A comparison of mr imaging, galactography and ultrasonography in patients with nipple discharge
- 127 Downloads
The aim of this study is to assess the usefulness of three-dimensional contrastenhanced magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, compared with galactography and ultrasonography (US).
Fifty-five patients with bloody nipple discharge were investigated retrospectively. All patients were examined by galactography, ultrasonography and MR imaging. These three sets of findings were compared with the histopathological results from 16 intraductal biopsies, 3 excisional biopsies, 24 microdochectomies and 12 mastectomies.
Contrast enhanced MR imaging demonstrated all malignant lesions including ductal carcinomain situ (DCIS). Four cases of DCIS were not visualized by ultrasonography and three malignant lesions were missed by galactography. In the MR study, segmental clumped enhancement (positive predictive value = 100%), and focal mass with smooth border (negative predictive value = 87.5%) were the statistically significant predictive factors.
Among the three modalities, contrast-enhanced three-dimensional MR imaging demonstrated the location and distribution of the lesions most clearly, especially in cases of ductal carcinomain situ. It has the potential to be a useful diagnostic tool for patients with nipple discharge.
Key wordsMRI Ultrasonography Galactography, Nipple discharge
Ductal carcinoma insitu
Invasive ductal carcinoma
Spoiled gradient-recalled echo
Maximum intensity projection
Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 1).Taber L, Dean PB, Pentek Z: Galactography: the diagnostic procedure of choice for nipple discharge.Radiology 149:31–38, 1983.Google Scholar
- 14).American college of radiology (1998) Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS™). Third edition ed. Reston, VA, ACR.Google Scholar
- 17).Catty NJ, Mudan SS, Ravichandran D, Royle GT, Taylor I: Prospective study of outcome in women presenting with nipple discharge.Ann R coll Surg Engl 76:387–389, 1994.Google Scholar