ArticleCancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology2009
Reproducibility of random periareolar fine needle aspiration in a multi-institutional Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) cross-sectional study.
Article in Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Favorable modulation of benign breast tissue and serum risk biomarkers is associated with > 10 % weight loss in postmenopausal women.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2013Trial
- Reduction in Ki-67 in benign breast tissue of high-risk women with the lignan secoisolariciresinol diglycoside.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2010Trial
- Epigenetic Dysregulation ofCancers · 2021Article
- Gene expression in breast and adipose tissue after 12 months of weight loss and vitamin D supplementation in postmenopausal women.NPJ breast cancer · 2017Article
- Random periareolar fine-needle aspiration: the new pap smear of the breast?Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2012Review
- Comparison of Random Periareolar Fine Needle Aspirate versus Ductal Lavage for Risk Assessment and Prevention of Breast Cancer.Current breast cancer reports · 2012Article
- Pilot and feasibility study: prospective proteomic profiling of mammary epithelial cells from high-risk women provides evidence of activation of pro-survival pathways.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2012Article
- Protein microarray analysis of mammary epithelial cells from obese and nonobese women at high risk for breast cancer: feasibility data.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2011Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRandom periareolar fine needle aspiration (RPFNA) is a research technique developed to assess short-term breast cancer risk in women at increased risk of breast cancer. Although there is increasing acceptance of RPFNA, neither the reproducibility nor the inter-institutional compatibility of RPFNA has been established. To address these key limitations, the Cancer and Leukemia Group B (CALGB) Prevention Group tested the reproducibility of RPFNA in a multi-institutional cross-sectional study.
methodsSixty-three high-risk women from five CALGB institutions (Duke, Ohio State, Roswell Park, Dana Farber, and Vermont) underwent RPFNA from July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008. Duplicate bilateral RPFNA was performed on each woman by a single investigator on a single day. Masood Cytology Index score was assessed by a single blinded cytopathologist.
resultsThere was a high degree of statistical agreement in the Masood Cytology Index scores of duplicate RPFNA samples from the same breast, with a Spearman correlation coefficient of 0.8312 (P < 0.0001). Importantly, although there was agreement in duplicate samples from the same breast, there was lack of agreement between duplicate samples from the opposite breast.
conclusionsThis multi-institutional study shows that RPFNA is a highly reproducible measure of breast cytology in a cooperative group cross-sectional trial. RPFNA did not show a high degree of agreement between breasts, suggesting that breast cancer risk and progression may occur at different rates in individual breasts from a single woman. These studies provide proof-of-principle for future RPFNA-based cooperative group prevention studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.