ArticleBreast cancer : basic and clinical research2015
An Improved Breast Epithelial Sampling Method for Molecular Profiling and Biomarker Analysis in Women at Risk for Breast Cancer.
Article in Breast cancer : basic and clinical research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early detection of breast cancer through the diagnosis of Nipple Aspirate Fluid (NAF).Clinical proteomics · 2024Review
- Characteristics of Breast Ducts in Normal-Risk and High-risk Women and Their Relationship to Ductal Cytologic Atypia.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2020Article
- Evaluation of nipple aspirate fluid as a diagnostic tool for early detection of breast cancer.Clinical proteomics · 2018Review
- MicroRNA analysis of breast ductal fluid in breast cancer patients.International journal of oncology · 2016Article
- Genomic Changes in Normal Breast Tissue in Women at Normal Risk or at High Risk for Breast Cancer.Breast cancer : basic and clinical research · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a strong need to define the molecular changes in normal at-risk breast epithelium to identify biomarkers and new targets for breast cancer prevention and to develop a molecular signature for risk assessment. Improved methods of breast epithelial sampling are needed to promote whole-genome molecular profiling, increase ductal epithelial cell yield, and reduce sample cell heterogeneity.
methodsWe developed an improved method of breast ductal sampling with ductal lavage through a 22-gauge catheter and collection of ductal samples with a microaspirator. Women at normal risk or increased risk for breast cancer were studied. Ductal epithelial samples were analyzed for cytopathologic changes, cellular yield, epithelial cell purity, quality and quantity of DNA and RNA, and use in multiple downstream molecular applications.
resultsWe studied 50 subjects, including 40 subjects at normal risk for breast cancer and 37 subjects with non-nipple aspirate fluid-yielding ducts. This method provided multiple 1.0 mL samples of high ductal epithelial cell content (median ≥8 samples per subject of ≥5,000 cells per sample) with 80%-100% epithelial cell purity. Extraction of a single intact ductal sample (fluid and cells) or the separate frozen cellular component provided DNA and RNA for multiple downstream studies, including quantitative reverse transcription- polymerase chain reaction (PCR) for microRNA, quantitative PCR for the human telomerase reverse transcriptase gene, whole-genome DNA amplification, and array comparative genomic hybridization analysis.
conclusionAn improved breast epithelial sampling method has been developed, which should significantly expand the acquisition and biomarker analysis of breast ductal epithelium in women at risk for breast cancer.
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.