Nipple Fluid Carcinoembryonic Antigen and Prostate-Specific Antigen in Cancer-Bearing and Tumor-Free Breasts

2001 ◽  
Vol 19 (5) ◽  
pp. 1462-1467 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yashuang Zhao ◽  
Sigitas J. Verselis ◽  
Neil Klar ◽  
Norman L. Sadowsky ◽  
Carolyn M. Kaelin ◽  
...  

PURPOSE: Mammograms and breast examinations are established methods for early breast cancer detection. Routine mammography screening reduces breast cancer mortality among women ages ≥ 50 years, but additional screening methods are needed. We and others have found high levels of carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) in nipple aspirate fluids (NAFs), but the usefulness for these bio-markers for early breast cancer detection is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: NAFs from one or both breasts of 388 women were analyzed for CEA, PSA, and albumin levels. The study included 44 women with newly diagnosed invasive breast cancers, 67 women with proliferative breast lesions (ductal and lobular carcinoma in situ and atypical ductal hyperplasia), and 277 controls without these breast lesions. Analyses were conducted using the log10-transformed CEA and PSA levels to normalize the distributions of these tumor markers. RESULTS: Nipple fluid CEAs are significantly higher for cancerous breasts than tumor-free breasts (median 1,830 and 1,400 ng/mL, respectively; P < .01). However, at 90% specificity of the assay (CEA = 11,750 ng/mL), the corresponding sensitivity for cancer detection is 32%. CEA levels are not significantly different for breasts with proliferative lesions compared with tumor-free breasts. Nipple fluid PSAs do not differ by tumor status. Analyses of NAF albumin-standardized CEAs and PSAs yield similar results. Nipple fluid CEA and PSA titers are correlated in the affected and unaffected breast of women with unilateral lesions. CONCLUSION: Nipple fluid CEAs are higher for breasts with untreated invasive cancers, but the test sensitivity is low. Nipple fluid PSA titers do not seem to be useful for breast cancer detection.

2015 ◽  
Vol 115 ◽  
pp. S65 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Perez-Liva ◽  
J.L. Herraiz ◽  
L. Medina-Valdés ◽  
J. Camacho ◽  
C. Fritsch ◽  
...  

2014 ◽  
Vol 18 (6) ◽  
pp. E113-E117 ◽  
Author(s):  
Judy A. Shackelford ◽  
Diana P. Weyhenmeyer ◽  
Linda K. Mabus

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. 205846011879121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georg J Wengert ◽  
Thomas H Helbich ◽  
Panagiotis Kapetas ◽  
Pascal AT Baltzer ◽  
Katja Pinker

Mammography, as the primary screening modality, has facilitated a substantial decrease in breast cancer-related mortality in the general population. However, the sensitivity of mammography for breast cancer detection is decreased in women with higher breast densities, which is an independent risk factor for breast cancer. With increasing public awareness of the implications of a high breast density, there is an increasing demand for supplemental screening in these patients. Yet, improvements in breast cancer detection with supplemental screening methods come at the expense of increased false-positives, recall rates, patient anxiety, and costs. Therefore, breast cancer screening practice must change from a general one-size-fits-all approach to a more personalized, risk-based one that is tailored to the individual woman’s risk, personal beliefs, and preferences, while accounting for cost, potential harm, and benefits. This overview will provide an overview of the available breast density assessment modalities, the current breast density screening recommendations for women at average risk of breast cancer, and supplemental methods for breast cancer screening. In addition, we will provide a look at the possibilities for a risk-adapted breast cancer screening.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document