Advertisement

Nipple Discharge

  • Anjali R. Thawani
  • Lillian M. ErdahlEmail author
Chapter

Abstract

The diagnosis and management of ductal carcinoma in situ is constantly evolving. Ductal carcinoma in situ is considered a “preinvasive” cancer of the breast, often considered a nonobligate precursor to invasive disease. It is generally discovered on screening mammography by the presence of calcifications. Key components of the history and physical exam can aid the surgeon in determining important aspects in the care of the patient. Treatment includes surgery, in the form of lumpectomy or mastectomy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy. Axillary staging is usually not necessary unless invasive disease is found. Genomic testing can aid the clinician in making decisions regarding the need for adjuvant therapy, thereby individualizing care for each patient and avoiding unnecessary morbidity.

Keywords

Ductal carcinoma in situ Evaluation Treatment Recurrence Prognosis Practical algorhythm Genomics Surgery 

References

  1. 1.
    Laronga C, Tollin S, Turanga K. History, physical examination, and staging. In: Keurer H, editor. Keurer’s breast surgical oncology. New York: The Mc-Graw Hill Companies; 2010. p. 126–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kato M, Simmons R. The evaluation and treatment of nipple discharge. In: Scott-Conner C, Dirbas F, editors. Breast surgical techniques and interdisciplinary management. New York: Springer; 2011. p. 179–86.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Adepoju LJ, Chun J, El-Tamer M, 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;190:644–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Neslon RS, Hoehn JL. Twenty year outcome following central duct resection for bloody nipple discharge. Ann Surg. 2006;243:522–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Simmons R, Adamovich T, Brennan M, et al. Nonsurgical evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge. Ann Surg Oncol. 2003;10(2):113–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray RJ, Pockaj BA, Karstaedt PJ. Navigating murky waters: a modern treatment algorithm for nipple discharge. Am J Surg. 2007;194:850–4; discussion, 854–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ashfaq A, Senior D, Pockaj B, et al. Validation of a modern treatment algorithm for nipple discharge. Am J Surg. 2014;208:222–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cabioglu N, Hunt K, Singletary SE, et al. Surgical decision making and factors determining a diagnosis of breast carcinoma in women presenting with nipple discharge. J Am Coll Surg. 2003;196(3):354–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sharma R, Dietz J, Wirght H, et al. Comparative analysis of minimally invasive microductectomy versus major duct excision in patients with pathologic nipple discharge. Surgery. 2005;138:591–6; discussion, 596–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Surgical OncologyAMITA Health SystemElk Grove VillageUSA
  2. 2.Department of SurgeryUniversity of IowaIowa CityUSA

Personalised recommendations