| Literature DB >> 35144664 |
Tomoo Jikuzono1, Eriko Manabe2, Shoko Kure3, Haruki Akasu4, Tomoko Ishikawa1,5,6, Yoko Fujiwara6, Masujiro Makita2, Osamu Ishibashi7,8.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Conventional cytological diagnosis including duct-washing cytology (DWC) is sometimes performed using ductal epithelial cells collected during mammary ductoscopy; it is useful for detection of early-stage breast cancer such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). However, conventional cytological diagnosis focuses exclusively on cellular morphology; false negatives and false positives may be caused by inadequate specimen preparation (triggering cell degeneration) or poor examiner diagnostic skills. Molecular diagnosis using RNA biomarkers is expected to compensate for the weaknesses of cytological diagnosis. We previously employed microarray analysis to identify highly expressed genes in DCIS, suggesting that they may be useful for DCIS diagnosis. Here, we explored whether DWC samples yielded RNA of sufficient quantity and quality for RNA biomarker-based diagnosis.Entities:
Keywords: Breast cancer; Duct-washing cytology; Ductal carcinoma in situ; Mammary ductoscopy
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35144664 PMCID: PMC8830173 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-05928-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Res Notes ISSN: 1756-0500
Fig. 1Flow chart of patient selection. DWC duct-washing cytology; IDP intraductal papilloma; DCIS ductal carcinoma in situ; SPC solid papillary carcinoma; ADH atypical ductal hyperplasia
The clinical information of the patients
| Patients’ no. | Sample no. | y/o | DWC | MD finding | RNA yields (ng) | RIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 1 | 42 | BC | BC | 1448.5 | 6.2 |
| 2 | 2 | 71 | BC | IDP | 803.7 | 7.9 |
| 3 | 1030.5 | 8.6 | ||||
| 3 | 4 | 37 | BC | BC-suspected | 487.2 | 3.4 |
| 5 | 488.9 | 7.2 | ||||
| 4 | 6 | 68 | BC-suspected | BC-suspected | 52.2 | 8.2 |
| 7 | 57.6 | 7.6 | ||||
| 5 | 8 | 31 | BC-suspected | BC | 176.7 | 6.7 |
| 6 | 9 | 37 | BC | BC | 97.9 | nd |
| 7 | 10 | 41 | Undetermined | BC-suspected | 125.9 | 7.4 |
| 8 | 11 | 41 | BC-suspected | BC | 97.6 | 4.2 |
| 12 | 289.8 | 3.5 | ||||
| 9 | 13 | 49 | BCa | IDP | 123.2 | 3.7 |
| 14 | 205.8 | 3.3 | ||||
| 10 | 15 | 62 | IDP | IDP | 655.6 | 8.1 |
| 11 | 16 | 40 | IDP | IDP | 277.7 | 7.6 |
| 17 | 252.8 | 5.8 | ||||
| 12 | 18 | 53 | IDP | IDP | 54.7 | 7.2 |
| 13 | 19 | 66 | IDP | IDP | 121.5 | 7.1 |
| 14 | 20 | 43 | IDP | IDP-suspected | 2419.4 | 2.4 |
| 15 | 21 | 59 | IDP | IDP | 353.8 | 2.4 |
| 16 | 22 | 45 | IDP | IDP | 174.3 | 2.8 |
| 17 | 23 | 47 | IDP | IDP | 63.5 | 2.9 |
| 18 | 24 | 67 | IDP | IDP | 79.4 | 1.0 |
| 19 | 25 | 49 | IDP | IDP | 141.9 | 4.2 |
| 26 | 135.4 | 3.7 | ||||
| 20 | 27 | 37 | IDP | IDP | 2673.0 | 1.0 |
| 21 | 28 | 40 | IDP | IDP | 97.8 | 5.2 |
| 22 | 29 | 41 | IDP | IDP | 78.6 | 3.2 |
| 23 | 30 | 49 | IDP | IDP | 51.9 | 5.5 |
| 24 | 31 | 43 | IDP | BC | 546.3 | 3.5 |
| 25 | 32 | 38 | IDP | BC | 97.2 | 2.1 |
| 26 | 33 | 44 | IDP | BC | 153.1 | 5.1 |
| 27 | 34 | 36 | IDP | BC | 183.5 | 2.5 |
| 28 | 35 | 62 | Inappropriate | IDP | 237.9 | 4.5 |
| 29 | 36 | 33 | Inappropriate | IDP | 198.1 | 3.7 |
| 30 | 37 | 45 | Benignb | IDP | 89.7 | 1.0 |
| 31 | 38 | 41 | Not performedc | Duct ectasia | 1371.7 | 2.0 |
| 32 | 39 | 47 | Not performedc | Duct ectasia | 149.9 | 3.2 |
| 33 | 40 | 40 | Not performedc | Duct ectasia | 255.1 | 5.5 |
| 34 | 41 | 49 | Not performedc | Duct ectasia | 331.7 | 4.0 |
| 35 | 42 | 41 | Not performedc | Duct ectasia | 732.9 | 2.6 |
| 43 | 530.2 | 2.6 | ||||
| 36 | 44 | 57 | Not fully collectedd | (Ruptured the duct) | 75.4 | 2.8 |
| 37 | 45 | 67 | Not collected | Mastopathy-suspected | 1072.8 | 3.4 |
Based on DWC, 8 patients were diagnosed as BC (patient no. 1–3, 6, and 9) and BC suspected (patient no. 4, 5, and 8), and one patient (patient no. 7) was undetermined
nd not determined
aUnder observation at another hospital
bHyperplastic epithelium and stroma
cNot performed due to the absence of elevated lesions
dRuptured the ducts and air leaked out
Result of qRT-PCR analysis
| Patients’ no. | Sample no. | Pathological diagnosis | HPRT-1 (Ct value) | CARTPT/HPRT-1 (RQ) | BRCAT54/HPRT-1 (RQ) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0a | 0 | SPC | 24.0 | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| 1 | 1 | SPC | 27.2 | 2.8 | 1.4 |
| 2 | 2 | SPC | 26.2 | 0.1 | 5.1 |
| 2 | 3 | SPC | 25.9 | 0.1 | 5.4 |
| 10 | 15 | IDP | 27.1 | 14.2 | 2.0 |
| 11 | 16 | IDP | 27.9 | 0.2 | 0.0 |
aRNA from the FFPE sample of an SPC patient, in which BRCAT54, CARTPT and HPRT-1 were previously shown to be highly expressed by array analysis, was also analyzed as a positive control