ArticleBMC cancer2022
Patient-centered research: how do women tolerate nipple fluid aspiration as a potential screening tool for breast cancer?
Article in BMC cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Nipple aspirate fluid as a proximal breast liquid biopsy platform: advancing precision risk management in breast cancer.Clinical proteomics · 2026Review
- Microbial Signatures in Breast Cancer: Exploring New Potentials Across Body Niches.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNipple fluid aspiration (NFA) is a technique to acquire nipple aspirate fluid (NAF), which is considered a rich source of breast-specific biomarkers. Originating directly from the mammary ducts, this liquid biopsy can offer insight into the process of carcinogenesis at its earliest stage and therefore could be of added value to the current imaging-based breast cancer screening tools. With that in mind, it is necessary to know how well NFA is tolerated.
aimTo evaluate the participants' tolerability of NFA compared to breast imaging screening methods and blood draws. MATERIALS AND
methodsThree cohorts of women underwent NFA: healthy women (n = 190), women diagnosed with breast cancer (n = 137) and women at high risk of developing breast cancer (n = 48). A 0-10 discomfort score of NFA, mammography, breast MRI and blood draws, was filled in at the study visits, which took place once or annually.
resultsThe median discomfort rate of NFA was 1, which was significantly lower than the median discomfort of mammography and breast MRI (5 and 3, respectively, p < 0.001), but significantly higher than median discomfort for blood draws (0, p < 0.001). The great majority of women would undergo the procedure again (98%) and recommend it to others (97%).
conclusionThis study shows that NFA was well tolerated by healthy women, women diagnosed with breast cancer and high-risk women. This makes NFA a feasible method to pursue as a potential future breast cancer early detection tool, based on resident biomarkers.
trial registrationNL41845.041.12 , NL57343.041.16 and NL11690.041.06 in trialregister.nl.
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.