Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Breast Cancer
Published in: Breast Cancer 6/2016

01-11-2016 | Review Article

CEA in breast ductal secretions as a promising biomarker for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Shifu Tang, Fang Zhou, Yifan Sun, Lili Wei, Shengbo Zhu, Renqi Yang, Yiyong Huang, Jianqing Yang

Published in: Breast Cancer | Issue 6/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Other studies have shown that levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) in breast ductal secretions (BDS) differ significantly between breast cancer (BC) patients and healthy individuals, providing direct evidence for CEA in BDS as a promising biomarker for BC. This meta-analysis was designed to assess the potential diagnostic value of CEA in BDS.

Methods

Relevant articles were retrieved from Embase, Pubmed, and the Cochrane Library. Sensitivity, specificity, and diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) of CEA in BDS for diagnosing BC were pooled using random effects models. SROC and the area under the curve (AUC) were used to estimate overall diagnostic performance.

Results

This meta-analysis comprised five studies with a total of 340 BC patients and 448 healthy controls. For CEA in BDS, the pooled sensitivity, specificity, and DOR to diagnose BC were 58 % [95 % confidence interval (CI): 52–63 %], 87 % (95 % CI: 84–90 %), and 7.07 (95 % CI: 3.10–16.12), respectively. Moreover, the AUC of CEA in the diagnosis of BC was 0.8570.

Conclusions

CEA in BDS is a promising biomarker in the diagnosis of BC and should be evaluated as a standard screening tool upon verification of our results in a larger study population.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ferlay J, Shin HR, Bray F, Forman D, Mathers C, Parkin DM. Estimates of worldwide burden of cancer in 2008: GLOBOCAN 2008. Int J Cancer. 2010;127:2893–917.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Fan L, Strasser-Weippl K, Li JJ, St Louis J, Finkelstein DM, Yu KD, et al. Breast cancer in China. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:e279–89.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Gewefel H, Salhia B. Breast cancer in adolescent and young adult women. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14:390–5.CrossRefPubMed
4.
World Health Organization. WHO position paper on mammography screening. Geneva, Switzerland, 1st ed. 2014.
5.
Mannello F. Analysis of the intraductal microenvironment for the early diagnosis of breast cancer: identification of biomarkers in nipple-aspirate fluids. Expert Opin Med Diagn. 2008;2:1221–31.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Mannello F, Medda V, Tonti GA. Protein profile analysis of the breast microenvironment to differentiate healthy women from breast cancer patients. Expert Rev Proteom. 2009;6:43–60.CrossRef
7.
Mannello F, Tonti GA, Canestrari F. Nutrients and nipple aspirate fluid composition: the breast microenvironment regulates protein expression and cancer aetiology. Genes Nutr. 2008;3:77–85.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
8.
Sauter ER, Ross E, Daly M, Klein-Szanto A, Engstrom PF, Sorling A, et al. Nipple aspirate fluid: a promising non-invasive method to identify cellular markers of breast cancer risk. Br J Cancer. 1997;76:494–501.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
10.
Kahana L, Bartal AH, Yechieli H, Guttman I, Sheinfeld M. Carcinoembryonic-like substance in breast fluid discharge in benign and malignant breast disease and in milk of lactating women. Isr J Med Sci. 1981;17:1035–40.PubMed
11.
Inaji H, Yayoi E, Maeura Y, Matsuura N, Tominaga S, Koyama H, et al. Carcinoembryonic antigen estimation in nipple discharge as an adjunctive tool in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. Cancer. 1987;60:3008–13.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Mori T, Inaji H, Higashiyama M, Yayoi E, Izuo M, Ueno E, et al. Evaluation of dot-immunobinding assay for carcinoembryonic antigen determination in nipple discharge as an adjunct in the diagnosis of early breast cancer. Research Group for Carcinoembryonic Antigen in Nipple Discharge. Jpn J Clin Oncol. 1989;19:373–9.PubMed
13.
Inaji H, Koyama H, Motomura K, Noguchi S, Mori Y, Kimura Y, et al. ErbB-2 protein levels in nipple discharge: role in diagnosis of early breast cancer. Tumour Biol. 1993;14:271–8.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Foretova L, Garber JE, Sadowsky NL, Verselis SJ, Joseph DM, Andrade AF, et al. Carcinoembryonic antigen in breast nipple aspirate fluid. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 1998;7:195–8.
15.
Imayama S, Mori M, Ueo H, Nanbara S, Adachi Y, Mimori K, et al. Presence of elevated carcinoembryonic antigen on absorbent disks applied to nipple area of breast carcinoma patients. Cancer. 1996;78:1229–34.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Zhao Y, Verselis SJ, Klar N, Sadowsky NL, Kaelin CM, Smith B, et al. Nipple fluid carcinoembryonic antigen and prostate-specific antigen in cancer-bearing and tumor-free breasts. J Clin Oncol. 2001;19:1462–7.PubMed
17.
Lee A, Kim Y, Han K, Kang CS, Jeon HM, Shim SI. Detection of tumor markers including carcinoembryonic antigen, APC, and cyclin D2 in fine-needle aspiration fluid of breast. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2004;128:1251–6.
18.
Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, et al. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–36.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
Oda M, Makita M, Iwaya K, Akiyama F, Kohno N, Tsuchiya B, et al. High levels of DJ-1 protein in nipple fluid of patients with breast cancer. Cancer Sci. 2012;103:1172–6.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Wang G, Qin Y, Zhang J, Zhao J, Liang Y, Zhang Z, et al. Nipple discharge of CA15-3, CA125, CEA and TSGF as a new biomarker panel for breast cancer. Int J Mol Sci. 2014;15:9546–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Zhao YS, Pang D, Wang F, Xue YW, Gao DN, Li H, et al. Nipple aspirate fluid collection, related factors and relationship between carcinoembryonic antigen in nipple aspirate fluid and breast diseases in women in Harbin, PRC. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2009;18:732–8.CrossRef
23.
Glas AS, Lijmer JG, Prins MH, Bonsel GJ, Bossuyt PM. The diagnostic odds ratio: a single indicator of test performance. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:1129–35.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Jones CM, Athanasiou T. Summary receiver operating characteristic curve analysis techniques in the evaluation of diagnostic tests. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005;79:16–20.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Bleyer A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Kaufmann M, von Minckwitz G, Bergh J, Conte PF, Darby S, Eiermann W, et al. Breakthroughs in research and treatment of early breast cancer: an overview of the last three decades. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2013;288:1203–12.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Engel JM, Stankowski-Drengler TJ, Stankowski RV, Liang H, Doi SA, Onitilo AA. All-cause mortality is decreased in women undergoing annual mammography before breast cancer diagnosis. Am J Roentgenol. 2015;204:898–902.CrossRef
29.
30.
Ali RM, England A, McEntee MF, Hogg P. A method for calculating effective lifetime risk of radiation-induced cancer from screening mammography. Int J Diagn Imagin Radiat Ther. 2015;21:298–303.
31.
32.
Morrow M, Waters J, Morris E. MRI for breast cancer screening, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet. 2011;378:1804–11.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Ahern CH, Shih YC, Dong W, Parmigiani G, Shen Y. Cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies for integrating MRI into breast cancer screening for women at high risk. Br J Cancer. 2014;111:1542–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Kuhajda FP, Offutt LE, Mendelsohn G. The distribution of carcinoembryonic antigen in breast carcinoma diagnostic and prognostic implications. Cancer. 1983;52:1257–64.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
CEA in breast ductal secretions as a promising biomarker for the diagnosis of breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Shifu Tang
Fang Zhou
Yifan Sun
Lili Wei
Shengbo Zhu
Renqi Yang
Yiyong Huang
Jianqing Yang
Publication date
01-11-2016
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Breast Cancer / Issue 6/2016
Print ISSN: 1340-6868
Electronic ISSN: 1880-4233
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-016-0680-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2016

Breast Cancer 6/2016 Go to the issue

Case Report

A very rare case of breast cancer in a female-to-male transsexual

Original Article

Immunohistochemical analyses of CD44 variant isoforms in invasive micropapillary carcinoma of the breast: comparison with a concurrent conventional invasive carcinoma of no special type component

Original Article

Oncoplastic surgery combining abdominal advancement flaps with volume displacement techniques to breast-conserving surgery for small- to medium-sized breasts

Original Article

A comparison between digital breast tomosynthesis and full-field digital mammography for the detection of breast cancers

Original Article

Bright-field HER2 dual in situ hybridization (DISH) assay on breast cancer cell blocks: a comparative study with histological sections

Original Article

The effects of spiritual intervention and changes in dopamine receptor gene expression in breast cancer patients
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Watch now

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Image Credits