**Part 2**

**Clinical Implications** 

196 Imaging of the Breast – Technical Aspects and Clinical Implication

Schilling, K., Narayanan, D., Kalinyak, J., The, J., et al. (2011). Positron emission

Sciuto, R., Pasqualoni, R., Bergomi, S., et al. (2002) Prognostic Value of 99mTc-Sestamibi

Tafra, L., Cheng, Z., Uddo, J., et al. (2005). Pilot Clinical Trial of 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose

Turkington, T. (2001). Introduction to PET Instrumentation. *Journal of Nuclear Medicine* 

Silverstein, M., et al. (2009). Image-Detected Breast Cancer: State-of-the-Art Diagnosis and

Smith, T.A. (1999). Facilitative glucose transporter expression in human cancer tissue. *British Journal of Biomedical Science.* Vol.56, No.4, (April 1999), pp. 285-292, ISSN 0967-4845 Wahl, R.L., Cody, R.L., Hutchins, G.D. & Mudgett E.E. (1991). Primary and metastatic breast

Weigert, J. (2007). Breast Specific Gamma Imaging (High Resolution Molecular Imaging of

Williams, M., Judy, P., Gunn, S., Majewski, S. (2010). Dual-Modality Breast Tomosynthesis.

Valinten, J. (2007)The 2007 Recommendations of the International Commission on

http://www.cardiolite.com/pdfs/Cardiolite%20US%20PI%20513121-0710%207-

*Technology*, Vol.29, No.1, (March 2001), pp. 1-8, ISSN 0091-4916

*Annual Meeting*. Chicago, Illinois, USA, November 25–30, 2007.

Cardiolite Drug Data Sheet. Lantheus Medical Imaging Division. Available from

*Radiology,* Vol.255, No.1 (April 2010), pp. 191-198, ISSN 0033-8419

Vol.38, No.1, (January 2011), pp. 23-36, ISSN 1619-7089

pp. 745–751, ISSN 0161-5505

pp. 765-770. ISSN 0033-8419

(March 2007) pp. 1–332. ISSN 0146-6453

9610

ISSN 1072-7515

20-2010.pdf

mammography in breast cancer presurgical planning: comparisons with magnetic resonance imaging. *European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging.* 

Washout in Predicting Response of Locally Advanced Breast Cancer to Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. *Journal of Nuclear Medicine,* Vol.43, No.6, (June 2002),

Positron-Emission Mammography in the Surgical Management of Breast Cancer. *American Journal of Surgery*, Vol.190, No.4, (October 2005), pp. ISSN 628-632. 0002-

Treatment. *Journal of the American College of Surgeons*. Vol.209, No.4, (October 2009),

carcinoma: initial clinical evaluation with PET with the radiolabeled glucose analogue 2-[F-18]-fluoro-2-deoxy-D-glucose. *Radiology*, Vol.179, No.3, (June 1991),

the Breast): A Useful Adjunct to Breast Imaging. *Radiologic Society of North America* 

Radiological Protection. ICRP publication 103. Ann ICRP 2007; Vol.37No.2-4,

**9** 

*Japan* 

**Suspicious Nipple Discharge** 

Yukiko Tokuda1 and Yoshinori Kodama2

*National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital* 

Nipple discharge (ND) is the third most common breast-related complaint after breast pain and breast mass, and accounts for nearly 7% of all breast symptoms (Hussain et al., 2006;

The diagnosis of ND begins with its characterization as either a physiological or pathological condition (Simmons et al., 2003). Physiological discharge, often a manifestation of breast manipulation, is usually bilateral, is white or green, and emanates from many ducts (Simmons et al., 2003). Possible causes of persistent physiological discharge include oral contraceptives, antihypertensives, tranquilizers, hypothyroidism, and pituitary adenoma (Simmons et al., 2003). Most NDs are physiological and are not associated with an underlying benign or malignant breast neoplasm (Sickles, 2000). A pathological discharge is generally unilateral, spontaneous, persistent, clear, watery, serous or bloody in appearance, and emanates from a single duct (Morrogh et al., 2007). Most of the common pathological causes of ND are benign (Hou et al., 2001; Hussain et al., 2006), and the most frequently encountered benign causes are intraductal papilloma, followed by ductal ectasia and fibrocystic disease (Hou et al., 2001; Morrogh et al., 2010; Sickles, 2000). The most important cause of pathological discharge is breast cancer. For single duct nipple discharges, the incidence of malignant or high-risk pathology is reported to be as high as 15% (Orel et al., 2000 citing Carty et al., 1994; Fung et al., 1990; Leis et al., 1989; Piccoli et al., 1998; Tabar et al., 1983; Winchester et al., 1996). In some cases, ND is the only sign of carcinoma (Hou et al., 2001). NDs that are bloody or serous in appearance, associated with a mass, and present in an elderly patient are more likely to be caused by malignant tumors (Das et al., 2001; El-Daly

& Gudi, 2010; Pritt et al., 2004; Tabar, 1983; Tjalma, 2004 citing Seltzer et al., 1970).

We defined suspicious ND as pathological ND, which is spontaneous, unilateral, and localized to a single duct, combined with at least one of the following characteristic findings associated a high risk of malignant disease: bloody or serous appearance, associated with a

If ND is multi-duct or bilateral, breast imaging is not required. However, single-duct ND is considered an indication for further investigation by mammography (MMG) and/or

**1. Introduction** 

Simmons et al., 2003 citing Leis et al., 1998).

mass, and occurrence in elderly patients.

ultrasonography (US) (EUSOMA, 2010).

1 Current Affiliation: NTT West Osaka Hospital, Japan

**Diagnostic Evaluation** 

*Department of Radiology1 and Pathology2* 
