University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas.
University of Arizona College of Medicine-Phoenix V.A. Health Care System, Phoenix, Arizona.
Breast J. 2019 Jul;25(4):585-589. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13298. Epub 2019 May 13.
To compare sensitivities and specificities of ductography to noninvasive imaging studies in determining the cause of nipple discharge and assess the value of ductography on the basis of pathologic results.
In this retrospective review of women with nipple discharge who underwent ductography between January 1, 2005 and October 30, 2015, at our institution, we compared ductography with noninvasive imaging results (mammography, ultrasound, MRI) to determine its relative diagnostic sensitivity, specificity, and relative accuracy. Diagnosis was defined from pathology results, clinical notes, and minimum of 1-year follow-up monitoring. The primary endpoints include accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value. The analyses were carried out in different configurations to compare results by the following pathologic categories: cancer, high-risk lesion, intraductal papilloma (IP) without atypia, and benign pathology and/or normal imaging results.
In patients with breast cancer, ductography and noninvasive breast imaging had similar sensitivities. In patients with a high-risk lesion, ductography was significantly more sensitive than noninvasive imaging modalities. In patients with intraductal papilloma without atypia, ductography was more sensitive than noninvasive imaging, but the difference was of only borderline significance. For women with benign pathology and/or normal imaging, noninvasive imaging showed a significantly higher specificity than ductography.
In the absence of standard diagnostic algorithm for patients presenting with nipple discharge, the clinician has numerous options to choose a diagnostic approach that will yield the most accurate information with the least disruption to the patient. Our results indicate the value of ductography compared to value of noninvasive imaging modalities when cancer is suspected and when high risk lesion is suspected. While we show the sensitivity of ductography is similar to noninvasive imaging modalities in the setting of cancer, the sensitivity of ductography is statistically valuable for diagnosing high-risk lesions. Our hope is that this study will emphasize more research and more understanding in clinical utility and management of high-risk lesions, leading to patient-focused algorithm for diagnosing the etiology of abnormal nipple discharge.
比较乳管造影术与非侵入性影像学检查在确定乳头溢液病因方面的敏感性和特异性,并根据病理结果评估乳管造影术的价值。
本研究回顾性分析了 2005 年 1 月 1 日至 2015 年 10 月 30 日期间在我院行乳管造影术的乳头溢液患者,将乳管造影术与非侵入性影像学(乳腺 X 线摄影、超声、MRI)结果进行比较,以确定其相对诊断敏感性、特异性和相对准确性。诊断根据病理结果、临床记录和至少 1 年的随访监测结果确定。主要终点包括准确性、敏感性、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值。分析采用不同的配置进行,根据以下病理类别进行比较:癌症、高危病变、非典型导管内乳头状瘤(IP)和良性病理学和/或正常影像学结果。
在乳腺癌患者中,乳管造影术和非侵入性乳腺影像学检查具有相似的敏感性。在高危病变患者中,乳管造影术明显比非侵入性影像学检查更敏感。在非典型导管内乳头状瘤患者中,乳管造影术比非侵入性影像学检查更敏感,但差异仅具有边缘意义。对于良性病理学和/或正常影像学患者,非侵入性影像学检查的特异性明显高于乳管造影术。
在没有针对乳头溢液患者的标准诊断算法的情况下,临床医生有多种选择,可以选择最准确的诊断方法,同时对患者的干扰最小。我们的结果表明,在怀疑癌症和高危病变时,乳管造影术与非侵入性影像学检查相比具有一定的价值。虽然我们发现乳管造影术在癌症患者中的敏感性与非侵入性影像学检查相似,但乳管造影术在诊断高危病变方面具有统计学意义。我们希望这项研究能强调更多的研究和更多的理解在临床应用和高危病变的管理,为诊断异常乳头溢液的病因提供以患者为中心的算法。