The Role of Ductal Lavage Cytology in the Diagnosis of Breast Cancer

Background: Nipple discharge is a common finding which may be a symptom of breast cancer, but it is mostly caused by benign causes. A surgical biopsy followed by a histopathological examination is considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of pathological nipple discharge. Non-surgical dia...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Archives of Iranian medicine 2022-11, Vol.25 (11), p.748-754
Main Authors: Kamalı, Gülçin Harman, Kamali, Sedat
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Breast cancer
Cellular biology
Magnetic resonance imaging
Mammography
Medical diagnosis
Original
Pathology
Citations: Items that this one cites
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Background: Nipple discharge is a common finding which may be a symptom of breast cancer, but it is mostly caused by benign causes. A surgical biopsy followed by a histopathological examination is considered to be the gold standard for the diagnosis of pathological nipple discharge. Non-surgical diagnostic methods should be considered to reduce the need for intervention. Ductal lavage cytology (DLC) is performed by washing and examining the ductal discharge. The usefulness of examining spontaneous discharge is controversial. This study’s aim is to evaluate the usefulness in surgical decision-making of ultrasonography (USG), mammography (MMG), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), ductography, and DLC in patients with pathological nipple discharge. Methods: Between 2011 and 2018, we retrospectively analyzed 141 patients with pathological nipple discharge who were planned to undergo a surgical procedure and were found to have pathology. In our study, the diagnostic efficiency of DLC for breast cancer diagnosis was compared with USG, MMG, MRI, and ductography. Results: USG was performed in all patients, MMG in 51, MRI in 56, ductography in 46 patients, and cytological samples were taken from 63 patients. Twelve of 17 patients with malignant pathology were reported cytologically as suspected malignancy. The sensitivity of DLC was 70.5% (95% CI: 0.489–0.922), and its specificity was 94.1% (95% CI: 0.862–1.020). Conclusion: Numerous studies report that cytology is not adequate for final diagnosis. Negative cytology does not exclude the possibility of malignancy, and positive results do not help in the differential diagnosis.
ISSN:1029-2977
1735-3947
DOI:10.34172/aim.2022.118