Twenty-year outcome following central duct resection for bloody nipple discharge.

BACKGROUND

Patients found with pathologic nipple discharge present a diagnostic dilemma to surgeons. No one diagnostic test, including cytology or radiologic imaging, has proved superior to any other in the differentiation of benign versus malignant sources of pathologic nipple discharge. Ductoscopy has been introduced as a way to assist with identification of potential sources of pathologic nipple discharge. Ductoscopy is also useful in the resection of deep or peripheral masses that may be missed with standard blind resection. This report evaluates the risk of missed malignancy following central duct resection (CDR).

METHODS

Records of 56 patients who underwent CDR for pathologic nipple discharge greater than 15 years previous were reviewed. Data including type of nipple discharge, future biopsy, and pathology reports were all examined.

RESULTS

Of the 56 patients, 36 had bloody, 18 serous, and 2 green initial discharges. Fifty-seven percent were found to have intraductal papilloma as the source of discharge, with fibrocystic disease and ductal ectasia providing the next most common causes. One woman was found to have ductal cancer and one lobular carcinoma in situ at time of CDR. Patients were followed for a mean period of 22 years. Fourteen women required future biopsy. Of these, 10 had benign disease and 4 had cancer, 3 on the ipsilateral side. The 3 women with breast cancer were 9, 13, and 17 years from initial resection.

CONCLUSIONS

CDR for pathologic nipple discharge is an effective way to diagnose and treat pathologic nipple discharge without missing underlying cancers.