IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0127895.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Repeated Nipple Fluid Aspiration: Compliance and Feasibility Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study

Author

Listed:
  • J S de Groot
  • C B Moelans
  • S G Elias
  • A Hennink
  • B Verolme
  • K P M Suijkerbuijk
  • A Jager
  • C Seynaeve
  • P Bos
  • A J Witkamp
  • M G E M Ausems
  • P J van Diest
  • E van der Wall

Abstract

Background: Despite intensive surveillance, a high rate of interval malignancies is still seen in women at increased breast cancer risk. Therefore, novel screening modalities aiming at early detection remain needed. The intraductal approach offers the possibility to directly sample fluid containing cells, DNA and proteins from the mammary ductal system where, in the majority of cases, breast cancer originates. Fluid from the breast can non-invasively be obtained by oxytocin-assisted vacuum aspiration, called nipple fluid aspiration (NFA). The goal of this feasibility study was to evaluate the potential of repeated NFA, which is a critical and essential step to evaluate its possible value as a breast cancer screening method. Methods: In this multicenter, prospective study, we annually collected nipple fluid for up to 5 consecutive years from women at increased breast cancer risk, and performed a questionnaire-based survey regarding discomfort of the aspiration. Endpoints of the current interim analyses were the feasibility and results of 994 NFA procedures in 451 women with total follow-up of 560 person years of observation. Results: In this large group of women at increased risk of breast cancer, repetitive NFA appeared to be feasible and safe. In 66.4% of aspirated breasts, nipple fluid was successfully obtained. Independent predictive factors for successful NFA were premenopausal status, spontaneous nipple discharge, smaller breast size, bilateral oophorectomy and previous use of hormone replacement therapy or anti-hormonal treatment. The procedure was well tolerated with low discomfort. Drop-out rate was 20%, which was mainly due to repeated unsuccessful aspiration attempts. Only 1.6% of women prematurely declined further participation because of side effects. Conclusions: Repeated NFA in women at increased breast cancer risk is feasible and safe. Therefore, NFA is a promising method to non-invasively obtain a valuable source of potential breast cancer specific biomarkers.

Suggested Citation

  • J S de Groot & C B Moelans & S G Elias & A Hennink & B Verolme & K P M Suijkerbuijk & A Jager & C Seynaeve & P Bos & A J Witkamp & M G E M Ausems & P J van Diest & E van der Wall, 2015. "Repeated Nipple Fluid Aspiration: Compliance and Feasibility Results from a Prospective Multicenter Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-15, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127895
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127895
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127895
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127895&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0127895?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0127895. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.