4.7 Article

The feasibility of nipple aspiration and duct lavage to evaluate the breast duct epithelium of women with increased breast cancer risk

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER
Volume 49, Issue 1, Pages 65-71

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2012.07.012

Keywords

Breast cancer; Nipple aspirate fluid; Duct lavage; Intraductal approach; Biomarker studies

Categories

Funding

  1. Shocking Pink Party Appeal
  2. Breakthrough Breast Cancer

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: Nipple aspiration (NA) and duct lavage (DL) are modalities for obtaining breast duct fluid for biomarker analyses. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility of obtaining serial NA and DL samples at consecutive patient visits for cytology assessment and the creation of a biobank. Methods: Seventy eligible subjects were enroled at a single institution in the United Kingdom as part of an international multicentre study. Entry criteria were based on a 5-year Gail model risk of >= 2% or Claus score lifetime risk of >= 26%. Women underwent NA and DL in an outpatient clinic under local anaesthesia. Results: The mean patient age was 48 (range 41-69) years. Sixty seven out of 70 women (96%) attended three consecutive 6 monthly visits and follow-up for 2 years. Three women withdrew due to intolerance of the DL procedure. 56/67 (83%) women produced NA fluid from at least one duct. 204/264 (77%) of ducts declared by NA were cannulated for DL. 170/204 (83%) produced DL samples with adequate cellularity. By the final visit 52/67 (78%) women produced DL, 28/52 (54%) of whom were premenopausal and 24/52 (46%) were postmenopausal. 50/52 women (96%) underwent repeated DL of 81 ducts on 3 consecutive visits. Conclusion: NA and DL are well tolerated for repeated assessment to obtain material for cytology and to create a biobank for future biomarker studies in women at high breast cancer risk. (C) 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available