Nipple discharge: the state of the art

Over 80% of females experience nipple discharge during their life. Differently from lactational (milk production) and physiological (white, green, or yellow), which are usually bilateral and involving multiple ducts, pathologic nipple discharge (PND) is a spontaneous commonly single-duct and unilateral, clear, serous, or bloody secretion. Mostly caused by intraductal papilloma(s) or ductal ectasia, in 5-33% of cases is due to an underlying malignancy. After clinical history and physical examination, mammography is the first step after 39, but its sensitivity is low (7–26%). Ultrasound shows higher sensitivity (63–100%). Nipple discharge cytology is limited by a false negative rate over 50%. Galactography is an invasive technique that may cause discomfort and pain; it can be performed only when the duct discharge is demonstrated at the time of the study, with incomplete/failed examination rate up to 15% and a difficult differentiation between malignant and benign lesions. Ductoscopy, performed under local anesthesia in outpatients, provides a direct visualization of intraductal lesions, allowing for directed excision and facilitating a targeted surgery. Its sensitivity reaches 94%; however, it is available in only few centers and most clinicians are unfamiliar with its use. PND has recently emerged as a new indication for contrast-enhanced breast MRI, showing sensitivity superior to galactography, with an overall sensitivity up to 96%, also allowing tailored surgery. Surgery no longer can be considered the standard approach to PND. We propose a state-of-the art flowchart for the management of nipple discharge, including ductoscopy and breast MRI as best options

overview of the role of pre operative breast mri in the absence of evidence on patient outcomes

The role of pre-operative breast MRI is outlined on the basis of the existing evidence in favor of a superior capability in comparison with mammography and sonography to detect ipsilateral and contralateral malignant lesions and to evaluate the disease extent, including the extensive intraductal component associated with invasive cancers. Patients with a potential higher anticipated benefit from pre-operative MRI can be identified as those: with mammographically dense breasts; with a unilateral multifocal/ multicentric cancer or a synchronous bilateral cancer already diagnosed at mammography and sonography; with a lobular invasive cancer; at high-risk for breast cancer; with a cancer which shows a discrepancy in size of >1 cm between mammography and sonography; or under consideration for partial breast irradiation. More limited evidence exists in favor of MRI for evaluating candidates for total skin sparing mastectomy or for patients with Paget's disease. Irrespective of whether the clinical team routinely uses preoperative MRI or not: women newly diagnosed with breast cancer should always be informed of the potential risks and benefits of pre-operative MRI; results of pre-operative MRI should be interpreted taking into account clinical breast examination, mammography, sonography and verified by percutaneous biopsy; MRI-only detected lesions require MR-guidance for needle biopsy and pre-surgical localization, and these should be available or potentially accessible if pre-operative MRI is to be implemented; total therapy delay due to pre-operative MRI (including MRI-induced work-up) should not exceed one month; changes in therapy planning resulting from pre-operative MRI should be decided by a multidisciplinary team

considerations on the application of eusoma criteria for preoperative mri

n/

Open issues for education in radiological research: data integrity, study reproducibility, peer-review, levels of evidence, and cross-fertilization with data scientists

We are currently facing extraordinary changes. A harder and harder competition in the field of science is open in each country as well as in continents and worldwide. In this context, what should we teach to young students and doctors? There is a need to look backward and return to "fundamentals", i.e. the deep characteristics that must characterize the research in every field, even in radiology. In this article, we focus on data integrity (including the "declarations" given by the authors who submit a manuscript), reproducibility of study results, and the peer-review process. In addition, we highlight the need of raising the level of evidence of radiological research from the estimation of diagnostic performance to that of diagnostic impact, therapeutic impact, patient outcome, and social impact. Finally, on the emerging topic of radiomics and artificial intelligence, the recommendation is to aim for cross-fertilization with data scientists, possibly involving them in the clinical departments

Clinical Breast MR Using MRS or DWI: Who Is the Winner?

Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of the breast gained a role in clinical practice thanks to the optimal sensitivity of contrast-enhanced (CE) protocols. This approach, first proposed 30 years ago and further developed as bilateral highly spatially resolved dynamic study, is currently considered superior for cancer detection to any other technique. However, other directions than CE imaging have been explored. Apart from morphologic features on unenhanced T2-weighted images, two different non-contrast molecular approaches were mainly run in vivo: proton MR spectroscopy (1H-MRS) and diffusion-weighted imaging (DWI). Both approaches have shown aspects of breast cancer (BC) hidden to CE-MRI: 1H-MRS allowed for evaluating the total choline peak (tCho) as a biomarker of malignancy; DWI showed that restricted diffusivity is correlated with high cellularity and tumor aggressiveness. Secondary evidence on the two approaches is now available from systematic reviews and meta-analyses, mainly considered in this article: pooled sensitivity ranged 71-74% for 1H-MRS and 84-91% for DWI; specificity 78-88% and 75-84%, respectively. Interesting research perspectives are opened for both techniques, including multivoxel MRS and statistical strategies for classification of MR spectra as well as diffusion tensor imaging and intravoxel incoherent motion for DWI. However, when looking at a clinical perspective, while MRS remained a research tool with important limitations, such as relatively long acquisition times, frequent low quality spectra, difficult standardization, and quantification of tCho tissue concentration, DWI has been integrated in the standard clinical protocols of breast MRI and several studies showed its potential value as a stand-alone approach for BC detection

Changes in total choline concentration in the breast of healthy fertile young women in relation to menstrual cycle or use of oral contraceptives: a 3-T 1H-MRS study

BACKGROUND: To evaluate changes in total choline (tCho) absolute concentration ([tCho]) in the breast of healthy fertile women in relation to menstrual cycle (MC) or use of oral contraceptives (OC). METHODS: After institutional review board approval, we prospectively evaluated 40 healthy fertile volunteers: 20 with physiological MC, aged 28 ± 3 years (mean ± standard deviation; nOC group); 20 using OC, aged 26 ± 3 years (OC group). Hormonal assays and water-suppressed single-voxel 3-T proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) were performed on MC days 7, 14, and 21 in the nOC group and only on MC day 14 in the OC group. [tCho] was measured versus an external phantom. Mann-Whitney U test and Spearman coefficient were used; data are given as median and interquartile interval. RESULTS: All spectra had good quality. In the nOC group, [tCho] (mM) did not change significantly during MC: 0.8 (0.3-2.4) on day 7, 0.9 (0.4-1.2) on day 14, and 0.4 (0.2-0.8) on day 21 (p = 0.963). In the OC group, [tCho] was 0.7 (0.2-1.7) mM. The between-groups difference was not significant on all days (p ≥ 0.411). All hormones except prolactin changed during MC (p ≤ 0.024). In the OC group, [tCho] showed a borderline correlation with estradiol (r = 0.458, p = 0.056), but no correlation with other hormones (p ≥ 0.128). In the nOC group, [tCho] negatively correlated with prolactin (r = -0.587, p = 0.006) on day 7; positive correlation was found with estradiol on day 14 (r = 0.679, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A tCho peak can be detected in the normal mammary gland using 3-T 1H-MRS. The [tCho] in healthy volunteers was 0.4-0.9 mM, constant over the MC and independent of OC use

Translating radiological research into practice — from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence. Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and—in a multidisciplinary approach—address clinical unmet needs. Key points • Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact. • Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs. • Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach.</p

Translating radiological research into practice — from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence. Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and—in a multidisciplinary approach—address clinical unmet needs. Key points • Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact. • Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs. • Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach.</p

Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact

At the European Society of Radiology (ESR), we strive to provide evidence for radiological practices that improve patient outcomes and have a societal impact. Successful translation of radiological research into clinical practice requires multiple factors including tailored methodology, a multidisciplinary approach aiming beyond technical validation, and a focus on unmet clinical needs. Low levels of evidence are a threat to radiology, resulting in low visibility and credibility. Here, we provide the background and rationale for the thematic series Translating radiological research into practice—from discovery to clinical impact, inviting authors to describe their processes of achieving clinically impactful radiological research. We describe the challenges unique to radiological research. Additionally, a survey was sent to non-radiological clinical societies. The majority of respondents (6/11) were in the field of gastrointestinal/abdominal medicine. The implementation of CT/MRI techniques for disease characterisation, detection and staging of cancer, and treatment planning and radiological interventions were mentioned as the most important radiological developments in the past years. The perception was that patients are substantially unaware of the impact of these developments. Unmet clinical needs were mostly early diagnosis and staging of cancer, microstructural/functional assessment of tissues and organs, and implant assessment. All but one respondent considered radiology important for research in their discipline, but five indicated that radiology is currently not involved in their research. Radiology research holds the potential for being transformative to medical practice. It is our responsibility to take the lead in studies including radiology and strive towards the highest levels of evidence. Critical relevance statement For radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact, radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies, go beyond the assessment of technical feasibility and diagnostic accuracy, and—in a multidisciplinary approach—address clinical unmet needs. Key points Multiple factors are essential for radiological research to make a clinical and societal impact. Radiological research needs to go beyond diagnostic accuracy and address unmet clinical needs. Radiologists should take the lead in radiological studies with a multidisciplinary approach