Suppr超能文献

在早期乳腺癌预防试验中,比较导管灌洗和随机乳晕周围细针穿刺作为组织获取方法的效果。

Comparison of ductal lavage and random periareolar fine needle aspiration as tissue acquisition methods in early breast cancer prevention trials.

作者信息

Arun Banu, Valero Vicente, Logan Catherine, Broglio Kristine, Rivera Edgardo, Brewster Abenaa, Yin Guosheng, Green Marjorie, Kuerer Henry, Gong Yun, Browne Doris, Hortobagyi Gabriel N, Sneige Nour

机构信息

Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas, M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.

出版信息

Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Aug 15;13(16):4943-8. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-2732.

Abstract

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.

摘要

目的

短期的I期和II期乳腺癌预防试验需要在基线期和干预后获取组织,以评估潜在生物标志物的调节情况。目前使用的组织获取方法包括导管灌洗(DL)、随机乳晕周围细针抽吸(RPFNA)和粗针活检。目前尚不清楚获取足够样本的最佳方法以及研究参与者最能接受的方法。

实验设计

我们通过评估参与两项前瞻性II期乳腺癌预防试验的受试者的样本充足性和耐受性,比较了RPFNA和DL作为短期乳腺癌预防试验的乳腺组织获取方法。本研究纳入了86名乳腺癌风险增加的女性,并对她们进行了基线期的DL和RPFNA。高风险定义为5年盖尔评分>1.67%或有非典型增生(AH)、小叶癌或乳腺癌病史。

结果

中位年龄为54.5岁(范围39 - 75岁);75%的女性已绝经。约51%的女性吸出乳头抽吸液,其中73%的受试者通过DL获取了乳腺液体样本。在这些样本中,71%为足够样本(超过10个上皮细胞)。然而,当考虑整个队列时,只有31%的受试者有足够样本。所有受试者也都尝试了RPFNA,样本获取率为100%。其中,96%的受试者有足够样本。在DL样本中,AH率为3.7%,增生(H)率为11.1%。在RPFNA样本中,AH率为12.9%,H率为24.7%。RPFNA样本的细胞学结果与年龄、绝经状态和乳腺癌风险类别(既往小叶原位癌病史)相关。两种操作的耐受性都很好,参与者中未发生并发症。

结论

考虑到短期预防试验的主要终点是生物标志物的调节,优化获取足够样本很重要;因此,与DL相比,RPFNA是未来I期和II期乳腺癌预防试验更实用的选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验