Abstract
The nipple-areolar complex is evaluated as a separate region of the breast, and optimal clinical and diagnostic techniques are needed for best evaluation of the region because of the complicated anatomy and superficial location. In this chapter, we will discuss various diseases of nipple-areolar complex lesions, including Montgomery tubercles, nipple inversion, benign calcifications, inflammation, duct dilatations, intraductal papilloma, fibroadenomas, neurofibromatosis, dermatoses of the nipple, and breast malignancy. A comprehensive understanding of the anatomic variant and benign and malignant processes and the imaging features of each lesion are essential for accurate differentiation and diagnosis.
Access provided by CONRICYT-eBooks. Download chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
1 Introduction
The nipple-areolar complex is a specialized region of the mammary gland . It is a major anatomic landmark of the breast, serves to drain and express breast milk during lactation , and contains specialized cells for the function [1, 2]. The nipple contains many sensory nerve ending and smooth muscle bundles. The latter perform an erectile function to facilitate nursing. The pigmented tissues of the areola contain numerous apocrine sweat gland s and sebaceous glands , as well as hair follicles . The skin of the areola is thicker than the rest of the skin of the breast, tapering down toward the limbus of the areola. The surface of the nipple itself is irregular and contains numerous crevices. The mammary duct orifices are at the bottom of these crevices [1]. The nipple-areolar complex may be affected by a broad spectrum of disease [2,3,4].
2 Normal Appearance and Normal Variants
2.1 Montgomery Tubercles
The pigmented tissues of the areola include numerous apocrine sweat glands and sebaceous gland s, as well a s hair follicle s. The glands help lubricate the nipple-areolar surface . The nipple-areolar complex contains raised structures on the surface of the areola known as Montgomery tubercles (Fig. 8.1) [2,3,4].
2.2 Nipple Retraction or Inversion
The terms retraction and inversion are used interchangeably, but that is incorrect usage. Nipple inversion should only be used when the entire nipple is pulled inward, whereas retraction should be used when the nipple only has an inward slit-like area [2].
Nipple retraction and inversion are either congenital or acquired and either unilateral or bilateral [2, 3]. Nipple inversions typically occur during puberty . Nipple inversions are normal variants of the nipple position or result from the development of fibrous tissue between the nipple and the subareolar parenchyma . This condition hinders breast-feeding and predisposes to mastitis and abscess formation (Fig. 8.2) [5].
2.3 Accessory Nipples
Accessory nipples most commonly occur in the anterosuperior abdominal wall below the breast, but they may develop anywhere along the course of the embryologic mammary ridge , the so-called milk line , which extends bilaterally from the axilla to the inguinal area. The most inferior location of the accessory nipples has been in the proximal thigh. Accessory nipples may be confused with moles because they are pigmented [2,3,4].
3 Benign Processes
Benign lesions that affect the nipple-areolar complex are varied. These lesions include benign calcifications , inflammation , duct dilatations , intraductal papillomas (IDPs), fibroadenomas , neurofibromatosis , and dermatosis of the nipple.
3.1 Benign Calcifications
Nipple calcifications are rare [3, 6]; however, the glands and hair follicles of the nipple-areolar complex contain calcifications [3, 4]. Lucent-centered, spherical , or polygonal calcifications are generally benign calcifications, including the calcified debris in ducts, fat necrosis , and skin calcifications. Skin calcifications are usually scattered widely over the breast (Fig. 8.3). Multiple benign dermal calcifications often develop in a classic pattern within the periareolar surgical scars after breast reduction . Occasionally, they can project as intramammary deposits, but this problem can be solved by using tangential views [6].
3.2 Inflammation
Periductal mastitis is a suppurative inflammatory disease of the mammary gland and results from the obstruction of a small duct beneath the areola. Occasionally, an abscess (a collection of pus ) may develop. A subareolar abscess is unusual. Most cases of mastitis and breast abscesses occur during lactation , whereas subareolar abscesses mostly occur in non-lactating young and middle-aged women [3, 7].
Abscesses appear as irregular , poorly defined, or spiculated hyperdense masses caused by edema and inflammation on a mammography and cystic masses with low-level internal echoes, which are difficult to differentiate from intracystic neoplasm , on sonography (Fig. 8.4). When an abscess is suspected and associated with a mammographically suspicious finding, follow-up imaging in 4–6 weeks is recommended to ensure resolution of the suspicious mammographic findings.
A history of fever, breast pain and response to antibiotics help differentiate an abscess from a neoplasm . Because of the presence of breast pain and tenderness , clinical and mammographic examinations are often inadequate. Therefore, sonography is optimal imaging modality for assessment of mastitis or abscess of the breast [2, 3, 7, 8].
3.3 Mammary Duct Ectasia
Duct ectasia presents with a nipple discharge , nipple retraction , pain , or tenderness [3, 8]. Tubular or branching structures that converge toward the nipple are characteristic mammographic features of duct ectasia. Tubular or branching structures are most commonly seen in the subareolar area. Bilateral symmetric subareolar ductal dilatation is common in postmenopausal women but has no clinical importance [9]. However, if asymmetric subareolar duct dilatation is detected on mammograms, spot magnification views plus sonography may prove helpful in evaluating for an underlying mass , such as IDP or carcinoma [3, 9].
On sonography , dilated ducts are filled with fluid, and concentrated secretions and debris are visible as intraductal echoes, which are difficult to differentiate from intraductal tumors (Fig. 8.5) [3, 8, 9]. Movement of echogenic materials on real-time sonography may be a diagnostic feature of ductal ectasia [3].
3.4 Intraductal Papilloma (IDP)
Intraductal papillomas are relatively common benign neoplasm originating from proximal ducts or retroareolar mammary ducts [10]. Papillomas are known to occur anywhere within the ductal system and are classified into central and peripheral types. Central types tend to be single and located in the subareolar region within major ducts, whereas peripheral types are commonly multiple within the terminal ductal-lobular unit . Peripheral duct types have an increased risk of carcinoma , which is directly related to the degree of cellular atypia . Histologically , papillomas reveal hyperplastic proliferation of the ductal epithelium , having a frond-like growth pattern with a branching fibromuscular core of myoepithelial and epithelial cells [11].
The sonographic features of IDP have three basic patterns : (1) an intraductal mass with or without duct dilatation , (2) an intracystic mass, and (3) a predominantly solid pattern with an intraductal mass totally filling the duct (Fig. 8.6). Dilated ducts or cysts with an intraductal or intracystic solid mass are the hallmark of IDP [11].
Small IDPs are often mammographically occult. A moderately dilated duct may be observed as progressively tapering band-like density that converges toward the nipple. Large IDPs may show a focal, well-circumscribed hyperdense mass [12].
3.5 Fibroadenomas
Fibroadenomas are the most common benign tumor of the breast. They are composed of epithelium and stroma of the terminal ductal-lobular units. Gross pathologic specimens of fibroadenomas usually show round, oval , or lobulated shapes , which are sharply defined by a pseudocapsule of compressed parenchyma . Therefore, fibroadenomas are typically well-circumscribed , round, or oval solid masses associated with smooth contours and homogeneous internal echoes on sonography [13, 14]. However, some fibroadenomas have atypical sonographic findings, such as poorly defined margin or irregular shape with heterogeneous internal echoes or posterior shadowing (Fig. 8.7) [15]. A poorly defined margin or an irregular shape is associated with interdigitation of the surrounding parenchyma with a mass [15, 16]. Other atypical sonographic findings, such as a heterogeneous internal echo texture and posterior shadowing, are related to dilated ducts , phyllodes , collagen bundles, adenosis, and microcalcifications [15,16,17,18,19].
3.6 Neurofibromas
Neurofibromas are common benign tumors that arise from the peripheral nervous system. Most neurofibromas occur in the skin of the trunk. However, breast involvement is very rare. However, these lesions are frequently seen in patients with neurofibromatosis and are most common in the areolar area [7, 20, 21].
Neurofibromas are oval or round with a well-circumscribed margin on mammography and sonography (Fig. 8.8). On sonography, they have hypoechoic nodules with a posterior acoustic enhancement , resembling cysts. This effect has been described with other solid tumors of uniform cellularity , such as a lymphoma [21,22,23].
3.7 Dermatoses of the Nipple and Areola
Dermatosis of the nipple and areola is rare. Neoplastic dermatoses can be underestimated because early dermatoses are scaly and erythematous and can be misdiagnosed as eczema or an inflammatory skin disorder. The most common neoplastic dermatosis is Paget’s disease , which presents as a well-demarcated erythematous area, sometimes erosive , oozing , or hyperkeratotic . In 98.5–100% of cases, Paget’s disease is associated with underlying breast carcinoma . Other neoplastic dermatoses of the nipple include nipple adenomas, soft fibroma (Fig. 8.9), epidermal cyst, and cellular blue nevi . Infectious dermatoses (viral warts (Fig. 8.10), molluscum contagiosum, and scabies) are accompanied by lesions in other sites [24,25,26].
4 Malignant Processes
4.1 Paget’s Disease
Paget’s disease of the breast is a rare disorder of the nipple-areolar complex, constituting 0.5–5% of all breast cancer , and is often associated with an underlying in situ or invasive carcinoma [27].
Eczematoid change and soreness, burning , and an itching sensation of the nipple-areolar complex are common and early symptoms. The later stages of Paget’s disease of the breast are characterized by ulceration , crusting , and serous or bloody discharge [28].
Paget’s disease of the breast shows malignant calcifications at the level of the nipple or elsewhere in the breast, skin thickening , nipple retraction , and a discrete mass or masses on mammography. However, mammographic findings are normal in half of patients with Paget’s disease of the breast [3].
Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) is useful to diagnose Paget’s disease of the breast and plays an important role in the selection of patients with Paget’s disease for breast-conserving surgery without clinical or mammographic evidence of breast carcinoma . Magnetic resonance images show abnormal nipple enhancement and linear clumped enhancement indicative of ductal carcinoma in situ in association with Paget’s disease (Fig. 8.11) [3, 27, 29].
4.2 Carcinoma
Malignant masses of the nipple-areolar complex may be more difficult to diagnose than cancers elsewhere in the breast, because subareolar masses can be easily confused with normal nipple structures on mammography . Therefore, additional diagnostic mammographic views (spot compression with or without magnification) may be used to improve the visibility of subareolar masses. On sonography, subareolar masses or intraductal lesions may be more easily identified than on mammography [1, 3]. Contrast-enhanced MR imaging is useful when mammographic and sonographic findings are inconclusive (Figs. 8.12 and 8.13) [3].
Underlying cancer may originate immediately deep to the nipple or extend XEfrom another location in the breast to the nipple-areolar complex [1,2,3]. Nipple retraction and ulceration XEare secondary signs of malignancy and may occur with the extension of advanced breast cancer to the skin surface [3, 4].
Conclusions
The nipple-areolar complex is affected by various diseases, which have unique and various clinical findings of this region of the breast. Clinical history and physical examination are most particularly important, and a tailored image evaluation with multiple modalities often is necessary to accurately diagnose an underlying abnormality of the nipple-areolar complex.
References
Kopans DB. Anatomy, histology, physiology, and pathology. In: Kopans DB, editor. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 3–27.
Nicholson BT, Harvey JA, Cohen MA. Nipple-areolar complex: normal anatomy and benign and malignant processes. Radiographics. 2009;29(2):509–23.
Da Costa D, Taddese A, Cure ML, Gerson D, Poppiti R Jr, Esserman LE. Common and unusual diseases of the nipple-areolar complex. Radiographics. 2007;27(Suppl 1):S65–77.
Kopans DB. Breast anatomy and basic histology, physiology, and pathology. In: Kopans DB, editor. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 7–43.
Kalbhen CL, Kezdi-Rogus PC, Dowling MP, Flisak ME. Mammography in the evaluation of nipple inversion. Am J Roentgenol. 1998;170(1):117–21.
Kopans DB. Interpreting the mammogram. In: Kopans DB, editor. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 365–479.
Kim HS, Cha ES, Kim HH, Yoo JY. Spectrum of sonographic findings in superficial breast masses. J Ultrasound Med. 2005;24(5):663–80.
Kopans DB. Breast ultrasound. In: Kopans DB, editor. Breast imaging. 3rd ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2007. p. 555–605.
Huynh PT, Parellada JA, de Paredes ES, Harvey J, Smith D, Holley L, Maxin M. Dilated duct pattern at mammography. Radiology. 1997;204(1):137–41.
Cilotti A, Bagnolesi P, Napoli V, Lencioni R, Bartolozzi C. Solitary intraductal papilloma of the breast. An echographic study of 12 cases. Radiol Med. 1991;82(5):617–20.
Ganesan S, Karthik G, Joshi M, Damodaran V. Ultrasound spectrum in intraductal papillary neoplasms of breast. Br J Radiol. 2006;79(946):843–9.
Boonjunwetwat D, Prathombutr A. Imaging of benign papillary neoplasm of the breast: mammographic, galactographic and sonographic findings. J Med Assoc Thail. 2000;83(8):832–8.
Cole-Beuglet C, Soriano RZ, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonomammography correlated with pathology in 122 patients. Am J Roentgenol. 1983;140(2):369–75.
Harper AP, Kelly-Fry E, Noe JS, Bies JR, Jackson VP. Ultrasound in the evaluation of solid breast masses. Radiology. 1983;146(3):731–6.
Jackson VP, Rothschild PA, Kreipke DL, Mail JT, Holden RW. The spectrum of sonographic findings of fibroadenoma of the breast. Investig Radiol. 1986;21(1):34–40.
Tohno E, Cosgrove DO, Sloane JP. Benign processes-tumors. In: Tohno E, editor. Ultrasound diagnosis of breast diseases. 1st ed. Edinburgh; New York: Churchill Livingstone; 1994. p. 76–91.
Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology. 1989;172(3):671–5.
Adler DD. Ultrasound of benign breast conditions. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 1989;10(2):106–18.
Guyer PB, Dewbury KC, Rubin CM, Butcher C, Royle GT, Theaker J. Ultrasonic attenuation in fibroadenoma of the breast. Clin Radiol. 1992;45(3):175–8.
Murat A, Kansiz F, Kabakus N, Kazez A, Ozercan R. Neurofibroma of the breast in a boy with neurofibromatosis type 1. Clin Imaging. 2004;28(6):415–7.
Gokalp G, Hakyemez B, Kizilkaya E, Haholu A. Myxoidneurofibromas of the breast: mammographical, sonographical and MRI appearances. Br J Radiol. 2007;80(958):e234–7.
Reynolds DL Jr, Jacobson JA, Inampudi P, et al. Sonographic characteristics of peripheral nerve sheath tumors. Am J Roentgenol. 2004;182(3):741–4.
Lin J, Martel W. Cross-sectional imaging of peripheral nerve sheath tumors: characteristic signs on CT, MR imaging, and sonography. Am J Roentgenol. 2001;176(1):75–82.
Cordoliani F, Rybojad M, Verola O, Espié M. Dermatoses of the nipple and the areola. Arch Anat Cytol Pathol. 1995;43(1–2):82–7.
Parlakgumus A, Yildirim S, Bolat FA, Caliskan K, Ezer A, Colakoglu T, Moray G. Dermatoses of the nipple. Can J Surg. 2009;52(2):160–1.
Iancu D, Nochomovitz LE. Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia: presentation as a mass in the female nipple. Breast J. 2001;7(4):263–5.
Amamo G, Yajima M, Moroboshi Y, Kuriya Y, Ohuchi N. 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. 2005;35:149–53.
Lloyd J, Flanagan AM. Mammary and extramammary Paget’s disease. J Clin Pathol. 2000;53:742–9.
Capobianco G, Spaliviero B, Dessole S, Cherchi PL, Marras V, Ambrosini G, Meloni F, Meloni GB. Paget’s disease of the nipple diagnosed by MRI. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;274:316–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kim, K.S. (2018). The Nipple-Areolar Complex: A Pictorial Review of Common and Uncommon Conditions. In: Shiffman, M. (eds) Nipple-Areolar Complex Reconstruction. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60925-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-60925-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-60924-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-60925-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)