Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Diagnostic

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Modern Breast Cancer Imaging

Abstract

A clinical complaint referred by the patient can be the first indication of early-stage breast cancer and should always be valued by the physician. The most common complaint is a palpable lump in the breast, but other complaints such as burning feeling, pain, nipple discharge, and changes in color, texture, and appearance of the skin can also be mentioned by the patient. When a suspicious clinical finding is identified in the clinical breast examination, specific diagnostic imaging exams and a biopsy are indicated. For the different clinical scenarios, there are different workups that will identify the suspicious lesion and guide the procedures for an accurate diagnosis. In this chapter we focus on the following clinical scenarios: palpable changes of the breast, Paget disease and papillary discharge, occult breast cancer, and axillary disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Barton MB, Elmore JG, Fletcher SW. Breast symptoms among women enrolled in a health maintenance organization: frequency, evaluation, and outcome. Ann Intern Med. 1999;130(8):651–7. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-130-8-199904200-00005.

  2. Moy L, et al. ACR appropriateness criteria® palpable breast masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;(5S):S203–S224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.033.

  3. Ciatto S, Houssami N. Breast imaging and needle biopsy in women with clinically evident breast cancer: does combined imaging change overall diagnostic sensitivity? Breast. 2007;(4):382–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2007.01.007.

  4. Murphy IG, et al. Analysis of patients with false negative mammography and symptomatic breast carcinoma. J Surg Oncol. 2007;16(4):382–6. https://doi.org/10.1002/jso.20801.

  5. Michell MJ, Batohi B. Role of tomosynthesis in breast imaging going forward. Clin Radiol. 2018;73(4):358–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2018.01.001.

  6. Durfee SM, et al. Sonographic evaluation of clinically palpable breast cancers invisible on mammography. Breast Journal. 2000;6(4):247–51. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1524-4741.2000.99111.x.

  7. Gilbert FJ, Pinker-Domenig K. Diagnosis and staging of breast Cancer: when and how to use mammography, tomosynthesis, ultrasound, contrast-enhanced mmmography, and magnetic resonance imaging; 2019 Feb 20. In: Hodler J, Kubik-Huch RA, von Schulthess GK, editors. Diseases of the Chest, Breast, Heart and Vessels 2019–2022: Diagnostic and Interventional Imaging [Internet]. Cham (CH): Springer; 2019. Chapter 13. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-11149-6_13.

  8. Greenberg JS, et al. Clinical performance metrics of 3D digital breast tomosynthesis compared with 2D digital mammography for breast cancer screening in community practice. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(3):687–93. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12642.

  9. Gilbert FJ, et al. The TOMMY trial: a comparison of TOMosynthesis with digital mammography in the UK NHS breast screening programme – a multicentre retrospective reading study comparing the diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis and digital mammography with. Health Technol Assess. 2015;19(4):i–xxv, 1–136. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta19040.

  10. Vedantham S, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: state of the art1. Radiology. 2015;277(3):663–84. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2015141303.

  11. Shetty MK, Shah YP, Sharman RS. Prospective evaluation of the value of combined mammographic and sonographic assessment in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(3):263–8; quiz 269–70. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2003.22.3.263.

  12. Lehman CD, Lee AY, Lee CI. Imaging management of palpable breast abnormalities. Am J Roentgenol. 2014;203(5):1142–53. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.14.12725.

  13. Dennis MA, et al. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology. 2001;219(1):186–91 https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.219.1.r01ap35186.

  14. Bernardi D, et al. Application of breast tomosynthesis in screening: incremental effect on mammography acquisition and reading time. Br J Radiol. 2012;85(1020):e1174–8. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/19385909.

  15. Dang PA, et al. Addition of tomosynthesis to conventional digital mammography: effect on image interpretation time of screening examinations. Radiology. 2014;270:49–56. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.13130765.

  16. Liew PL, et al. Rapid staining and immediate interpretation of fine-needle aspiration cytology for palpable breast lesions: diagnostic accuracy, mammographic, ultrasonographic and histopathologic correlations. Acta Cytol. 2011;55(1):30–7. https://doi.org/10.1159/000320869.

  17. Spick C, et al. Breast MRI used as a problem-solving tool reliably excludes malignancy. Eur J Radiol. 2015;84(1):61–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2014.10.005.

  18. Sven J, Kister MD, Cushman D, Haagensen M. Paget’s disease of the breast. Am J Surg. 1970;119(5):606–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1776-9817(06)73026-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Fu W, Mittel VK, Young SC. Paget disease of the breast: analysis of 41 patients. Am J Clin Oncol. 2001;24(4):397–400. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000421-200108000-00019.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee HW, et al. Invasive Paget disease of the breast: 20 Years of experience at a single institution. Human Pathol. Elsevier Inc. 2014;45(12):2480–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.humpath.2014.08.015.

  21. Lim HS, et al. Paget disease of the breast: mammographic, US, and MR imaging findings with pathologic corelation. Radiographics. 2011;31(7):1973–88. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.317115070.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Zakaria S, et al. Paget’s disease of the breast: accuracy of preoperative assessment. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;102(2):137–42. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-006-9329-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Morrogh M, et al. MRI identifies otherwise occult disease in select patients with Paget disease of the nipple. J Am Coll Surg. 2008;206(2):316–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.07.046.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Ge LP, et al. Clinicopathological characteristics and treatment outcomes of occult breast cancer: a SEER population-based study. Cancer Manag Res. 2018;10:4381–91. https://doi.org/10.2147/CMAR.S169019.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Hessler LK, et al. Factors influencing management and outcome in patients with occult breast cancer with axillary lymph node involvement: analysis of the national cancer database. Ann Surg Oncol. Springer International Publishing,. 2017;24(10):2907–14. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-017-5928-x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Vlastos G, et al. Feasibility of breast preservation in the treatment of occult primary carcinoma presenting with axillary metastases. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;8(5):425–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10434-001-0425-6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Lu H, et al. Breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with occult breast carcinoma: evaluation on feasibility and correlation with histopathological findings. Chin Med J. 2011;124(12):1790–5. https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.issn.0366-6999.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Terada M, et al. Occult breast cancer may originate from ectopic breast tissue present in axillary lymph nodes. Breast Cancer Res Treat. Springer US,. 2018;172(1):1–7. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4898-4.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Wong YP, et al. Occult primary breast carcinoma presented as an axillary mass: a diagnostic challenge. Malays J Pathol. 2020;42(1):151–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Brandt KR, et al. Can digital breast tomosynthesis replace conventional diagnostic mammography views for screening recalls without calcifications? A comparison study in a simulated clinical setting. Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):291–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.8881.

  31. Gilbert FJ, Tucker L, Young KC. Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT): a review of the evidence for use as a screening tool. Clin Radiol. 2016;71(2):141–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2015.11.008.

  32. Murad TM, Contesso G, Mouriesse H. Nipple discharge from the breast. Ann Surg. 1982;195(3):259–64. https://doi.org/10.1097/00000658-198203000-00003.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Dawes LG, et al. Ductography for nipple discharge: no replacement for ductal excision. Surgery. 1998;124(4):685–91. https://doi.org/10.1067/msy.1998.91362.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. King TA, et al. A simple approach to nipple discharge. Am Surg. 2000;66(10):960–5; discussion 965–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Montroni I, et al. Nipple discharge: is its significance as a risk factor for breast cancer fully understood? Observational study including 915 consecutive patients who underwent selective duct excision. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;123(3):895–900. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0815-1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Morrogh M, et al. Lessons learned from 416 cases of nipple discharge of the breast. Am J Surg. Elsevier Inc. 2010;200(1):73–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2009.06.021.

  37. Adepoju LJ, et al. The value of clinical characteristics and breast-imaging studies in predicting a histopathologic diagnosis of cancer or high-risk lesion in patients with spontaneous nipple discharge. Am J Surg. 2005;190(4):644–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjsurg.2005.06.032.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Bahl M, Gadd MA, Lehman CD. Diagnostic utility of MRI after negative or inconclusive mammography for the evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge. Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(6):1404–10. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.17.18139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Sanders LM, Daigle M. The rightful role of MRI after negative conventional imaging in the management of bloody nipple discharge. Breast J. 2016;22(2):209–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12551.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rosa M, Mohammadi A, Masood S. The value of fine needle aspiration biopsy in the diagnosis and prognostic assessment of palpable breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2012;40(1):26–34. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.21497.

  41. Garg S, et al. A comparative analysis of core needle biopsy and fine-needle aspiration cytology in the evaluation of palpable and mammographically detected suspicious breast lesions. Diagn Cytopathol. 2007;35(11):681–9. https://doi.org/10.1002/dc.20721.

  42. Wang M, et al. A sensitivity and specificity comparison of fine needle aspiration cytology and core needle biopsy in evaluation of suspicious breast lesions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast. 2017;31:157–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2016.11.009.

  43. Homesh NA, Issa MA, El-Sofiani HA. The diagnostic accuracy of fine needle aspiration cytology versus core needle biopsy for palpable breast lump(s). Saudi Med J. 2005;26(1):42–6.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Imschweiler T, et al. MRI-guided vacuum-assisted breast biopsy: comparison with stereotactically guided and ultrasoundguided techniques. Eur Radiol. 2014;24(1):128–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-013-2989-5.

  45. Eby PR, Lehman C. MRI-guided breast interventions. In: Seminars in ultrasound, CT and MRI; 2006;27(4):339–50. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2006.05.008.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Departamento de Mastologia, Instituto do Cancer do Estado de Sao Paulo ICESP, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Karina Belickas Carreiro, Juliana Pierobon Gomes da Cunha & Jose Roberto Filassi

  2. Instituto de Radiologia INRAD, Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil

    Caio Dinelli

Authors
  1. Karina Belickas Carreiro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juliana Pierobon Gomes da Cunha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jose Roberto Filassi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Caio Dinelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jose Roberto Filassi .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Breast Imaging Department, Hospital Sírio-Libanês and Instituto de Radiologia (INRAD), Hospital das Clinicas HCFMUSP, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de Sao Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil

    Su Jin Kim Hsieh

  2. Department of Radiology, University of California Davis, Sacramento, CA, USA

    Elizabeth Anne Morris

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Carreiro, K.B., da Cunha, J.P.G., Filassi, J.R., Dinelli, C. (2022). Diagnostic. In: Kim Hsieh, S.J., Morris, E.A. (eds) Modern Breast Cancer Imaging. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84546-9_13

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84546-9_13

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84545-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84546-9

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation