Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40126685›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2025

An update on multimodal imaging strategies for nipple discharge: from detection to decision.

Mireia Pitarch, Rodrigo Alcantara, Laura Comerma, Ivonne Vázquez de Las Heras, Javier Azcona, Antonia Wiedemann, Maja Prutki, Eva Maria Fallenberg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Insights into imaging, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mireia PitarchDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain. mireiapitarch@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0877-4054
Rodrigo AlcantaraDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Laura ComermaDepartment of Pathology, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Ivonne Vázquez de Las HerasDepartment of Pathology, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Javier AzconaDepartment of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Hospital del Mar, Passeig Marítim de la Barceloneta, 25-29, 08003, Barcelona, Spain.
Antonia WiedemannDepartment of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, TUM School of Medicine & Health, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.
Maja Prutki *Department of Radiology, Clinical Hospital Centre Zagreb, University of Zagreb School of Medicine, Kispaticeva 12, HR-10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
Eva Maria Fallenberg *Department of Clinical Medicine, Institute of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, TUM School of Medicine & Health, Klinikum Rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, Munich (TUM), Ismaninger Str. 22, 81675, München, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Nipple discharge affects over 80% of women at some point in their lives, with malignancy detected in up to 23% of cases. This review highlights the shift from traditional surgical approaches to advanced imaging techniques, which enhance diagnostic accuracy and reduce unnecessary procedures. Diagnosis begins with a thorough medical history and physical examination to assess the need for imaging. Physiological nipple discharge, which is bilateral, multiductal, and non-spontaneous, typically requires no imaging. Conversely, pathological nipple discharge (PND), characteristically unilateral, uniductal, and spontaneous, requires imaging to rule out malignancy. Bloody PND is frequently associated with breast cancer, and up to 12% of non-bloody PND cases also involve malignancy. For women over 40 years, the first-line imaging modality is full-field digital mammography (FFDM) or digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), usually combined with ultrasound (US). Men with PND undergo FFDM/DBT starting at age 25 years due to their higher risk of breast cancer. For women aged 30-39 years, US is the first assessment tool, with FFDM/DBT added, if necessary, while US is preferred for younger women and men. When initial imaging is negative or inconclusive, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful, often replacing galactography. With its high sensitivity and negative predictive value of almost 100%, a negative MRI can often obviate the need for surgery. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) offers a viable alternative when MRI is not feasible. Although invasive, ductoscopy helps identify patients who may not require duct excision. This review consolidates the latest evidence and proposes an updated diagnostic algorithm for managing PND effectively. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Effective management of nipple discharge requires recognising when imaging tests are needed and selecting the most appropriate diagnostic technique to rule out malignancy and avoid unnecessary interventions. KEY POINTS: First-line imaging for pathological nipple discharge (PND) assessment includes ultrasound and mammography. MRI is recommended for patients with PND and negative conventional imaging. A negative MRI is sufficient to justify surveillance rather than surgery. Contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM) is an alternative when MRI is unavailable or contraindicated.

Indexed as

BreastDiagnostic imagingNipple discharge

Identifiers

PMID40126685
PMCPMC11933581

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.