Literature DB >> 15494601

Ductal lavage findings in women with known breast cancer undergoing mastectomy.

Seema A Khan1, Elizabeth L Wiley, Norma Rodriguez, Carol Baird, Rathi Ramakrishnan, Ritu Nayar, Michele Bryk, Kevin B Bethke, Valerie L Staradub, Judith Wolfman, Alfred Rademaker, Britt-Marie Ljung, Monica Morrow.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ductal lavage has the potential to detect cancer by sampling breast epithelium in asymptomatic high-risk women. To assess the utility of ductal lavage as a cancer diagnostic test, we investigated the association between ductal lavage cytologic findings and histologic findings in women with known breast cancer undergoing mastectomy.
METHODS: Ductal lavage was performed in the operating room before mastectomy on 44 breasts from 32 women with known cancer and on eight breasts from seven women undergoing prophylactic mastectomy, two with occult malignancy. If the ductal lavage sample from one or more ducts contained enough epithelial cells for a cytologic diagnosis, lavaged ducts were injected with a mixture of colored dye, gelatin, and a radiographic contrast compound after mastectomy, and breast tissue was radiographed and sectioned. Histologic findings in ducts with and without dye were recorded. Associations between cytologic results and histologic results were examined by univariate and multivariable analyses.
RESULTS: At least one duct was lavaged in 36 breasts (mean = 1.4 ducts per breast); all histologic and cytologic procedures were completed in 28 breasts and in 39 ducts. Markedly atypical or malignant cytology was found in five cancer-containing breasts. In 39 ducts with complete cytologic and histologic data and when marked atypia or malignant cells defined a positive cytologic test, sensitivity was 43% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 23% to 72%), specificity was 96% (95% CI = 86% to 100%), and accuracy was 77% (95% CI = 63% to 89%). When mild or marked atypia or malignant cells defined a positive cytologic test, sensitivity was 79% (95% CI = 57% to 96%), specificity was 64% (95% CI = 46% to 83%), and accuracy was 69% (95% CI = 55% to 83%). When all 31 cytologically evaluable breasts were analyzed, sensitivity was 17% (95% CI = 7% to 35%), specificity was 100% (95% CI = 5% to 100%), and accuracy was 19% (95% CI = 9% to 38%).
CONCLUSION: In breasts with cancer, ductal lavage appears to have low sensitivity and high specificity for cancer detection, possibly because cancer-containing ducts fail to yield fluid or have benign or mildly atypical cytology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15494601     DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djh283

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  16 in total

1.  Development of a test to identify bladder cancer in the urine of patients using mass spectroscopy and subcellular localization of the detected proteins.

Authors:  Stephen W Wilz; Dong Liu; Chaoxu Liu; Jinghua Yang
Journal:  Am J Transl Res       Date:  2015-08-15       Impact factor: 4.060

2.  The INTEND 1 randomized controlled trial of duct endoscopy as an indicator of margin excision in breast conservation surgery.

Authors:  Gerald Gui; Effrosyni Panopoulou; Sarah Tang; Dominique Twelves; Mohammed Kabir; Ann Ward; Catherine Montgomery; Ashutosh Nerurkar; Peter Osin; Clare M Isacke
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  2021-01-04       Impact factor: 4.872

3.  Evaluation of pain experienced during breast ductal endoscopy.

Authors:  George C Zografos; Flora Zagouri; Theodoros N Sergentanis; Antonia Gounaris; Nikolaos Pararas; Vassiliki Oikonomou; Effrosyni Panopoulou; Constantine Fotiadis; John Bramis
Journal:  Surg Today       Date:  2008-09-27       Impact factor: 2.549

4.  Status of Intraductal Therapy for Ductal Carcinoma in Situ.

Authors:  Meghan Flanagan; Susan Love; E Shelley Hwang
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2010-05-06

5.  Ductal lavage is an inefficient method of biomarker measurement in high-risk women.

Authors:  Seema A Khan; Heather A Lankes; Deepa B Patil; Michele Bryk; Nanjiang Hou; David Ivancic; Ritu Nayar; Shahla Masood; Alfred Rademaker
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2009-02-17

Review 6.  Epigenetic targeting in breast cancer: therapeutic impact and future direction.

Authors:  M B Lustberg; B Ramaswamy
Journal:  Drug News Perspect       Date:  2009-09

7.  The Fourth International Symposium on the Intraductal Approach to Breast Cancer, Santa Barbara, California, 10-13 March 2005.

Authors:  Bonnie L King; Susan M Love; Susan Rochman; Julian A Kim
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-07-20       Impact factor: 6.466

8.  Nipple aspiration and ductal lavage in women with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation.

Authors:  Gillian Mitchell; Yoland C Antill; William Murray; Judy Kirk; Elizabeth Salisbury; Geoffrey J Lindeman; Juliana Di Iulio; Alvin D Milner; Lisa Devereaux; Kelly-Anne Phillips
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res       Date:  2005-11-14       Impact factor: 6.466

9.  Comparison of Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspirate versus Ductal Lavage for Risk Assessment and Prevention of Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Abigail Hoffman; Rod Pellenberg; Catherine Ibarra Drendall; Victoria Seewaldt
Journal:  Curr Breast Cancer Rep       Date:  2012-06-22

10.  Paired ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive breast cancer lesions in the D-loop of the mitochondrial genome indicate a cancerization field effect.

Authors:  Andrea Maggrah; Kerry Robinson; Jennifer Creed; Roy Wittock; Ken Gehman; Teresa Gehman; Helen Brown; Andrew Harbottle; M Kent Froberg; Daniel Klein; Brian Reguly; Ryan Parr
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2012-12-26       Impact factor: 3.411

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.