European Journal of Gynaecological Oncology (EJGO) is published by IMR Press from Volume 40 Issue 1 (2019). Previous articles were published by another publisher on a subscription basis, and they are hosted by IMR Press on imrpress.com as a courtesy and upon agreement with S.O.G.
Cite this article
Improving ductoscopy with duct lavage and duct brushing
S. Zervoudis1,3,*, Y. Tamer2, G. Iatrakis3, A. Bothou3, X. Tokou1, A. Augoulea1, V. Aranitis1, X. Spanopoulos1, E. Tomara3, X. Patralexis1
1 Rea Hospital, Athens (Greece)
2 Meet Ghmmr Oncology Center, Mansoura (Egypt)
3 Technological University of Athens, Athens (Greece)
Eur. J. Gynaecol. Oncol. 2014, 35(5), 548–553; https://doi.org/10.12892/ejgo25182014
Published: 10 October 2014
Aim: To assess the combined technique of duct lavage (DL) and duct brushing (DB) performed during ductoscopy in pathological nipple discharge (PND). Materials and Methods: The study was conducted in two hospitals: Rea (Greece) and in Meet Ghmmr Oncology Center (Egypt), from January 2011 to April 2013. Sixty-four women were enrolled.A sample of cells was collected with the use of DB. Afterwards, DL was performed. For each case, liquid cytology was compared to the final histology. Results: From the 19 histological diagnosis of duct ectasia, cytology by DL plus DB (CDLDB) was correct in 17 cases (89.5%). For 28 papillomas, CDLDB was correct in 19 cases (67.9%). For breast cancer (six cases), CDLDB was correct in five cases (83.3%). Also, CDLDB found 45.5% of miscellaneous benign cases. In total, cytology performed by CDLDB was correct in 46 of 64 patients: 71.9%. Thus, the sensitivity of CDLDB ranged from 67% to 90%, depending on the histological diagnosis. Conclusion: This technique showed a high accuracy, in contrast to other studies that used only DL.