This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Arun, B. Articles by Sneige, N. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Arun, B. Articles by Sneige, N. Related Collections Clinical Intervention Clinical Intervention: Biomarkers Clinical Intervention: Early-Phase (I/II) Clinical or Translational Trials Commentary

Comparison of Ductal Lavage and Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspiration as Tissue Acquisition Methods in Early Breast Cancer Prevention Trials

Authors' Affiliations: ¹ Breast Medical Oncology, Departments of ² Biostatistics, ³ Surgery, and ⁴ Pathology, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, and ⁵ Breast and Gynecologic Cancer Research Group, National Cancer Institute, Houston, Texas

Requests for reprints: Banu Arun, Breast Medical Oncology, and Clinical Cancer Prevention, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1155 Pressler Street CPB5, Houston, TX 77030. Phone: 713-792-2817; Fax: 713-794-4385; E-mail: barun{at}mdanderson.org.

Purpose: Short-term phase I and phase II breast cancer prevention trials require tissue acquisition at baseline and after intervention to evaluate modulation of potential biomarkers. Currently used tissue acquisition methods include ductal lavage (DL), random periareolar fine needle aspiration (RPFNA), and core needle biopsy. The optimum method to retrieve adequate samples and the most accepted method by study participants is not known.

Experimental Design: We compared RPFNA and DL as breast tissue acquisition methods for short-term breast cancer prevention trials by evaluating sample adequacy and tolerability in subjects who participated in two prospective phase II breast cancer prevention trials. Eighty-six women at increased risk for breast cancer were included in this study and underwent baseline DL and RPFNA. High risk was defined as having a 5-year Gail score of >1.67% or a history of atypical hyperplasia (AH), lobular carcinoma, or breast cancer.

Results: Median age was 54.5 years (range, 39-75 years); 75% of the women were postmenopausal. About 51% of the women yielded nipple aspiration fluid, and breast fluid samples via DL were retrieved in 73% of these subjects. Of these samples, 71% were adequate samples (greater than 10 epithelial cells). However, when the entire cohort was considered, only 31% of the subjects had adequate samples. RPFNA was also attempted in all subjects, and sample retrieval rate was 100%. Out of these, 96% of the subjects had adequate samples. In DL samples, AH rate was 3.7% was and hyperplasia (H) rate was 11.1%. In RPFNA samples, AH rate was 12.9%, and H rate was 24.7%. Cytology findings in RPFNA samples correlated with age, menopausal status, and breast cancer risk category (previous history of lobular carcinoma in situ). Both procedures were well tolerated, and no complications occurred among participants.

Conclusions: Considering that the main end point for short-term prevention trials is the modulation of biomarkers, it is important to optimize adequate sample acquisition; therefore, RPFNA is a more practical option for future phase I and II breast cancer prevention trials compared with DL.

Commentary

Is There a Future for Ductal Lavage?

Carol J. Fabian
Clin. Cancer Res. 2007 13: 4655-4656. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				C. J. Fabian Is There a Future for Ductal Lavage? Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2007; 13(16): 4655 - 4656. [Full Text] [PDF]