No abstract

Background: Today, in cases of nipple discharge of unclear origin, the abundance of diagnostic procedures - a ‚diagnostic dilemma' - becomes apparent, because unequivocal indications and a current, standardized examination sequence are presently not available. The diagnostic workup of patients with nipple discharge usually includes the clinical history, physical examination, mammography, ultrasonography, galactography, and nipple discharge cytology, but not ductoscopy. Methods: In this review we analyze and discuss the possible role of ductoscopy in evaluating intraductal pathologies and its combined use with diagnostic imaging modalities. For this purpose, we reviewed and compared the results of the radiological, pathological, and surgical studies independently. Conclusions: Currently, there is no solitary accurate modality to reach our definitive purpose. Being aware of the capability of each diagnostic modality may take us closer to our target. Therefore, adjunct and appropriate use of multiple imaging modalities and ductoscopy is necessary to evaluate patients with nipple discharge.

Objective: Biopsy has long been the standard approach in Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System® (BI-RADS) 4 or BI-RADS 5 (American College of Radiology, Reston, VA) lesions despite a wide variation in reported incidence of malignancy in BI-RADS 4 lesions. This study examined the diagnostic value of breast MRI as well as its ability to decrease unnecessary biopsies in patients with solid breast lesions who had an indication for biopsy. Methods: In this retrospective study, 277 breast lesions with a documented histological diagnosis as established by ultrasound-guided biopsy were included. All patients were female, and biopsy was performed owing to a BI-RADS score of 4 or 5 on ultrasonography. In addition, all patients had undergone MRI before biopsy. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) of MRI in predicting malignancy were calculated.Results: When all lesions were analysed, sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV of MRI in detecting malignancy were 94.2%, 56.1%, 90.7% and 68.1%, respectively. When only ultrasonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions are considered, the corresponding figures were as follows: 90.9%, 56.7%, 93.8% and 46.4%, respectively. False-negative rate of MRI for the latter group of lesions was 2.6%. 42% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in sonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions. Conclusion: Despite promising results obtained in this study, dynamic MRI currently does not seem to be effective in ruling out the need for biopsy in the assessment of sonographic BI-RADS 4 lesions. However, advanced MRI techniques may assist in improving possible benefits of MRI in this patient group.