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
Current Breast Cancer Reports
Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports 3/2012

Open Access 01-09-2012 | Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Comparison of Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspirate versus Ductal Lavage for Risk Assessment and Prevention of Breast Cancer

Authors: Abigail Hoffman, Rod Pellenberg, Catherine Ibarra Drendall, Victoria Seewaldt

Published in: Current Breast Cancer Reports | Issue 3/2012

Login to get access

Abstract

Random periareolar fine needle aspiration (RPFNA) and ductal lavage (DL) are research techniques developed to (1) assess short-term breast cancer risk in asymptomatic women who are at increased risk for breast cancer and (2) track cytological response to risk reduction strategies. RPFNA and DL provide minimally invasive methods to repeatedly sample epithelial cells and research tools to investigate the biological origins of breast cancer in high-risk women. This review gives an overview of the strengths and limitations of both RPFNA and DL for risk assessment and breast cancer prevention in asymptomatic high-risk women.
Literature
1.
Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1371–88.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, et al. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes: the NSABP study of tamoxifen and raloxifene (STAR) P-2 trial. JAMA. 2006;295:2727–41.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Hartmann LC, Schaid DJ, Woods JE, et al. Efficacy of bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in women with a family history of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:7784.CrossRef
4.
Rebbeck TR, Levin AM, Eisen A, et al. Breast cancer risk after bilateral prophylactic oophorectomy in BRCA1 mutation carriers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1999;91:1475–9.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kelloff GJ, Boone CW, Crowell JA, et al. Risk biomarkers and current strategies in chemopreventive drug development. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1996;25:1–14.PubMed
6.
Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Zalles CM, et al. Short-term breast cancer prediction by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration cytology and the Gail risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92:1217–27.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Byrne C, Schairer C, Wolfe J, et al. Mammographic features and breast cancer risk: effects with time, age, and menopause status. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1995;87:1622–9.PubMedCrossRef
8.
Jernstrom HC, Olsson H, Borg A. Reduced testosterone, 17 beta-oestradiol and sexual hormone binding globulin, and increased insulin-like growth factor-1 concentrations, in healthy nulligravid women aged 19–25 years who were first and/or second degree relatives to breast cancer patients. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1997;6:330–40.PubMedCrossRef
9.
Hankinson SE, Willett WC, Colditz GA, et al. Circulating concentrations of insulin-like growth factor-I and risk of breast cancer. Lancet. 1998;351:1393–6.PubMedCrossRef
10.
Allred DC, Hilsenbeck SG. Biomarkers in benign breast tissue disease: risk factors for breast cancer [editorial]. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;90:1247–8.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Marshall LM, Hunter DJ, Connolly JL, et al. Risk of breast cancer associated with atypical hyperplasia of lobular and ductal types. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1997;6:297–301.PubMed
12.
Mansoor S, Ip C, Stomper C. Yield of terminal ductal lobule units (TLDU) in normal breast stereotactic core biopsy specimens: implications of biomarker studies. Breast J. 2000;6:220–4.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Sauter ER, Ross E, Daly M, 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.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Brady DA, et al. A phase II breast cancer chemoprevention trial of oral alpha-difluoromethylornithine: breast tissue, imaging, and serum and urine biomarkers. Clin Cancer Res. 2002;8:3105–17.PubMed
15.
Parmigiani G, Berry D, Aguilar O. Determining carrier probabilities for breast cancer-susceptibility genes BRCA1 and BRCA2. Am J Hum Genet. 1998;62:145–58.PubMedCrossRef
16.
Zalles CM, Kimler BF, Kamel S, et al. Cytology patterns in random aspirates from women at high and low risk for breast cancer. Breast J. 1995;1:343–9.CrossRef
17.
Masood S, Frykberg ER, McLellan GL, et al. Prospective evaluation of radiologically directed fine-needle aspiration biopsy of nonpalpable breast lesions. Cancer. 1990;66:1480–7.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Deng GR, Lu Y, Zlotnikov G, et al. Loss of heterozygosity in normal tissue adjacent to breast carcinoma. Science. 1996;274:2057–9.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Bean GR, Scott V, Yee L, et al. Retinoic acid receptor-beta2 promoter methylation in random periareolar fine needle aspiration. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:790–8.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Bean GR, Kimler BF, Seewaldt VL. Long-term raloxifene in a woman at high risk for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2006;355:1620–2.PubMedCrossRef
21.
Bean GR. Ibarra Drendall C, Goldenberg VK, et al. Hypermethylation of the breast cancer-associated gene 1 promoter does not predict cytologic atypia or correlate with surrogate end points of breast cancer risk. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:50–6.PubMedCrossRef
22.
• Ibarra-Drendall C, Wilke LG, Zalles C, et al. Reproducibility of random periareolar fine needle aspiration in a multi-institutional Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) cross-sectional study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2009;18:1379–85. This 5-institutional study demonstrates for the first time that the surrogate endpoints Masood cytology index score and cell count in the duplicate RPFNA samples from the same breast of each high-risk woman are highly reproducible (Spearman correlation coefficients of .831 and .726, respectively)..PubMedCrossRef
23.
Khan SA, Masood S, Miller L, et al. Random fine needle aspiration of the breast of women at increased breast cancer risk and standard risk controls. Breast J. 1998;4:420–5.CrossRef
24.
Fabian CJ, Kamel S, Zalles C, et al. Identification of a chemoprevention cohort from a population of women at high risk for breast cancer. J Cell Biochem Suppl. 1996;25:112–22.PubMedCrossRef
25.
Khan QJ, Kimler BF, O'Dea AP, et al. Mammographic density does not correlate with Ki-67 expression or cytomorphology in benign breast cells obtained by random periareolar fine needle aspiration from women at high risk for breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res. 2007;9:R35.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Goldenberg V, Seewaldt VL, Scott V, et al. Atypia in random periareolar fine needle aspiration affects the decision of high-risk women to take tamoxifen for breast cancer chemoprevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:1032–43.PubMedCrossRef
27.
Seewaldt VL, Goldenberg V, Jones L, et al. Overweight and obese perimenopausal and postmenopausal women exhibit increased abnormal mammary epithelial cytology. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:613–6.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Bean GR, Bryson AD, Pilie PG, et al. Morphologically normal-appearing mammary epithelial cells obtained from high-risk women exhibit methylation silencing of INK4a/ARF. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:6834–41.PubMedCrossRef
29.
Baker JC, Ostrander JH, Lem S, et al. ESR1 promoter hypermethylation does not predict atypia in random periareolar fine needle aspiration nor persistent atypia after 12 months tamoxifen chemoprevention. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2008;17:1884–90.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Evron E, Dooley WC, Umbricht CB, et al. Detection of breast cancer cells by methylation-specific PCR. Lancet. 2001;357:1335–6.PubMedCrossRef
31.
• Pilie PG, Ibarra-Drendall C, Troch MM, et al. Protein microarray analysis of mammary epithelial cells from obese and nonobese women at high risk for breast cancer: feasibility data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2011;20:476–82. This pilot proteomic study demonstrates the potential of identifying differentially expressed proteins from limiting microdissected epithelial cells of nonobese and obese high-risk women. Preliminary data from such study suggest that early expression changes in the structural component of fat—namely, vimentin—may serve as a potential marker of risk and progression to breast cancer..PubMedCrossRef
32.
• Ibarra-Drendall C, Troch MM, Barry WT, et al. Pilot and feasibility study: prospective proteomic profiling of mammary epithelial cells from high-risk women provides evidence of activation of pro-survival pathways. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011 Jun 7. [Epub ahead of print]. This exploratory study shows that the interlinked components of mitochondrial apoptosis pathway are highly expressed in all mammary epithelial cells of high-risk women, but the delicate balance between proapoptotic and nonapoptotic proteins may tip the balance to cell survival during the early steps of mammary carcinogenesis.
33.
Dooley WC, Ljung BM, Veronesi U, et al. Ductal lavage for detection of cellular atypic in women at high risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001;93:1624–32.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Khan SA, Wiley EL, Rodriguez N, et al. Ductal lavage findings in women with known breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2004;96:1510–7.PubMedCrossRef
35.
Hartman AF, Daniel BL, Kurian AW, et al. Breast magnetic resonance image screening and ductal lavage in women at high genetic risk for breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2004;100:479–89.PubMedCrossRef
36.
Maddux AJ, Ashfaq R, Naftalis E, et al. Patient and duct selection for nipple duct lavage. Am J Surg. 2004;188:390–4.PubMedCrossRef
37.
Wood ME, Stanley MA, Crocker AM, et al. Ductal lavage of cancerous and unaffected breasts: procedure success rate and cancer detection. Acta Cytol. 2009;53:410–5.PubMedCrossRef
38.
Johnson-Maddux A, Ashfaq R, Cler L, et al. Reproducibility of cytologic atypia in repeat nipple duct lavage. Cancer. 2005;103:1129–36.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Visvanathan K, Santor D, Ali SZ, et al. The reliability of nipple aspirate and ductal lavage in women at increased risk for breast cancer—a potential tool for breast cancer risk assessment and biomarker evaluation. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:950–5.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Patil DB, Lankes HA, Nayar R, et al. Reproducibility of ductal lavage cytology and cellularity over a 6 month interval in high risk women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2008;112:327–33.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Loud JT, Beckjord EB, Nichols K, et al. Tolerability of breast ductal lavage in women from families at high genetic risk of breast cancer. BMC Womens Health. 2009;9(1):20.PubMedCrossRef
42.
King BL, Tsai SC, Gryga ME, et al. Detection of chromosomal instability in paired breast surgery and ductal lavage specimens by interphase fluorescence in situ hybridization. Clin Cancer Res. 2003;9:1509–16.PubMed
43.
Fackler MJ, Malone K, Zhang Z, et al. Quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR analysis doubles detection of tumor cells in breast ductal fluid. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:3306–10.PubMedCrossRef
44.
Bhandare D, Nayar R, Bryk M, et al. Endocrine biomarkers in ductal lavage samples from women at high risk for breast cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14:2620–7.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Khan SA, Lankes HA, Patil DB, et al. Ductal lavage is an inefficient method of biomarker measurement in high-risk women. Cancer Prev Res. 2009;2:265–73.CrossRef
46.
Arun B, Valero V, Logan C, et al. Comparison of ductal lavage and random periareolar fine needle aspiration as tissue acquisition methods in early breast cancer prevention trials. Clin Cancer Res. 2007;13:4943–8.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Ozanne EM, Esserman LJ. Evaluation of breast cancer risk assessment techniques: a cost-effectiveness analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2004;13:2043.PubMed
48.
Sharma P, Klemp JR, Simensen M, et al. Failure of high risk women to produce nipple aspirate fluid does not exclude detection of cytologic atypia in random periareolar fine needle aspiration specimens. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;87:59.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Xia W, Bacus S, Hedge P, et al. A model of acquired autoresistance to a potent ErbB2 tyrosine kinase inhibitor and a therapeutic strategy to prevent its onset in breast cancer. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2006;103:7795–800.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Chen FL, Xia W, Spector NL. Acquired resistance to small molecule ErbB2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Clin Cancer Res. 2008;14:6730–4.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Comparison of Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspirate versus Ductal Lavage for Risk Assessment and Prevention of Breast Cancer
Authors
Abigail Hoffman
Rod Pellenberg
Catherine Ibarra Drendall
Victoria Seewaldt
Publication date
01-09-2012
Publisher
Current Science Inc.
Published in
Current Breast Cancer Reports / Issue 3/2012
Print ISSN: 1943-4588
Electronic ISSN: 1943-4596
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-012-0081-9

Other articles of this Issue 3/2012

Current Breast Cancer Reports 3/2012 Go to the issue

Invited Commentary

Is HER2 Through?

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Prophylactic Mastectomy and Risk-Reducing Salpingo-oophorectomy in BRCA1/2 Mutation Carriers

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Tamoxifen versus Raloxifene versus Exemestane for Chemoprevention

Invited Commentary

Analysis of Cyclin D1 in Breast Cancer: A Call to Arms

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Clinical Perspective: Influence of Modifiable Lifestyle Factors, Body Weight, Physical Activity, and Alcohol on Breast Cancer Outcome

Risk, Prevention, and Screening (MC Liu, Section Editor)

Options for Surgical Prophylaxis and Reconstruction
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