This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Morrogh, M. Articles by King, T. A. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Morrogh, M. Articles by King, T. A.

The Predictive Value of Ductography and Magnetic Resonance Imaging in the Management of Nipple Discharge

¹ Breast Service, Department of Surgery, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA
² Department of Radiology, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, 1275 York Avenue, New York, NY 10021, USA
³ Maimonides Cancer Center, 6300 8th Avenue, Brooklyn, NY 11220, USA

Correspondence: Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Tari A. King, M.D.; E-mail: kingt{at}mskcc.org

Background: Standard evaluation (physical examination, mammography, sonography) often fails to identify an underlying lesion in patients with suspicious nipple discharge. The aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of ductography (DG) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in this setting.

Methods: Using ICD-9 codes, we retrospectively identified 376 patients who presented with suspicious nipple discharge (ND) (1995–2005); 306 patients (68%) had negative standard evaluation.

Results: Among 306 patients, 186 (61%) underwent further evaluation with DG (n = 163) and/or MRI (n = 52), 35 (11%) underwent major duct excision alone (MDE), and 85 (28%) were followed clinically. Ultimately, 182/306 (59%) patients underwent surgery and/or biopsy. Overall incidence of malignant or high-risk pathology was 15% (46/306). DG was completed in 139/163 (85%) studies and detected 12 cancers and seven high-risk lesions (HRL), but failed to identify four cancers and 2 HRL (PPV 19%, NPV 63%). MRI detected seven cancers and three HRL, but failed to identify one cancer and one HRL (PPV 56%, NPV 87%). MDE alone (n = 35) detected five cancers and three HRL. Of all patients not having surgery, (142/306, 41%), one (0.01%) presented with an invasive cancer at 102 months (median follow-up, 6.3 months; range, 0–124 months).

Conclusions: An underlying malignancy was identified in 30/306 (10%) patients with ND and negative standard evaluation. Ductography is a poor predictor of underlying pathology and cannot exclude malignancy. MRI’s higher predictive values may allow for improved patient selection and treatment planning; however, MRI should not replace MDE as the gold standard to exclude malignancy in patients with ND and negative standard evaluation.

Key Words: Nipple discharge • Predictive value • MRI • Ductography

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. J. Fackler, A. Rivers, W. W. Teo, A. Mangat, E. Taylor, Z. Zhang, S. Goodman, P. Argani, R. Nayar, B. Susnik, et al. Hypermethylated Genes as Biomarkers of Cancer in Women with Pathologic Nipple Discharge Clin. Cancer Res., June 1, 2009; 15(11): 3802 - 3811. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. A. Schwab, M. Uder, R. Schulz-Wendtland, W. A. Bautz, R. Janka, and E. Wenkel Direct MR Galactography: Feasibility Study Radiology, October 1, 2008; 249(1): 54 - 61. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]