Top

Published in:

01-12-2020 | Galactography | Educational Review

Multimodality approach to the nipple-areolar complex: a pictorial review and diagnostic algorithm

Authors: Javier del Riego, Mireia Pitarch, Clara Codina, Laura Nebot, Francisco J. Andreu, Oscar Aparicio, Alexandra Medina, Amaya Martín

Published in: Insights into Imaging | Issue 1/2020

Abstract

The anatomic and histologic characteristics of the nipple-areolar complex make this breast region special. The nipple-areolar complex can be affected by abnormal development and a wide spectrum of pathological conditions, many of which have unspecific clinical and radiological presentations that can present a challenge for radiologists. The nipple-areolar complex requires a specific imaging workup in which a multimodal approach is essential. Radiologists need to know the different imaging modalities used to study the nipple-areolar complex, as well as their advantages and limitations. It is essential to get acquainted with the acquisition technique for each modality and the spectrum of findings for the different conditions. This review describes and illustrates a combined clinical and radiological approach to evaluate the nipple-areolar complex, emphasizing the findings for the normal morphology, developmental abnormalities, and the most common benign and malignant diseases that can affect this region. We also present a diagnostic algorithm that enables a rapid, practical approach to diagnosing condition involving the nipple-areolar complex.

Stone K, Wheeler A (2015) A Review of anatomy , physiology , and benign pathology of the nipple. Ann Surg Oncol 22:3236–3240. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4760-4 CrossRefPubMed

Reisenbichler E, Hanley KZ (2019) Seminars in diagnostic pathology developmental disorders and malformations of the breast. Semin Diagn Pathol 36:11–15. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.semdp.2018.11.007 CrossRefPubMed

Pasquali P, Freites-Martinez A, Fortuño A (2016) Nipple adenoma: new images and cryosurgery treatment. Breast J 22:584–585. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12636 CrossRefPubMed

Nicholson BT, Harvey JA, Cohen MA (2009) Nipple-areolar complex : normal anatomy and benign and malignant processes. Radiographics 29:509–523. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.292085128 CrossRefPubMed

Geffroy D, Doutriaux-Dumoulins I (2015) Clinical abnormalities of the nipple-areola complex: the role of imaging. Diagn Interv Imaging 96:1033–1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diii.2015.07.001 CrossRefPubMed

Moon JY, Chang YW, Lee EH, Seo DY (2013) Malignant invasion of the nipple-areolar complex of the breast: usefulness of breast MRI. AJR Am J Roentgenol 201:448–455. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.12.9186 CrossRefPubMed

Liao CY, Wu YT, Wu WP et al (2017) Role of breast magnetic resonance imaging in predicting malignant invasion of the nipple-areolar complex. Medicine (Baltimore). https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000007170

Ferris-James DM, Iuanow E, Mehta TS, Shaheen RM, Slanetz PJ (2012) Imaging approaches to diagnosis and management of common ductal abnormalities. Radiographics 32:1009–1030. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.324115150

Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M, Osbourne K (2014) Diseases of the Breast (5th Edition). Philadelphia: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, pp. 3–14.

10.

Love SM, Barsky SH (2004) Anatomy of the nipple and breast ducts revisited. Cancer 101:1947–1957. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20559 CrossRefPubMed

11.

Tavassoli FA (1999) Pathology of the breast, 2nd edn Applenton & Lange

12.

Dillon DA, Lester SC (2009) Lesions of the nipple. Surg Pathol Clin 2:391–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.path.2009.02.010 CrossRefPubMed

13.

Kopans DB (2007) Breast Imaging, 3rd Edition. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

14.

Hens JR, Wysolmerski JJ (2005) Molecular mechanisms involved in the formation of the embryonic mammary gland. Breast Cancer Res 7:220–224. https://doi.org/10.1186/bcr1306 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

15.

Watson CJ, Khaled WT (2008) Mammary development in the embryo and adult: a journey of morphogenesis and commitment. Development 135:995–1003. https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.005439 CrossRefPubMed

16.

Seltzer V (1994) The breast: embryology, development, and anatomy. Clin Obstet Ginecol 37:879–880CrossRef

17.

Ishida LH, Alves HRN, Munhoz AM et al (2005) Athelia: case report and review of the literature. Br J Plast Surg 58:833–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2005.01.018 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Winocour S, Lamaine V (2013) Hypoplastic breast anomalies in the female adolescent breast. Semin Plast Surg 27:42–48CrossRef

19.

Romanini MV, Calevo MG, Puliti A et al (2018) Poland syndrome: a proposed classification system and perspectives on diagnosis and treatment. Semin Pediatr Surg 27:189–199. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sempedsurg.2018.05.007 CrossRefPubMed

20.

Brown MH, Somogyi RB (2015) Surgical strategies in the correction of the tuberous breast. Clin Plast Surg 42:531–549. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2015.06.004 CrossRefPubMed

21.

Giess CS, Keating DM, Osborne MP, Ng YY, Rosenblatt R (1998) Imaging retroareolar carcinoma : breast clinical , histopathologic features. Radiology 207:669–673.

22.

Yoon JH, Yoon H, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Park YV, Kim MJ (2017) Ultrasonographic evaluation of women with pathologic nipple discharge. Ultrasonography 36:310–320

23.

Bassett LW, Hirbawi IA, DeBruhl N, Hayes MK (1993) Breast evaluation from positioning : the view. Radiology 188:803–806CrossRef

24.

Eklund GW, Cardenosa G, Parsons W (1994) Assessing adequacy of mammographic image quality. Radiology 190:297–307CrossRef

25.

Huppe AI, Overman KL, Gatewood JB, Hill JD, Miller LC, Inciardi MF (2017) Mammography positioning standards in the digital era: Is the status quo acceptable? AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:1419–1425. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.17522

26.

Chong A, Weinstein SP, McDonald ES, Conant EF (2019) Digital breast tomosynthesis: concepts and clinical practice. Radiology 292:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019180760 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Horvat JV, Keating DM, Rodrigues-Duarte H, Morris EA, Mango VL (2019) Calcifications at digital breast tomosynthesis: imaging features and biopsy techniques. Radiographics 39:307–318. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180124

28.

Da Costa D, Taddese A, Cure ML, Gerson D, Poppiti Jr R, Esserman LE (2007) Common and unusual diseases of the nipple-areolar complex. Radiographics 27:S65–S77. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.27si075512

29.

Sripathi S, Ayachit A, Kadavigere R, Kumar S, Eleti A, Sraj A (2015) Spectrum of imaging findings in Paget ’ s disease of the breast—a pictorial review. Insights Imaging 6:419–429. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13244-015-0415-z

30.

Stavros AT (2004) Breast anatomy: the basis for understanding sonography. In: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins (ed) Breast ultrasound. pp 56–108

31.

Friedman EP, Hall-Craggs MA, Mumtaz H, Schneidau A (1997) Breast MR and the appearance of the normal and abnormal nipple. Clin Radiol 52:854–861CrossRef

32.

Gao Y, Brachtel EF, Hernandez O, Heller SL (2019) An analysis of nipple enhancement at breast MRI with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 39:10–27. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.2019180039 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Lim HS, Jeong SJ, Lee JS et al (2011) Paget disease of the breast : mammographic , US , and MR Imaging findings with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 31:1973–1987CrossRef

34.

Sakamoto N, Tozaki M, Hoshi K, Fukuma E (2013) Is MRI useful for the prediction of nipple involvement? Breast Cancer 20:316–322. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12282-012-0338-1 CrossRefPubMed

35.

Friedman PD, Swaminathan SV, Herman K, Kalisher L (2006) Breast MRI: the importance of bilateral imaging. AJR Am J Roentgenol 187:345–349. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.05.1052 CrossRefPubMed

36.

Headon HL, Kasem A, Mokbel K (2016) The oncological safety of nipple-sparing mastectomy: a systematic review of the literature with a pooled analysis of 12,358 procedures. Arch Plast Surg 43:328–338. https://doi.org/10.5999/aps.2016.43.4.328 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

37.

Jakub JW, Peled AW, Gray RJ et al (2018) Oncologic safety of prophylactic nipple-sparing mastectomy in a population with BRCA mutations: A multi-institutional study. JAMA Surg 153:123–129. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2017.3422 CrossRefPubMed

38.

Dent BL, Miller JA, Eden DJ, Swistel A, Talmor M (2017) Tumor-to-nipple distance as a predictor of nipple involvement: expanding the inclusion criteria for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plast Reconstr Surg 140:1e–8e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000003414

39.

Jun S, Bae SJ, Cha YJ et al (2020) Significance of non-mass enhancement in the subareolar region on preoperative breast magnetic resonance imaging for nipple-sparing mastectomy. Clin Breast Cancer. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clbc.2020.02.005

40.

Berger N, Luparia A, Di Leo G et al (2017) Diagnostic performance of MRI versus galactography in women with pathologic nipple discharge: a systematic review and meta-analysis. AJR Am J Roentgenol 209:465–471. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.16.16682 CrossRefPubMed

41.

Zacharioudakis K, Kontoulis T, Zhao J et al (2019) Can we see what is invisible? The role of MRI in the evaluation and management of patients with pathological nipple discharge. Breast Cancer Res Treat. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0960-9776(19)30203-6

42.

Lubina N, Schedelbeck U, Roth A et al (2015) 3 . 0 Tesla breast magnetic resonance imaging in patients with nipple discharge when mammography and ultrasound fail. Eur Radiol 25:1285–1293. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-014-3521-2 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Bahl M, Baker JA, Greenup RA, Ghate SV (2015) Evaluation of pathologic nipple discharge : what is the added diagnostic value of MRI ? Ann Surg Oncol 22:S435–S441. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-015-4792-9 CrossRefPubMed

44.

Sanders LM, Daigle M (2016) The rightful role of mri after negative conventional discharge. Breast J 22:2019–2212. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.12551 CrossRef

45.

Slawson SH, Johnson BA (2001) Ductography : How to and what if? Radiographics 21:133–150CrossRef

46.

Berná-Serna JD, Torres-Alés C, Berná-Mestre JD, Sola-Pérez J, Canteras-Jordana M (2010) Galactography: an application of the Galactogram Imaging Classification System (GICS). Acta Radiol 51:128–136. https://doi.org/10.3109/02841850903436659

47.

Baydoun S, Gonzalez P, Whitman GJ, Dryden M, Xi Y, Dogan BBaydoun S, Gonzalez P, Whitman GJ, Dryden M, Xi Y, Dogan B (2019) Is ductography still warranted in the 21st century? Breast J 25:654–662. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13302

48.

Istomin A, Masarwah A, Pitkanen M et al (2018) Galactography is not an obsolete investigation in the evaluation of pathological nipple discharge. PLoS One 13:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0204326 CrossRef

49.

Srinivasan A, Nia E, Gupta M, Sun J, Leung JW (2019) Retrospective statistical analysis on the diagnostic value of ductography based on lesion pathology in patients presenting with nipple discharge. Breast J 25:585–589. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13298

50.

Kim H, Kang BJ, Kim SH, Lee JM (2020) Second-look breast ultrasonography after galactography in patients with nipple discharge. Med Ultrason 1:58. doi: 10.11152/mu-2141

51.

Aparicio O, Font J, Barcons S, Guerrero R, Sentis M, Navarro S (2015) Tratamiento definitivo de las lesiones premalignas de la mama sin cirugía: la escisión percutánea Intact-BLES. Rev Senol y Patol Mamar 28:148–153

52.

Wenkel E, Janka R, Uder M et al (2011) Does direct MR galactography have the potential to become an alternative diagnostic tool in patients with pathological nipple discharge? Clin Imaging 35:85–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2010.03.002 CrossRefPubMed

53.

Haagensen CD (1986) Diseases of the breast. In: Saunders W (ed) Dis. breast, 3rd Editio. Philadelphia, pp 357–368

54.

Rahal RMS, De Freitas-Júnior R, Paulinelli RR (2005) Risk factors for duct ectasia. Breast J 11:262–265. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.21684.x CrossRefPubMed

55.

Lee S-J, Sobel LD, Shamis M, Mahoney MC (2019) Asymmetric ductal ectasia: an often overlooked sign of malignancy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 213:473–481. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.18.20651 CrossRefPubMed

56.

Kim KW, Cho KR, Seo BK et al (2010) Sonographic findings of mammary duct ectasia: can malignancy be differentiated from benign disease. J Breast Cancer 13:19–26. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2010.13.1.19 CrossRef

57.

Berg W, Birdwell RL, Gombos EC, et al (2006) Diagnostic Imaging: breast, first edit. Salt Lake City

58.

Kim BS, Lee JH, Kim WJ et al (2013) Periductal mastitis mimicking breast cancer in a male breast. Clin Imaging 37:574–576. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2012.09.004 CrossRefPubMed

59.

Dixon M (1989) Periductal mastitis/ductal ectasia. World J Surg 13:715–720CrossRef

60.

Liu L, Zhou F, Wang P et al (2017) Periductal mastitis: an inflammatory disease related to bacterial infection and consequent immune responses? Mediators Inflamm. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/5309081

61.

An HY, Kim KS, Yu IK et al (2010) The nipple-areolar complex. J Ultrasound Med 29:949–962CrossRef

62.

Zuska JJ, Crile G, Ayres WW (1951) Fistulas of lactiferous ducts. Am J Surg 81:312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(51)90233-4 CrossRefPubMed

63.

Gollapalli V, Liao J, Dudakovic A, Sugg SL, Scott-Conner CE, Weigel RJ (2010) Risk factors for development and recurrence of primary breast abscesses. J Am Coll Surg 211:41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.007

64.

Schäfer P, Fürrer C, Mermillod B (1988) An association of cigarette smoking with recurrent subareolar breast abscess. Int J Epidemiol 17:810–813. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/17.4.810 CrossRefPubMed

65.

Prats M, Arandés R, Puigdoménech L, Herranz M, Palacín A (1977) La fistulización periareolar recidivante. Barcelona: Quirúrgica 21:39–43

66.

Al Sarakbi W, Worku D, Escobar PF, Mokbel K (2006) Breast papillomas: current management with a focus on a new diagnostic and therapeutic modality. Int Semin Surg Oncol 3:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7800-3-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

67.

MacInnes EG, Haigh I, Nijhawan A, Hogan B (2019) Bloody nipple discharge in a man with benign papillomas: a case report. Cureus 11:4–7. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.4431 CrossRef

68.

Kalisher L, Rickert RR, Sharo RJ (1998) Solitary peripheral papilloma of the breast: a radiologic-Pathologic correlation of a benign lesionthat may mimic breastcancer on mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 171:605–609CrossRef

69.

Hussain AN, Policarpio C, Vincent MT (2006) Evaluating nipple discharge. Obstet Gynecol Surv 61:278–283CrossRef

70.

Eiada R, Chong J, Kulkarni S, Goldberg F, Muradali Dl (2012) Papillary lesions of the breast: MRI, ultrasound, and mammographic appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198:264–271. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7922

71.

Tominga J, Hama H, Kimura N, Takahashi S (2011) Magnetic resonance imaging of intraductal papilloma of the breast. J Comput Assist Tomogr 35:153–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0730-725X(03)00192-9 CrossRef

72.

Choi HY, Kim SM, Jang M et al (2019) Benign breast papilloma without atypia: outcomes of surgical excision versus US-guided directional vacuum-assisted removal or US follow-up. Radiology:190096. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190096

73.

Chang JM, Moon WK, Cho N et al (2011) Management of ultrasonographically detected benign papillomas of the breast at core needle biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:723–729. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.10.4615 CrossRefPubMed

74.

MacColl C, Salehi A, Parpia S, Hodgson N, Ramonas M, Williams P (2019) Benign breast papillary lesions diagnosed on core biopsy: upgrade rate and risk factors associated with malignancy on surgical excision. Virchows Arch. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00428-019-02626-5

75.

Grimm LJ, Bookhout CE, Bentley RC, Jordan SG, Lawton TJ (2018) Concordant, non-atypical breast papillomas do not require surgical excision: A 10-year multi-institution study and review of the literature. Clin Imaging 51:180–185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clinimag.2018.04.021

76.

Yamaguchi R, Tanaka M, Tse GM et al (2015) Management of breast papillary lesions diagnosed in ultrasound-guided vacuum-assisted and core needle biopsies. Histopathology. https://doi.org/10.1111/his.12477

77.

Perzin KH, Lattes R (1972) Papillary adenoma of the nipple (florid papillomatosis, adenoma, adenomatosis). Cancer 29:996–1009CrossRef

78.

Alhayo ST, Edirimanne S (2018) Clinically challenging case of nipple adenoma. Breast J 24:1084–1085. https://doi.org/10.1111/tbj.13089 CrossRefPubMed

79.

Oo KZ, Xiao PQ (2009) Infiltrating syringomatous adenoma of the nipple: clinical presentation and literature review. Arch Pathol Lab Med 133:1487–1489PubMed

80.

Carter E, Dyess DL (2004) Infiltrating syringomatous adenoma of the nipple: a case report and 20-year retrospective review. Breast J 10:443–447. https://doi.org/10.4172/2472-4971.1000146 CrossRefPubMed

81.

AlSharif S, Tremblay F, Omeroglu A, Altinel G, Sun S, Mesurolle B (2014) Infiltrating syringomatous adenoma of the nipple: Sonographic and mammographic features with pathologic correlation. J Clin Ultrasound 42:427–429. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.22150

82.

Spyropoulou GA, Pavlidis L, Trakatelli M et al (2015) Rare benign tumours of the nipple. J Eur Acad Dermatology Venereol 29:7–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12623 CrossRef

83.

Paliotta A, Sapienza P, D’ermo G et al (2016) Epidermal inclusion cyst of the breast: a literature review. Oncol Lett 11:657–660. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2015.3968 CrossRefPubMed

84.

Kim SJ, Kim WG (2019) Clinical and imaging features of a ruptured epidermal inclusion cyst in the subareolar area: a case report. Am J Case Rep 20:580–586. https://doi.org/10.12659/AJCR.914412 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

85.

Crystal P, Shaco-Levy R (2005) Concentric rings within a breast mass on sonography: lamellated keratin in an epidermal inclusion cyst. AJR Am J Roentgenol 184:47–48CrossRef

86.

Rahul K, Panda A, Handa N, Hari S (2015) Epidermal inclusion cyst in a male breast: parallel linear echoes (tram-track appearance) on sonography as a diagnostic clue. BMJ Case Rep 2015:2–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/bcr-2015-213045 CrossRef

87.

Lee HS, Park DW, Park CK et al (2001) Relationship between sonographic and pathologic findings in epidermal inclusion cysts. J Clin Ultrasound 29:374–383. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcu.1052 CrossRefPubMed

88.

Huneeus A, Schilling A, Horvath E, Pinochet M, Carrasco O (2003) Original studies retroareolar cysts in the adolescent. J Pediatr Adolesc Gynecol 16:45–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1083-3188(02)00238-3

89.

Wallace D, Sian A, Carne A, Irvine TE (2013) Diagnosis and management of retroareolar cysts in adolescents : a case report. J Surg Case Reports 7:52–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jscr/rjt052 CrossRef

90.

Lattin GE, Jesinger RA, Mattu MSER, Glassman LM (2013) Diseases of the male breast: radiologic- pathologic correlation. Radiographics 33:461–489CrossRef

91.

Iuanow E, Kettler M, Slanetz PJ (2011) Spectrum of disease in the male breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 196:247–259. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3994 CrossRef

92.

Nguyen C, Kettler MD, Swirsky ME et al (2013) Male breast disease: pictorial review with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 33:763–779. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.333125137 CrossRefPubMed

93.

Appelbaum AH, Evans GF, Levy KR, Amirkhan RH, Schumpert TD (1999) Mammographic appearances of male breast disease. Radiographics 19:559–568

94.

Kim SH, Kim YS (2019) Ultrasonographic and mammographic findings of male breast disease. J Ultrasound Med 38:243–252. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.14665 CrossRefPubMed

95.

Chen C-Y, Sun L-M, Anderson B (2006) Paget disease of the breast : changing patterns and treatment in the U.S. Cancer 107:1448–1458. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.22137

96.

Amano G, Yajima M, Moroboshi Y, Kuriya Y, Ohuchi N (2005) MRI accurately depicts underlying DCIS in a patient with Paget ’ s disease of the breast without palpable mass and mammography findings. Jpn J Clin Oncol 35:149–153. https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyi044

97.

Barreau B, De Mascarel I, Feuga C et al (2005) Mammography of ductal carcinoma in situ of the breast: review of 909 cases with radiographic-pathologic correlations. Eur J Radiol 54:55–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrad.2004.11.019 CrossRefPubMed

98.

Hofvind S, Iversen BF, Eriksen L, Styr BM, Kjellevold K, Kurz KD (2011) Mammographic morphology and distribution of calcifications in ductal carcinoma in situ diagnosed in organized screening. Acta Radiol 52:481–487. https://doi.org/10.1258/ar.2011.100357

99.

Greenwood HI, Heller SL, Kim S, Sigmund EE, Shaylor SD, Moy L (2013) Ductal carcinoma in situ of the breasts: review of MR imaging features. Radiographics 33:1569–1588

100.

Kuhl CK, Schrading S, Bieling HB et al (2007) MRI for diagnosis of pure ductal carcinoma in situ: a prospective observational study. Lancet 370:485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61232-X CrossRefPubMed

101.

Yoon GY, Choi WJ, Kim HH, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Chae EY (2020) Surgical outcomes for ductal carcinoma in situ : impact of preoperative MRI. Radiology 00:1–8

102.

Kuhl CK, Strobel K, Bieling H et al (2017) Impact of preoperative breast MR Imaging and MR-guided surgery on diagnosis and surgical outcome of women with invasive breast cancer with and without dcis component. Radiology 284:645–655. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2017161449 CrossRefPubMed

103.

Huang J, Mackillop WJ (2001) Increased risk of soft tissue sarcoma after radiotherapy in women with breast carcinoma. Cancer 92:172–180. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(20010701)92:1<172::AID-CNCR1306>3.0.CO;2-K CrossRefPubMed

104.

West JG, Qureshi A, West JE et al (2005) Risk of angiosarcoma following breast conservation: a clinical alert. Breast J 11:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1075-122X.2005.21548.x CrossRefPubMed

105.

Morgan EA, Kozono DE, Wang Q et al (2012) Cutaneous radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast: Poor prognosis in a rare secondary malignancy. Ann Surg Oncol 19:3801–3808. https://doi.org/10.1245/s10434-012-2563-4 CrossRefPubMed

106.

Chesebro AL, Chikarmane SA, Gombos EC, Giardino AA (2016) Radiation-associated angiosarcoma of the breast: what the radiologist needs to know. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2017:217–225. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.15.15888 CrossRef

107.

Chikarmane SA, Gombos EC, Jagadeesan J, Raut C, Jagannathan JP (2015) Breast MRI findings of radiation associated angiosarcoma of the breast (RAS). J Magn Reson Imaging 42:763–770. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.03.040

108.

Dogan A, Kern P, Schultheis B, Häusler G, Rezniczek GA, Tempfer CB (2018) Radiogenic angiosarcoma of the breast : case report and systematic review of the literature. BMC Cancer 18

Title: Multimodality approach to the nipple-areolar complex: a pictorial review and diagnostic algorithm
Authors: Javier del Riego
Mireia Pitarch
Clara Codina
Laura Nebot
Francisco J. Andreu
Oscar Aparicio
Alexandra Medina
Amaya Martín
Publication date: 01-12-2020
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Keywords: Galactography
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Ultrasound
Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Mammography
Ultrasound
Mammography
Published in: Insights into Imaging / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1869-4101
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-020-00896-1

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Multimodality approach to the nipple-areolar complex: a pictorial review and diagnostic algorithm

Abstract

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

European Society of Emergency Radiology: guideline on radiological polytrauma imaging and service (short version)

Clinical application of multi-material artifact reduction (MMAR) technique in Revolution CT to reduce metallic dental artifacts

Correction to: Advanced imaging in adult diffusely infiltrating low-grade gliomas

Performance indicators for radiation protection management: suggestions from the European Society of Radiology

Imaging of mandibular fractures: a pictorial review

Convolutional neural networks for brain tumour segmentation