| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
REVIEW |
1 Departments of Internal Medicine
2 Radiation Oncology
3 Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Boulevard, Kansas City, KA 66160, USA
4 Department of Surgery, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA
(Requests for offprints should be addressed to C J Fabian; Email: cfabian{at}kumc.edu)
Breast tissue and duct fluid provide a rich source of biomarkers to both aid in the assessment of short-term risk of developing breast cancer and predict and assess responses to prevention interventions. There are three methods currently being utilized to sample breast tissue in asymptomatic women for risk assessment: nipple-aspirate fluid (NAF), random periareolar fine-needle aspiration (RPFNA) and ductal lavage. Prospective single-institution trials have shown that the presence of atypical cells in NAF fluid or RPFNA specimens is associated with an increased risk of breast cancer. Furthermore, RPFNA-detected atypia has been observed to further stratify risk based on the commonly used Gail risk-assessment model. A prospective trial evaluating risk prediction on the basis of atypical cells in ductal-lavage fluid is ongoing. The ability of other established non-genetic biomarkers (mammographic breast density; serum levels of bioavailable estradiol, testosterone, insulin-like growth factor-1 and its insulin like growth factor binding protein-3) to stratify risk based on the Gail model is as yet incompletely defined. Modulation of breast intra-epithelial neoplasia (i.e. hyperplasia with or without atypia) with or without associated breast-tissue molecular markers, such as proliferation, is currently being used to evaluate response in Phase II chemoprevention trials. RPFNA has been the method most frequently used for Phase II studies of 6–12 months duration. However, ductal lavage, RPFNA and random and directed core needle biopsies are all being utilized in ongoing multi-institutional Phase II studies. The strengths and weaknesses of each method are reviewed.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. H. Dairkee, J. Seok, S. Champion, A. Sayeed, M. Mindrinos, W. Xiao, R. W. Davis, and W. H. Goodson Bisphenol A Induces a Profile of Tumor Aggressiveness in High-Risk Cells from Breast Cancer Patients Cancer Res., April 1, 2008; 68(7): 2076 - 2080. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. C. Willey and C. Cocilovo Screening and Follow-up of the Patient at High Risk for Breast Cancer Obstet. Gynecol., December 1, 2007; 110(6): 1404 - 1416. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Antuofermo, M. A. Miller, S. Pirino, J. Xie, S. Badve, and S. I. Mohammed Spontaneous Mammary Intraepithelial Lesions in Dogs A Model of Breast Cancer Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., November 1, 2007; 16(11): 2247 - 2256. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 K. P. M. Suijkerbuijk, E. van der Wall, and P. J. van Diest Oxytocin: bringing magic into nipple aspiration Ann. Onc., October 1, 2007; 18(10): 1743 - 1744. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. J. Fabian Is There a Future for Ductal Lavage? Clin. Cancer Res., August 15, 2007; 13(16): 4655 - 4656. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Arun, V. Valero, C. Logan, K. Broglio, E. Rivera, A. Brewster, G. Yin, M. Green, H. Kuerer, Y. Gong, 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., August 15, 2007; 13(16): 4943 - 4948. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Z. Djuric, G. Chen, J. Ren, R. Venkatramanamoorthy, C. Y. Covington, O. Kucuk, and L. K. Heilbrun Effects of High Fruit-Vegetable and/or Low-Fat Intervention on Breast Nipple Aspirate Fluid Micronutrient Levels Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., July 1, 2007; 16(7): 1393 - 1399. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 A. Y. Ting, B. F. Kimler, C. J. Fabian, and B. K. Petroff Characterization of a preclinical model of simultaneous breast and ovarian cancer progression Carcinogenesis, January 1, 2007; 28(1): 130 - 135. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Visvanathan, D. Santor, S. Z. Ali, I. S. Hong, N. E. Davidson, and K. J. Helzlsouer The Importance of Cytologic Intrarater and Interrater Reproducibility: the Case of Ductal Lavage Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., December 1, 2006; 15(12): 2553 - 2556. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. Visvanathan, S. Sukumar, and N. E. Davidson Epigenetic Biomarkers and Breast Cancer: Cause for Optimism. Clin. Cancer Res., November 15, 2006; 12(22): 6591 - 6593. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 F. Mannello and G. A.M. Tonti Benign Breast Diseases: Classification, Diagnosis, and Management Oncologist, November 1, 2006; 11(10): 1132 - 1134. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Messina, W. McCaskill-Stevens, and J. W. Lampe Addressing the soy and breast cancer relationship: review, commentary, and workshop proceedings. J Natl Cancer Inst, September 20, 2006; 98(18): 1275 - 1284. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. J. Fackler, K. Malone, Z. Zhang, E. Schilling, E. Garrett-Mayer, T. Swift-Scanlan, J. Lange, R. Nayar, N. E. Davidson, S. A. Khan, et al. Quantitative multiplex methylation-specific PCR analysis doubles detection of tumor cells in breast ductal fluid. Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2006; 12(11): 3306 - 3310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
