Article
Refine
Document Type
- Article (2) (remove)
Language
- English (2)
Has Fulltext
- yes (2)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (2)
Keywords
- - (2)
- Breast cancer (2)
- Nipple discharge (2)
- Ductoscopy (1)
- Endoscopic breast ductoscopy (1)
- Intraductal lesion (1)
- Mammography (1)
- Sonography (1)
Institute
Publisher
- S. Karger AG (2)
Background: This study aims to assess the role of ductoscopy for detecting intraductal anomalies in patients with nipple discharge in comparison to conventional tests and to find an effective combination of both approaches. Materials and Methods: Prior to duct excision, ductoscopy was performed in 97 women. Histologic and all other diagnostic results were compared. Sensitivity, specificity, and efficiency were calculated for all methods. These parameters were also calculated for all possible test combinations in 12 patients who had completed all tests. Results: Breast sonography reached the highest sensitivity (64.1%) and efficiency (64%); mammography had the highest specificity (100%). The sensitivity of ductoscopy was 53.2%, its specificity 60%, and its efficiency 55.1%. Among combinations of all methods, the combination ductoscopy + galactography was the most sensitive (80%). Mammography, magnetic resonance imaging, and ductoscopy were each 100% specific. Ductoscopy was the most efficient (75%) single method. Conclusion: Ductoscopy is a valuable test for diagnosing intraductal lesions in patients with nipple discharge. It is more efficient than conventional tests in patients undergoing all tests.
SummaryBackground: According to the literature, ductoscopy is gaining increasing importance in the diagnosis of intraductal anomalies in cases of pathologic nipple discharge. In a multicenter study, the impact of this method was assessed in comparison with that of standard diagnostics. Patients and Methods: Between 09/2006 and 05/2009, a total of 214 patients from 7 German breast centers were included. All patients underwent elective ductoscopy and subsequent ductal excision because of pathologic nipple discharge. Ductoscopy was compared with the following standard diagnostics: breast sonography, mammography, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), galactography, cytologic nipple swab, and ductal lavage cytology. The histological and imaging results were compared and contrasted to the results obtained from the nipple swab and cytologic assessment. Results: Sonography had the highest (82.9%) sensitivity, followed by MRI (82.5%), galactography (81.3%), ductoscopy (71.2%), lavage cytology (57.8%), mammography (57.1%), and nipple swab (22.8%). Nipple swabs had the highest (85.5%) specificity, followed by lavage cytology (85.2%), ductoscopy (49.4%), galactography (44.4%), mammography (33.3%), sonography (17.9%), and MRI (11.8%). Conclusion: Currently, ductoscopy provides a direct intraoperative visualization of intraductal lesions. Sensitivity and specificity are similar to those of standard diagnostics. The technique supports selective duct excision, in contrast to the unselective technique according to Urban. Therefore, ductoscopy extends the interventional/diagnostic armamentarium.