BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine if ductal lavage could predict the occurrence of breast cancer as well as further stratify patients at high-risk for developing breast cancer. METHODS: Ductal lavage was performed in 116 high-risk patients (Gail Risk score > or = 1.7%, previous breast cancer, strong family history, previous suspicious biopsy specimen). If atypia or papillary cells were identified, a standard protocol of evaluation was initiated. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three lavages were performed on 116 patients. Twenty-seven lavages in 25 patients yielded atypical or papillary-like cells. The 15 patients who underwent further evaluation for atypia had no evidence of cancerous or precancerous lesions. All patients were followed-up: 2 developed breast cancer, both of whom had had normal previous lavage. No patient with abnormal lavage developed cancer during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We find ductal lavage to be of limited value in the screening of high-risk patients and have removed it from our treatment algorithm.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of the study was to determine if ductal lavage could predict the occurrence of breast cancer as well as further stratify patients at high-risk for developing breast cancer. METHODS: Ductal lavage was performed in 116 high-risk patients (Gail Risk score > or = 1.7%, previous breast cancer, strong family history, previous suspicious biopsy specimen). If atypia or papillary cells were identified, a standard protocol of evaluation was initiated. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-three lavages were performed on 116 patients. Twenty-seven lavages in 25 patients yielded atypical or papillary-like cells. The 15 patients who underwent further evaluation for atypia had no evidence of cancerous or precancerous lesions. All patients were followed-up: 2 developed breast cancer, both of whom had had normal previous lavage. No patient with abnormal lavage developed cancer during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: We find ductal lavage to be of limited value in the screening of high-risk patients and have removed it from our treatment algorithm.
Authors: Amy E Cyr; Julie A Margenthaler; Jill Conway; Antonella L Rastelli; Rosa M Davila; Feng Gao; Jill R Dietz Journal: Ann Surg Oncol Date: 2011-08-17 Impact factor: 5.344
Authors: Jennifer T Loud; Anne C M Thiébaut; Andrea D Abati; Armando C Filie; Kathryn Nichols; David Danforth; Ruthann Giusti; Sheila A Prindiville; Mark H Greene Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-03-31 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Jennifer T Loud; Ellen Burke Beckjord; Kathryn Nichols; June Peters; Ruthann Giusti; Mark H Greene Journal: BMC Womens Health Date: 2009-07-14 Impact factor: 2.809
Authors: David N Danforth; Armando C Filie; Andrew C Warner; George W Wright; Zhonghe Sun; Thomas Ried; Christine T McGowan; Sheila A Prindiville Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-08-04