also like to introduce Dr. Daniel Schultz, who is our Center
Director, who would like to make a statement as well.

DR. SCHULTZ: Is this on? Yes. Thank you. My statement is going to be
very short as well. I would like to thank the Panel, Chairman Choti and
the rest of the Panel, for what I think was an incredibly high level
scientific discussion and we will certainly take every one of your
comments and look at them, as well as the votes, and analyze them in
great detail. Unfortunately, for us, our work is still going on and will
continue to go on.

In addition, I would like to thank our own FDA staff for what I think
was an excellent set of presentations. I would like to thank the
companies for participating in this meeting and for providing us with a
lot of good information.

And I would like to really thank all the members of the public who came
here from distances and at some degree of inconvenience to express all
of their feelings, and these have not gone without note. Whatever those
opinions may have been, we will certainly take all of those opinions
into account as we move forward in completing our job here. So thank you
very much.

CHAIRMAN CHOTI: Thank you and this session is now adjourned.

(Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m.)