Breast ductography: to do or not to do? A pictorial essay

Abstract

Nipple discharge is a frequent breast disease clinical presentation. Although most cases of nipple discharge are physiologic, pathologic nipple discharge is not uncommon. Eight to 15% of pathological nipple discharge is associated with malignancy, requiring investigation. Some specialists believe that ductography is a challenging procedure that is better to be substituted by other methods, such as MRI. However, an experienced physician can perform ductography quickly and easily and still play an essential role in some clinical scenarios. Conventional imaging, such as mammography and sonography, commonly fails to detect the underlying causes of pathological nipple discharge. MRI has limitations of low specificity, cost, lengthy exam duration, accessibility, and patient factors such as claustrophobia. In addition, we can make a specific diagnosis and appropriate treatment by coupling ductography with other methods, such as ultrasound-guided or stereotactic biopsy. This study aims to present the ductography technique, possible findings, and the clinical settings where ductography is useful. Critical relevance statement Although ductography is currently less used in breast imaging, it still plays an essential role in some clinical scenarios. These clinical scenarios include pathological nipple discharge with negative conventional imaging, contraindicated MRI, unavailable MRI, unremarkable MRI results, and multiple MRI findings. Key points • Conventional imaging commonly fails to detect the underlying causes of pathological nipple discharge. • MRI in the setting of nipple discharge has some limitations. • Ductography still plays an essential role in some clinical scenarios. • Coupling ductography with other methods helps make a specific diagnosis. Graphical Abstract: [Figure not available: see fulltext.].