PURPOSE: To calculate the diagnostic accuracy of nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) cytology. BACKGROUND: Evaluation of NAF cytology in asymptomatic patients conceptually offers a non-invasive method for either screening for breast cancer or else predicting or stratifying future cancer risk. METHODS: Studies were identified by performing electronic searches up to August 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to attain an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of NAF for breast cancer detection. RESULTS: A search through 938 studies yielded a total of 19 studies. Overall, 9308 patients were examined, with cytology results from 10,147 breasts [age (years), mean ± SD = 49.73 ± 4.09 years]. Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of NAF revealed a pooled specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.97-0.98), and sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of nipple smear cytology is limited by poor sensitivity. If nipple fluid assessment is to be used for diagnosis, then emerging technologies for fluid biomarker analysis must supersede the current diagnostic accuracy of NAF cytology.
PURPOSE: To calculate the diagnostic accuracy of nipple aspirate fluid (NAF) cytology. BACKGROUND: Evaluation of NAF cytology in asymptomatic patients conceptually offers a non-invasive method for either screening for breast cancer or else predicting or stratifying future cancer risk. METHODS: Studies were identified by performing electronic searches up to August 2019. A meta-analysis was conducted to attain an overall pooled sensitivity and specificity of NAF for breast cancer detection. RESULTS: A search through 938 studies yielded a total of 19 studies. Overall, 9308 patients were examined, with cytology results from 10,147 breasts [age (years), mean ± SD = 49.73 ± 4.09 years]. Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis of NAF revealed a pooled specificity of 0.97 (95% CI 0.97-0.98), and sensitivity of 0.64 (95% CI 0.62-0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The diagnostic accuracy of nipple smear cytology is limited by poor sensitivity. If nipple fluid assessment is to be used for diagnosis, then emerging technologies for fluid biomarker analysis must supersede the current diagnostic accuracy of NAF cytology.
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2007 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Judy C Boughey; Lynn C Hartmann; Stephanie S Anderson; Amy C Degnim; Robert A Vierkant; Carol A Reynolds; Marlene H Frost; V Shane Pankratz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-07-06 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Aneesa S Majid; Ellen Shaw de Paredes; Richard D Doherty; Neil R Sharma; Xavier Salvador Journal: Radiographics Date: 2003 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.333
Authors: Peter A Fasching; Mayada R Bani; Carolin Nestle-Krämling; Tim O Goecke; Dieter Niederacher; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux Journal: Eur J Cancer Prev Date: 2007-06 Impact factor: 2.497
Authors: Natasha Jiwa; Ahmed Ezzat; Josephine Holt; Dhuleep S Wijayatilake; Zoltan Takats; Daniel Richard Leff Journal: Ann Med Surg (Lond) Date: 2022-04-18
Authors: Susana I S Patuleia; Karijn P M Suijkerbuijk; Elsken van der Wall; Paul J van Diest; Cathy B Moelans Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-12-29 Impact factor: 6.639
Authors: Susana I S Patuleia; Elsken van der Wall; Carla H van Gils; Marije F Bakker; Agnes Jager; Marleen M Voorhorst-Ogink; Paul J van Diest; Cathy B Moelans Journal: Cell Oncol (Dordr) Date: 2021-10-16 Impact factor: 7.051