PURPOSE: Ductal lavage has been used for risk stratification and biomarker development and to identify intermediate endpoints for risk-reducing intervention trials. Little is known about patient characteristics associated with obtaining nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) and adequate cell counts (> or =10 cells) in ductal lavage specimens from BRCA mutation carriers. METHODS: We evaluated patient characteristics associated with obtaining NAF and adequate cell counts in ductal lavage specimens from the largest cohort of women from BRCA families yet studied (BRCA1/2 = 146, mutation-negative = 23, untested = 2). Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate categorical variables; Wilcoxon nonparametric test was used to evaluate continuous variables associated with NAF or ductal lavage cell count adequacy. Logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of NAF and ductal lavage cell count adequacy. RESULTS: From 171 women, 45 (26%) women had NAF and 70 (41%) women had ductal lavage samples with > or =10 cells. Postmenopausal women with intact ovaries compared with premenopausal women [odds ratio (OR), 4.8; P = 0.03] and women without a prior breast cancer history (OR, 5.2; P = 0.04) had an increased likelihood of yielding NAF. Having breast-fed (OR, 3.4; P = 0.001), the presence of NAF before ductal lavage (OR, 3.2; P = 0.003), and being premenopausal (OR, 3.0; P = 0.003) increased the likelihood of ductal lavage cell count adequacy. In known BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, only breast-feeding (OR, 2.5; P = 0.01) and the presence of NAF (OR, 3.0; P = 0.01) were independent correlates of ductal lavage cell count adequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Ductal lavage is unlikely to be useful in breast cancer screening among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers because the procedure fails to yield adequate specimens sufficient for reliable cytologic diagnosis or to support translational research activities.
PURPOSE: Ductal lavage has been used for risk stratification and biomarker development and to identify intermediate endpoints for risk-reducing intervention trials. Little is known about patient characteristics associated with obtaining nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) and adequate cell counts (> or =10 cells) in ductal lavage specimens from BRCA mutation carriers. METHODS: We evaluated patient characteristics associated with obtaining NAF and adequate cell counts in ductal lavage specimens from the largest cohort of women from BRCA families yet studied (BRCA1/2 = 146, mutation-negative = 23, untested = 2). Fisher's exact test was used to evaluate categorical variables; Wilcoxon nonparametric test was used to evaluate continuous variables associated with NAF or ductal lavage cell count adequacy. Logistic regression was used to identify independent correlates of NAF and ductal lavage cell count adequacy. RESULTS: From 171 women, 45 (26%) women had NAF and 70 (41%) women had ductal lavage samples with > or =10 cells. Postmenopausal women with intact ovaries compared with premenopausal women [odds ratio (OR), 4.8; P = 0.03] and women without a prior breast cancer history (OR, 5.2; P = 0.04) had an increased likelihood of yielding NAF. Having breast-fed (OR, 3.4; P = 0.001), the presence of NAF before ductal lavage (OR, 3.2; P = 0.003), and being premenopausal (OR, 3.0; P = 0.003) increased the likelihood of ductal lavage cell count adequacy. In known BRCA1/2 mutation carriers, only breast-feeding (OR, 2.5; P = 0.01) and the presence of NAF (OR, 3.0; P = 0.01) were independent correlates of ductal lavage cell count adequacy. CONCLUSIONS: Ductal lavage is unlikely to be useful in breast cancer screening among BRCA1/2 mutation carriers because the procedure fails to yield adequate specimens sufficient for reliable cytologic diagnosis or to support translational research activities.
Authors: Carola M Zalles; Bruce F Kimler; Marie Simonsen; Julie L Clark; Trina Metheny; Carol J Fabian Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2005-12-02 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Deepa B Patil; Heather A Lankes; Ritu Nayar; Shahla Masood; Michelle Bryk; Nanjiang Hou; Alfred Rademaker; Seema A Khan Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-12-21 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: David M Euhus; Dawei Bu; Raheela Ashfaq; Xian-Jin Xie; Aihua Bian; A Marilyn Leitch; Cheryl M Lewis Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-09 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Gertrude Case Buehring; Amy Letscher; Kathleen M McGirr; Shruti Khandhar; Lisa H Che; Christine T Nguyen; Adeline J Hackett Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2006-05-10 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: David N Danforth; Andrea Abati; Armando Filie; Shiela A Prindiville; Diane Palmieri; Richard Simon; Thomas Ried; Patricia S Steeg Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2006-12-01 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: K Visvanathan; D Santor; S Z Ali; A Brewster; A Arnold; D K Armstrong; N E Davidson; K J Helzlsouer Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2007-05 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: T M Wagner; R Möslinger; G Langbauer; R Ahner; E Fleischmann; A Auterith; A Friedmann; T Helbich; C Zielinski; E Pittermann; M Seifert; P Oefner Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 7.640
Authors: Anne L Ersig; Allison Werner-Lin; Lindsey Hoskins; Jennifer Young; Jennifer T Loud; June Peters; Mark H Greene Journal: J Fam Nurs Date: 2018-12-12 Impact factor: 3.818
Authors: June A Peters; Regina Kenen; Lindsey M Hoskins; Laura M Koehly; Barry Graubard; Jennifer T Loud; Mark H Greene Journal: J Genet Couns Date: 2011-05-06 Impact factor: 2.537
Authors: Jennifer T Loud; Gretchen L Gierach; Timothy D Veenstra; Roni T Falk; Kathryn Nichols; Allison Guttmann; Xia Xu; Mark H Greene; Mitchell H Gail Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2014-01-18 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Melanie Freed; Jacco A de Zwart; Jennifer T Loud; Riham H El Khouli; Kyle J Myers; Mark H Greene; Jeff H Duyn; Aldo Badano Journal: Med Phys Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 4.071
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: Gretchen L Gierach; Jennifer T Loud; Catherine K Chow; Sheila A Prindiville; Jennifer Eng-Wong; Peter W Soballe; Claudia Giambartolomei; Phuong L Mai; Claudia E Galbo; Kathryn Nichols; Kathleen A Calzone; Celine Vachon; Mitchell H Gail; Mark H Greene Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2010-02-04 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk; Elsken van der Wall; Helen Meijrink; Xiaojuan Pan; Inne H M Borel Rinkes; Margreet G E M Ausems; Paul J van Diest Journal: Fam Cancer Date: 2010-09 Impact factor: 2.375
Authors: Lucy Pigati; Sree C S Yaddanapudi; Ravi Iyengar; Dong-Ja Kim; Steven A Hearn; David Danforth; Michelle L Hastings; Dominik M Duelli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2010-10-20 Impact factor: 3.240
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