Literature DB >> 30106616

Nipple Discharge: Imaging Variability Among U.S. Radiologists.

Bhavika K Patel1, Christina Ferraro1, Heidi E Kosiorek2, Vilert A Loving3, Carl D'Orsi4, Mary Newell4, Richard J Gray5.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess radiologists' choice of imaging modality for the evaluation of clinical symptoms of physiologic nipple discharge (e.g., bilateral discharge, multiple-duct orifices, and yellow, green, or white color) and pathologic nipple discharge (e.g., unilateral discharge, single-duct orifices, spontaneous and serous discharge, and clear or bloodstained color).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: An online survey was sent to lead interpreting physicians at mammography facilities accredited by the American College of Radiology (ACR). Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square tests for frequency data and multinomial logistic regression.
RESULTS: A total of 849 responses to 8170 distributed surveys were received, for a response rate of 10.4%. For the workup of physiologic nipple discharge, 30% of respondents recommended screening mammography (SM); 24%, diagnostic mammography (DM) only; and 46%, both DM and targeted ultrasound (US) (DM plus US). For the workup of physiologic nipple discharge, practitioners in nonacademic settings and those who read breast images during less than 50% of their practice were significantly more likely to recommend DM (with or without US), compared with SM (the standard recommended by the ACR). Those reading breast images less than 50% of the time were also more likely to recommend MRI after conventional imaging revealed negative results. For the workup of pathologic nipple discharge, 91.0% of respondents recommended DM plus US; 8.5%, DM only; and fewer than 1.0%, SM. Nonacademic providers and those who read breast images less than 50% of the time were significantly less likely to recommend DM plus US (the standard recommended by the ACR), compared with DM only.
CONCLUSION: The present study shows variability in imaging modality selection among U.S. radiologists handling the imaging workflow for benign and pathologic nipple discharge. Radiologists do not uniformly follow ACR practice guidelines, which potentially leads to unnecessary workups and extra health care costs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mammography; nipple discharge; pathologic nipple discharge; physiologic nipple discharge

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30106616     DOI: 10.2214/AJR.18.19622

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol        ISSN: 0361-803X            Impact factor:   3.959


  4 in total

Review 1.  Magnetic resonance imaging in the evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge: indications and imaging findings.

Authors:  Naziya Samreen; Laura B Madsen; Celin Chacko; Samantha L Heller
Journal:  Br J Radiol       Date:  2021-02-05       Impact factor: 3.039

2.  The Value of Adding Ductography to Ultrasonography for the Evaluation of Pathologic Nipple Discharge in Women with Negative Mammography.

Authors:  Younjung Choi; Sun Mi Kim; Mijung Jang; Bo La Yun; Eunyoung Kang; Eun-Kyu Kim; So Yeon Park; Bohyoung Kim; Nariya Cho; Woo Kyung Moon
Journal:  Korean J Radiol       Date:  2022-09       Impact factor: 7.109

3.  Diagnostic performance of digital breast tomosynthesis in female patients with nipple discharge.

Authors:  Sanja Barsic Ostojic; Lora Grbanovic; Ana Tonklin; Lucija Kovacevic; Zlatko Marusic; Maja Prutki
Journal:  Cancer Rep (Hoboken)       Date:  2022-02-10

Review 4.  Nipple discharge: The state of the art.

Authors:  Giovanna Panzironi; Federica Pediconi; Francesco Sardanelli
Journal:  BJR Open       Date:  2018-11-07
  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.