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.

This content is only available via PDF.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.