Affiliations of authors: Departments of Internal Medicine (CJF), Radiation Oncology (BFK), and Preventive Medicine and Public Health (MSM), University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, KS
Correspondence to: Carol J. Fabian, MD, University of Kansas Medical Center, 3901 Rainbow Blvd., Kansas City, KS 66160 (e-mail: cfabian{at}kumc.edu)
Early detection via screening mammography has played a major role in the declining breast cancer mortality rates over the past decade (1,2). The impact of screening mammography on mortality rates is less for women younger than 50 years because of a lower test sensitivity and a lower rate of breast cancer (35). Sensitivity for detection of breast cancer in general screening populations has been reported as 61%81% for women aged 4049 years (5) and 87% for women aged 5064 years (6). The lower sensitivity is in turn attributed to higher breast density in younger women (7). Unfortunately, women at increased risk of breast cancer by virtue of having a family history of breast cancer, proliferative breast disease with or without atypia, or use of hormone replacement therapy with both estrogen and progestin are those most likely to have dense breasts (811). Sensitivity was recently reported to be only 33% in a group of 1909 young women (mean age = 40 years) with a family history of breast cancer, of which 358 were known mutation carriers (12). Newer imaging modalities, such as magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) (12) and digital mammography, may result in improved sensitivity in high-risk women with dense breasts. However, even these newer imaging modalities are associated with false-negative results, and the search continues for the nearly infallible early detection technique.
One of the classic physical signs of breast cancer is bloody nipple discharge. Because the majority of breast cancers are thought to evolve over a considerable period of time from an intraductal process, it is logical that we should be able to detect cancer at the preinvasive or minimally invasive phase by regularly examining ductal fluid. This hypothesis was certainly supported by the seminal work of Wrensch et al. (13,14), who found that women with atypical cells were at a higher risk of later developing breast cancer than women who did not produce nipple aspiration fluid (NAF). One problem with using NAF for risk assessment and/or early detection is that between 15% and 50% of women do not produce it (1316) and, of those who do produce NAF, only 27%84% have sufficient cells to allow a morphologic characterization (13,15).
Ductal lavage is an extension of the nipple aspiration technique developed to improve cell yield. For ductal lavage, NAF-producing ducts are cannulated and flushed with a physiologic solution, and the resulting effluent is examined for epithelial cells and cytomorphology. Cannulation of a fluid-producing duct is possible in 80% or more of women who produce NAF after manual massage and 90%100% in women with spontaneous nipple discharge (15,17). Ductal lavage of NAF-producing ducts has been reported to produce cellular specimens more frequently than NAF alone, and ductal lavage specimens generally have higher numbers of epithelial cells and cell clusters than NAF specimens (15,18). Furthermore, by carefully mapping the location of lavaged ducts and evaluating the cytomorphologic pattern from each duct separately, it is possible to re-examine any duct that contains markedly abnormal cells by a process known as ductoscopy. It is this potential for early detection that sets ductal lavage apart from other minimally invasive methods of examining the breast epithelium for risk assessment.
In this issue of the Journal, Khan et al. (19) report the result of a difficult and meticulously performed study in which women undergoing mastectomy predominately for known cancer were studied for the ability to produce NAF and thus permit lavage. Lavage of NAF-producing ducts was carried out in the operating room after the patient was anesthetized. Gelatin-containing colored dye was injected into ducts that had been successfully lavaged. Mastectomy specimens underwent sub-gross sectioning, and areas of staining with and without obvious tumor were identified. Sections for microscopic evaluation were taken from both dye-stained and unstained areas.
Thirty-nine women with a mean age of 50 years had 44 breasts removed, and 38 of these breasts were reported to have histologic evidence of cancer, although one had only lobular carcinoma in situ. Twenty-nine (76%) of the 38 breasts with carcinoma in situ and/or invasive cancer produced NAF. Of the 38 cancerous breasts, only five (13%) had markedly atypical or malignant cells and 16 (42%) had mildly or markedly atypical cells in the ductal lavage effluent. Thus, the sensitivity (13%42%) for either definition of a positive result is too low to be acceptable for ductal lavage to be considered as a screening procedure for the majority of women at risk of developing breast cancer. The sensitivity for cancer detection by ductal lavage appears to be lower than reported for mammography in a young general screening population or for breast MRI in a high-risk population (5,7,12). However, a trial comparing ductal lavage, digital mammography, and breast MRI in young, high-risk women with high breast density would be of interest. Cytologic evidence of atypia can be the result of a papilloma, duct ectasia, radial scar, or even secretory changes in addition to atypical hyperplasia and cancer (2022). The high specificity reported by Khan et al. (19) is difficult to interpret, given that there were only six true-negatives (breasts without cancer).
An important concern about ductal lavage for either risk assessment or early detection is that epithelial cell examination has traditionally been limited to NAF-producing ducts. However, failure to produce NAF does not exclude finding atypia on histologic section (19) or by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration (16). Although lavage of nonNAF-producing ducts can be successfully performed, given the time and expense required to cannulate all ducts, this approach does not appear to be a feasible option for early detection and/or risk assessment.
Ductal lavage is currently undergoing evaluation as a supplementary risk assessment tool in a multi-institutional trial sponsored by Cytyc Corporation. In this study, women at increased risk for breast cancer will undergo ductal lavage of NAF-producing ducts every 6 months for 3 years. Cytologic assessment is performed at the individual participating institutions. The end point is association of ductal lavage cytomorphology with development of breast cancer.
Atypia in breast epithelium acquired by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration has already been demonstrated to predict short-term development of ductal carcinoma in situ and invasive cancer in a prospective single-institution trial (23). Random periareolar fine-needle aspiration, in our hands, is associated with a 94% rate of obtaining an adequate number of cells for cytologic assessment (23) and is being used to sample breast epithelium before and after a chemoprevention intervention in phase II trials (24). In randomized phase IIB trials comparing study agent to placebo, 130800 subjects with evaluable cytology at baseline and resampling are needed, depending on the end point (reversal of atypia or prevention of progression to atypia) and effect size anticipated (25). Ductal lavage is a theoretically attractive alternative to random periareolar fine-needle aspiration for early chemoprevention trials if re-cannulation of the same duct could reduce the variation that was observed between serial random periareolar fine-needle aspirations in the placebo group of a clinical trial (24). However, if the number of screened subjects needs to be dramatically increased because of lack of an adequate tissue specimen at baseline or resampling, then the cost and extended time frame necessary for studies with ductal lavage as the tissue sampling method becomes almost prohibitive. Accordingly, a multi-institution study sponsored by the National Cancer Institute in high-risk premenopausal women is comparing random periareolar fine-needle aspiration with ductal lavage as methods of tissue acquisition before and after a 12-month treatment with celecoxib.
In summary, ductal lavage cannot be considered a sensitive screening tool, given the absence of NAF and/or atypical cells in a sizable proportion of women with known cancer and presumably in women with occult cancer as well. Its use as a risk assessment tool and/or as an indicator of response to an intervention is still undergoing evaluation.
REFERENCES
1 Nystrom L, Andersson I, Bjurstam N, Frisell J, Nordenskjold B, Rutqvist LE. Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials. Lancet 2002;359:90919.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
2 Cancer Facts & Figures 2004. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society; 2004. p. 9. Available at: http://www.cancer.org/downloads/STT/CAFF2004PWSecured.pdf. [Last accessed: September 17, 2004.]
3 Hendrick RE, Smith RA, Rutledge JH 3rd, Smart CR. Benefit of screening mammography in women aged 4049: a new meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1997;(22):8792.[Medline]
4 Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, Yen MF, Duffy SW, Smith RA. Beyond randomized controlled trials: organized mammographic screening substantially reduces breast carcinoma mortality. Cancer 2001;91:172431.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
5 Humphrey LL, Helfand M, Chan BK, Woolf SH. Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:34760.
6 Banks E, Reeves G, Beral V, Bull D, Crossley B, Simmonds M, et al. Influence of personal characteristics of individual women on sensitivity and specificity of mammography in the Million Women Study: cohort study. BMJ 2004;329:477.
7 Carney PA, Miglioretti DL, Yankaskas BC, Kerlikowske K, Rosenberg R, Rutter CM, et al. Individual and combined effects of age, breast density, and hormone replacement therapy use on the accuracy of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:16875.
8 Boyd NF, Jensen HM, Cooke G, Han HL. Relationship between mammographic and histological risk factors for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1992;84:11709.[Abstract]
9 Ziv E, Shepherd J, Smith-Bindman R, Kerlikowske K. Mammographic breast density and family history of breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:5568.
10 Greendale GA, Reboussin BA, Slone S, Wasilauskas C, Pike MC, Ursin G. Postmenopausal hormone therapy and change in mammographic density. J Natl Cancer Inst 2003;95:307.
11 Tilanus-Linthorst M, Verhoog L, Obdeijn IM, Bartels K, Menke-Pluymers M, Eggermont A, et al. A BRCA1/2 mutation, high breast density and prominent pushing margins of a tumor independently contribute to a frequent false-negative mammography. Int J Cancer 2002;102:915.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
12 Kriege M, Brekelmans CT, Boetes C, Besnard PE, Zonderland HM, Obdeijn IM, et al. Efficacy of MRI and mammography for breast-cancer screening in women with a familial or genetic predisposition. N Engl J Med 2004;351:42737.
13 Wrensch MR, Petrakis NL, King EB, Miike R, Mason L, Chew KL, et al. Breast cancer incidence in women with abnormal cytology in nipple aspirates of breast fluid. Am J Epidemiol 1992;135:13041.[Abstract]
14 Wrensch MR, Petrakis NL, Miike R, King EB, Chew K, Neuhaus J, et al. Breast cancer risk in women with abnormal cytology in nipple aspirates of breast fluid. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:17918.
15 Dooley WC, Ljung BM, Veronesi U, Cazzaniga M, Elledge RM, O'Shaughnessy JA, et al. Ductal lavage for detection of cellular atypia in women at high risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:162432.
16 Sharma P, Klemp JR, Simonsen M, Welsko CM, Zalles CM, Kimler BF, Fabian CJ. 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;87:5964.[CrossRef][Medline]
17 Khan SA, Baird C, Staradub VL, Morrow M. Ductal lavage and ductoscopy: the opportunities and the limitations. Clin Breast Cancer 2002;3:18591.[Medline]
18 Ljung BM, Chew KL, Moore DH 2nd, King EB. Cytology of ductal lavage fluid of the breast. Diagn Cytopathol 2004;30:14350.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
19 Khan SA, Wiley EL, Rodriguez N, Baird C, Ramakrishnan R, Nayar R, et al. Ductal lavage findings in women with known breast cancer undergoing mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2004;96:15108.
20 Sneige N, Staerkel GA. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of ductal hyperplasia with and without atypia and ductal carcinoma in situ. Hum Pathol 1994;25:48592.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
21 Sidawy MK, Stoler MH, Frable WJ, Frost AR, Masood S, Miller TR, et al. Interobserver variability in the classification of proliferative breast lesions by fine-needle aspiration: results of the Papanicolaou Society of Cytopathology Study. Diagn Cytopathol 1998;18:15065.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
22 Masood S, Loya A, Khalbuss W. Is core needle biopsy superior to fine-needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis of papillary breast lesions? Diagn Cytopathol 2003;28:32934.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
23 Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Zalles CM, Klemp JR, Kamel S, Zeiger S, et al. Short-term breast cancer prediction by random periareolar fine-needle aspiration cytology and the Gail risk model. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:121727.
24 Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Brady DA, Mayo MS, Chang CH, Ferraro JA, 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;8:310517.
25 Fabian CJ, Kimler BF, Mayo MS, Grizzle WE, Masood S, Ursin G. Clinical approaches to the discovery and testing of new breast cancer prevention drugs. In: Kelloff GJ, Hawk ET, Sigman CC, editors. Cancer chemoprevention. Vol 2. Strategies for cancer chemoprevention. Totowa (NJ): Humana Press. In press 2004.
![]() |
||||
|
Oxford University Press Privacy Policy and Legal Statement |