Abstract
Purpose of Review
Benign and malignant breast diseases in young, pregnant and lactating women including pregnancy associated breast cancers will be reviewed.
Recent Findings
Compared to breast cancer in older women, poor prognostic indicators such as high nuclear grade, high Ki67 proliferation, estrogen receptor (ER) negativity, and overexpression of human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) may be present in young women. Even among ER + /HER2 cancers, young patients have a poorer prognosis. For pregnant women, the timing of care may be personalized based on gestational age, tumor subtype, clinical stage, and family planning considerations, including induction of labor and preservation of fertility for future pregnancies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy can be safely administered during the second and third trimesters, and if necessary, radiation therapy can be given after birth.
Summary
Symptomatic concerns warrant prompt imaging evaluation with biopsy to distinguish benign from malignant causes of breast disease in young, pregnant, and lactating women.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Because screening mammography is not performed in young women (< 40 years) with an average risk of developing breast cancer [1], breast imaging is usually performed when a clinical problem is identified. Even in the presence of a clinical problem, young women are more likely to have dense breasts, which can obscure both clinical and imaging findings. As a result, breast cancers in young women often present with a more advanced tumor size or with lymph node metastases. Breast cancer in young women is often higher grade and often consists of biologically aggressive cancer subtypes [2•, 3•]. Compared to older women, the risk of recurrence is not insignificant, with 40–50% recurring within 5 years [4] with a moderately high risk of developing contralateral breast cancer [5]. Even with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive luminal cancer, young women have poorer outcomes with an increased risk of breast cancer mortality compared to older women with stage-matched breast cancers [2•, 6, 7]. When a woman is pregnant or breastfeeding, physiological changes in the breast can cause both the woman and her doctor to dismiss concerns without considering an imaging test.
Imaging Considerations
Breast density decreases with age and with higher body mass index. Young women tend to have greater amounts of fibroglandular tissue because they are younger and leaner [8]. During pregnancy and lactation, high levels of estrogen, progesterone, and prolactin are present to support pregnancy and milk production, which further increase breast density. Due to the masking effect of dense fibroglandular tissue, digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) mammography is particularly advantageous over conventional digital mammography.
In DBT mammography, a moving x-ray beam follows an arc over the breast and acquires multiple thin slices of the breast, separating the overlapping components that comprise a conventional non-DBT digital mammogram image. As such, DBT mammography has advantages over conventional digital mammography [9, 10] which exist across both screening and diagnostic settings [11]. Regardless of whether DBT or conventional digital mammography is used, the primary goal of mammography is to evaluate for suspicious microcalcifications that other imaging tests demonstrate suboptimally. Despite the limitations of mammography in dense breasts, many studies have shown that mammographic sensitivity remains high during pregnancy, ranging from 74 to 100% [12,13,14,15,16]. Therefore, even if ultrasound is performed first and demonstrates a finding suspected to represent malignancy, mammography can be used to further define the extent of disease.
In women under the age of 30, ultrasound is recommended for the initial evaluation of a palpable abnormality or other symptomatic concerns. Both mammography and ultrasound may be utilized as the initial evaluation in women between the ages of 30–39 [17]. The main advantages of ultrasound are that it is readily available, does not use radiation, and has high diagnostic performance even in women with dense breasts. On ultrasound, dense fibroglandular tissue provides a hyperechoic background within which hypoechoic masses may be readily detected. With pregnant women, ultrasound is used as the initial evaluation, regardless of age [18]. Even though pregnancy increases breast stroma and density, ultrasound has close to 100% sensitivity and 100% negative predictive value for breast cancer detection in pregnant women [12,13,14,15, 19].
Indications for gadolinium enhanced MRI (Gd-MRI) of the breast include high risk screening in women with a >20% lifetime risk for developing breast cancer and for the initial staging of a new breast cancer diagnosis [20]. In pregnant women, Gd-MRI is contraindicated due to theoretical risks of heart deposition to the fetus, injury to developing auditory nerves due to high acoustic noise, fetal growth retardation, and possible neurotoxic effects of chelated gadolinium [21, 22]. Exposure to gadolinium has been described as a potential cause of inflammation in the developing baby with the potential to cause neonatal death [23]. Despite evidence suggesting there are no teratogenic effects of gadolinium at doses used in clinical practice [24], the American College of Radiology’s official stance has been that the use of gadolinium is contraindicated in pregnant women. Alternatively, MRI may be performed when the patient is postpartum or iodinated contrast enhanced mammography (CEM) may be considered in lieu of Gd-MRI of the breast.
The as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) principal dictates radiologists consider the necessity and the benefit versus risk associated with radiation to a young woman’s breasts and to the developing fetus. Low dose mammography is considered safe because a conventional 4-view mammogram delivers a radiation dose < 3 mGy to the breast. This exposure is equivalent 4 to 7 weeks’ background radiation [13, 24], and teratogenic effects have not been observed below 50 mGy. Abdominal shielding may be used to further decrease exposure to the fetus, though most of the radiation is dispersed due to scatter.
In lactating women, breastfeeding or pumping before imaging evaluation can help reduce breast density and tenderness, thereby helping to achieve better mammographic compression and minimizing ductal secretions and dilatation that may be seen by ultrasound and MRI. Finally, if there is a suspicious imaging finding, though there may be increased vascularity and dilated ducts due to lactational changes, percutaneous biopsy is generally considered safe with only minimally increased risk of infection or milk fistula. Additional measures to minimize the risk of milk fistula include breastfeeding or pumping immediately before the biopsy, using the smallest possible needle, selecting the shortest distance to the target, and avoiding crossing of ducts during the biopsy [25]. Studies show the amount of lidocaine and post biopsy hemorrhage content in breast milk after a percutaneous needle biopsy are minimal [26, 27]. Some women may choose to discard the breast milk in the short duration (12- 24 h) immediately after biopsy. Percutaneous needle biopsy helps establish a definitive diagnosis in cases where benign entities appear suspicious and when breast cancers may appear deceptively benign.
Breast Diseases in Young, Pregnant, and Lactating Women (Table 1)
Fibrocystic Change
Fibrocystic change is a spectrum of normal physiologic changes characterized by increased nodularity of the breast and breast tenderness that may fluctuate with changes in the hormonal levels throughout a menstrual cycle. Imaging may show dense breasts, dilated ducts, and cysts.
Fibroepithelial Tumors
This group of breast tumors includes tubular adenomas, lactating adenomas, fibroadenomas, and phyllodes tumors. Both tubular and lactating adenomas occur in young women and may be radiologically indistinguishable from fibroadenomas. Histologically, tubular adenomas, lactating adenomas are distinguished from fibroadenomas by the predominance of the epithelium and relative lack of stroma (Fig. 1). A lactating adenoma is comprised of aggregates of lobules with secretory hyperplasia and occurs during the third trimester or during the postpartum state (Fig. 2). Most lactating adenomas resolve spontaneously, however, some may persist or even increase in size requiring surgical excision [28]. Up to 30% of tubular adenomas and 50% of lactating adenomas may demonstrate suspicious imaging features of an irregular shape, non-circumscribed margins, or nonparallel orientation [29]. Fibroadenomas are the most common type of breast masses in young women. They are firm, rubbery, mobile masses composed of stromal elements. Phyllodes tumors are stromal tumors with variable malignant potential. At the benign spectrum, phyllodes may be radiologically and pathologically indistinguishable from a fibroadenoma [30] (Fig. 3). At the malignant spectrum, malignant phyllodes may demonstrate hematogenous metastasis with biologic behavior similar to a breast sarcoma. Due to higher hormonal levels during pregnancy, fibroepithelial tumors may grow. If a mass grows rapidly, infarction within the mass may result in cystic areas which contribute to a heterogeneous appearance with non-circumscribed margins.
Intraductal Papillomas
Nipple discharge is common among all women and is especially common in pregnant and lactating women. In this latter group, discharge is usually physiologic, and imaging is not indicated. Intraductal papillomas account for 22.2% of breast imaging cases evaluated for pathologic discharge [31•]. Intraductal papillomas are frondlike tumors arising within a duct (Fig. 4). Multiple peripheral papillomas have a higher likelihood of malignancy than single central duct papillomas. The need for surgical excision is predicated by the presence of atypia or not.
Galactoceles
Galactoceles are the result of milk stagnation secondary to an obstructed terminal ductal lobular unit. The sonographic appearance of galactoceles is variable, ranging from an oval or round hypoechoic mass with low-level echoes, a hyperechoic mass, or a complicated cystic mass with thin septations, often with posterior acoustic enhancement (Fig. 5). Galactoceles may rarely manifest with irregular shape and indistinct margins and may mimic the appearance of a solid mass. The imaging feature of a fat fluid level is pathognomonic for a galactocele. When fat-fluid levels are not present, aspiration may be both therapeutic and diagnostic if milk is returned on aspiration.
Puerperal Mastitis
Puerperal mastitis refers to infection related inflammation occurring during childbirth or the immediate postpartum period. Skin flora bacteria such as Staphylococcus or Streptococcus may enter the breast via skin abrasions and cracks in the nipple. Mammography may show skin thickening or trabecular thickening secondary to edema. Ultrasound may show hypoechoic areas due to edema with intervening ill-defined hyperechoic areas due to inflamed fat lobules. If mastitis progresses to abscess formation, a complicated cystic mass may become evident and require incision and drainage.
Idiopathic Granulomatous Mastitis (IGM)
IGM is a rare, benign, noninfectious, inflammatory disease of the breast. Though the etiology of IGM is unknown, a popular hypothesis revolves around breast feeding-induced secretions that can stimulate a local inflammatory response in the breast lobules [32]. Imaging features include a hypoechoic mass with tubular extensions and peripheral hypervascularity (Fig. 6). Treatment consists of steroids, immunosuppressants such as methotrexate, and bromocriptine to suppress prolactin production [33, 34].
Breast Cancers in Young Women
Breast cancers in young women (< 40 years of age) and the very young women (< 30 years of age) comprise an estimated 4–7% of all breast cancers [35]. According to the United States Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program data, up to 10.3% of breast cancers are diagnosed in women less than or equal to 45 years of age [36]. A significant subset of breast cancers in this age group includes pregnancy-associated breast cancer (PABC), defined as a breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy or within one year postpartum. The incidence of PABC is 1 in 3,000 to 10,000 pregnancies [13]. PABC accounts for 3% of all breast cancers and may be seen in association with genetic mutations. Because of the special circumstance of pregnancy, imaging and treatment considerations need modifications that consider multiple interdependent variables.
Multiple reasons exist for the observed poor prognosis of breast cancers in young patients. These include delays in diagnosis, which contribute to potentially larger tumors, lymphovascular invasion, lymph node metastases, as well as the more frequent occurrence of biologically aggressive cancer subtypes such as triple-negative breast cancers (TNBC) and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) positive breast cancers [37]. Even among luminal cancers, young patients have a poor prognosis compared to stage-matched older patients [38].
Breast cancers demonstrate variable imaging appearances based on the molecular subtype [39]. The classic features of an irregular mass with spiculated margins describe the ER positive/HER2 negative luminal cancers. In contrast, TNBCs may have a relatively benign appearance compared to luminal cancers [40] (Fig. 7). A heterogeneous, complex cystic mass with posterior acoustic enhancement may result from necrosis in rapidly enlarging tumors and may mimic breast abscesses or galactoceles (Fig. 8). The ultrasound descriptive terminology of parallel orientation has been described in 58% of PABC patients [41]. Depending on the presentation, there may be associated architectural distortion, nipple retraction, skin thickening, increased trabecular density and breast enlargement, or lymphadenopathy. As these imaging findings are encountered, an image-guided biopsy helps expedite a diagnosis, thereby allowing for initiation of treatment without delays in care.
Unique imaging and treatment considerations revolve around optimizing health outcomes for both the pregnant woman and her unborn child, including future fertility preservation goals [42, 43]. As with non-PABC breast cancers, treatment is multidisciplinary and may include neoadjuvant chemotherapy, surgery, adjuvant radiation or chemotherapy, targeted antibodies to HER2 receptors, and endocrine therapy after delivery. Particularly for TNBC, inflammatory breast cancers, large cancers, and those with lymph node metastases, neoadjuvant chemotherapies are commonly employed in current breast cancer treatment models. Chemotherapy may be safely administered during the second and third trimesters of pregnancy [44, 45]. Surgery is often deferred until the late second and third trimester. Trastuzumab, tamoxifen, and radiation therapy are contraindicated during pregnancy and lactation and therefore are reserved until postpartum after a deliberate decision is made to not nurse the newborn.
Conclusions
Because young women (< 40 years of age) are below the age at which routine annual screening is recommended, breast imaging is generally only performed upon presentation of a clinical concern. While most breast pathologies are benign, when breast cancers occur in young women, they are often associated with a poor prognosis. Reasons for this are multifactorial but appear to be related to aggressive cancer subtypes, advanced stage at presentation, as well as due to the young age. Pregnancy-associated breast cancers are a special subset of breast cancers occurring in young women. Imaging and treatment considerations often need to be modified and personalized due to the pregnancy. The multidisciplinary treatment of breast cancers in young women encompasses considerations of future family planning goals as well as the imminent concerns related to the health outcomes for the pregnant woman as well as her unborn child. In general, young women may be less compliant with endocrine therapies for ER-positive cancers, and systemic treatments must be tailored to the individual based on the pregnancy status and gestational age. Accordingly, the timing of breast surgery and labor induction may require coordination of care.
References
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance
Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, diFlorio RM, Green ED, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(11S):S383–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.08.044.
Kim HJ, Kim S, Freedman RA, Partridge AH. The impact of young age at diagnosis (age <40 years) on prognosis varies by breast cancer subtype: A U.S. SEER database analysis. Breast. 2022;61: 77–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2021.12.006. Findings from this study suggest that with modern clinical subtyping, age below 40 remains independently associated with poorer outcomes at 30 months of follow-up among ER-positive, lower-grade cancers.
Hu X, Myers KS, Oluyemi ET, Philip M, Azizi A, Ambinder EB. Presentation and characteristics of breast cancer in young women under age 40. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2021;186(1):209–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-020-06000-x. Findings from this study suggest prompt breast imaging for young women presenting with breast-related symptoms or an incidental breast finding, as younger patients have more aggressive cancer subtypes and are of a higher grade at presentation compared to older women. To minimize delays in diagnosis, the study also recommends carefully distinguishing suspicious symptoms from pregnancy-related breast changes.
Copson E, Eccles B, Maishman T, Gerty S, Stanton L, et al. POSH Study Steering Group. Prospective observational study of breast cancer treatment outcomes for UK women aged 18–40 years at diagnosis: the POSH study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105(13):978–88. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt134.
Yoon TI, Kwak BS, Yi OV, Kim S, Um E, Yun KW, et al. Age-related risk factors associated with primary contralateral breast cancer among younger women versus older women. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2019;173(3):657–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-5031-4.
Avci O, Tacar SY, Seber ES, Yetisyigit T. Breast cancer in young and very young women; Is age related to outcome? J Cancer Res Ther. 2021;17(6):1322–1327. https://doi.org/10.4103/jcrt.JCRT_545_20.
Chen HL, Zhou MQ, Tian W, Meng KX, He HF. Effect of age on breast cancer patient prognoses: A population-based study using the SEER 18 database. PLoS One. 2016;11(10):e0165409. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0165409.
Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, Trentham-Dietz A, Hampton JM, Wellman RD, et al. Prevalence of mammographically dense breasts in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2014;106(10):dju255. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dju255.
Østerås BH, Martinsen ACT, Gullien R, Skaane P. Digital Mammography versus breast tomosynthesis: Impact of breast density on diagnostic performance in population-based screening. Radiology. 2019;293(1):60–8. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2019190425.
Phi XA, Tagliafico A, Houssami N, Greuter MJW, de Bock GH. Digital breast tomosynthesis for breast cancer screening and diagnosis in women with dense breasts - a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):380. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-018-4263-3.
Whelehan P, Ali K, Vinnicombe S, Ball G, Cox J, Farry P, et al. Digital breast tomosynthesis: sensitivity for cancer in younger symptomatic women. Br J Radiol. 2021;94(1119):20201105. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr.20201105.
Yang WT, Dryden MJ, Gwyn K, Whitman GJ, Theriault R. Imaging of breast cancer diagnosed and treated with chemotherapy during pregnancy. Radiology. 2006;239(1):52–60. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2391050083.
Vashi R, Hooley R, Butler R, Geisel J, Philpotts L. Breast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: imaging modalities and pregnancy-associated breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2013;200(2):321–8. https://doi.org/10.2214/ajr.12.9814.
Ahn BY, Kim HH, Moon WK, Pisano ED, Kim HS, Cha ES, Kim JS, Oh KK, Park SH. Pregnancy- and lactation-associated breast cancer: mammographic and sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(5):491–7; quiz 498–9. https://doi.org/10.7863/jum.2003.22.5.491.
Robbins J, Jeffries D, Roubidoux M, Helvie M. Accuracy of diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound during pregnancy and lactation. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011;196(3):716–22. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.09.3662. Erratum in: AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 May;196(5):1237.
Taylor D, Lazberger J, Ives A, Wylie E, Saunders C. Reducing delay in the diagnosis of pregnancy-associated breast cancer: how imaging can help us. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2011;55(1):33–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1754-9485.2010.02227.x.
Moy L, Heller SL, Bailey L, D’Orsi C, DiFlorio RM, Green ED, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses. J Am Coll Radiol. 2017;14(5S):S203–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.02.033.
diFlorio-Alexander RM, Slanetz PJ, Moy L, Baron P, Didwania AD, Heller SL, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Imaging of Pregnant and Lactating Women. J Am Coll Radiol. 2018;15(11S):S263–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2018.09.013.
Chung M, Hayward JH, Woodard GA, Knobel A, Greenwood HI, Ray KM, et al. US as the primary imaging modality in the evaluation of palpable breast masses in breastfeeding women, including those of advanced maternal age. Radiology. 2020;297(2):316–24. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2020201036.
American College of Radiology (ACR). Committee on Drugs and Contrast Media. Manual on contrast media. https://www.acr.org/-/media/acr/files/clinical-resources/contrast_media.pdf Accessed on December 29, 2022.
Webb JAW, Thomsen HS, Morcos SK; Members of Contrast Media Safety Committee of European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR). The use of iodinated and gadolinium contrast media during pregnancy and lactation. Eur Radiol 2005;15:1234–1240
Ray JG, Vermeulen MJ, Bharatha A, Montanera WJ, Park AL. Association between MRI exposure during pregnancy and fetal and childhood outcomes. JAMA. 2016;316(9):952–61. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.12126.
Ciet P, Litmanovich DE. MR safety issues particular to women. Magn Reson Imaging Clin N Am. 2015;23:59–67.
Feig SA, Hendrick RE. Radiation risk from screening mammography of women aged 40–49 years. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1997;22:119–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimono/1997.22.119.
Larson KE, Valente SA. Milk fistula: diagnosis, prevention, and treatment. Breast J. 2016;22:111–2.
Alipour S. Local complications of breast surgery during pregnancy and lactation. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1252:101–5. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41596-9_13.
Mitchell KB, Johnson HM. Challenges in the management of breast conditions during lactation. Obstet Gynecol Clin North Am. 2022;49(1):35–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ogc.2021.11.002.
Barco Nebreda I, Vidal MC, Fraile M, Canales L, González C, Giménez N, García-Fernández A. Lactating adenoma of the breast. J Hum Lact. 2016;32(3):559–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334416646564.
Macedo M, Bassaganyas C, Ganau S, Sanfeliu E, Ubeda B, Bargallo X. Ultrasound findings of breast adenomas. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(11):2173–80. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15328.
Lawton TJ, Acs G, Argani P, Farshid G, Gilcrease M, Goldstein N, et al. Interobserver variability by pathologists in the distinction between cellular fibroadenomas and phyllodes tumors. Int J Surg Pathol. 2014;22(8):695–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1066896914548763.
Chung HL, Bevers TB, Legha RS, Speer ME, Tso HH, Sun J, et al. Nipple discharge imaging evaluation with mammography, ultrasound, galactography, and MRI. Acad Radiol. 2022; 24:S1076–6332(22)00316–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acra.2022.05.013. Findings from this study suggest that the combination of mammography and ultrasound can detect most malignant breast cancers associated with nipple discharge with a high NPV for malignancy. Intraductal papilloma was the etiology of pathologic nipple discharge among the few adolescent patients in this study cohort.
Pluguez-Turull CW, Nanyes JE, Quintero CJ, et al. Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis: manifestations at multimodality imaging and pitfalls. Radiographics. 2018;38:330–56.
Lai ECH, Chan WC, Ma TKF, Tang APY, Poon CSP, Leong HT. The role of conservative treatment in idiopathic granulomatous mastitis. Breast J. 2005;11:454–6.
Barreto DS, Sedgwick EL, Nagi CS, Benveniste AP. Granulomatous mastitis: etiology, imaging, pathology, treatment, and clinical findings. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018;171(3):527–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-018-4870-3.
Brinton LA, Sherman ME, Carreon JD, Anderson WF. Recent trends in breast cancer among younger women in the United States. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2008;100:1643–8.
Cancer Stat Facts: Female Breast Cancer. Available at https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/breast.html Accessed on January 4, 2023.
Middleton LP, Amin M, Gwyn K, Theriault R, Sahin A. Breast carcinoma in pregnant women: assessment of clinicopathologic and immunohistochemical features. Cancer. 2003;98(5):1055–60. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.11614.
Cancello G, Maisonneuve P, Rotmensz N, Viale G, Mastropasqua MG, Pruneri G, et al. Prognosis and adjuvant treatment effects in selected breast cancer subtypes of very young women (<35 years) with operable breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2010;21(10):1974–81. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq072.
Ma M, Liu R, Wen C, Xu W, Xu Z, Wang S, et al. Predicting the molecular subtype of breast cancer and identifying interpretable imaging features using machine learning algorithms. Eur Radiol. 2022;32(3):1652–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00330-021-08271-4.
Tian L, Wang L, Qin Y, Cai J. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the malignant ultrasound features of triple-negative breast cancer. J Ultrasound Med. 2020;39(10):2013–25. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15309.
Ayyappan AP, Kulkarni S, Crystal P. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: spectrum of imaging appearances. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(990):529–34. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/17982822.
Theriault RL, Rieber AG. Breast cancer treatment during pregnancy. Womens Health (Lond). 2005;1(2):195–203. https://doi.org/10.2217/17455057.1.2.195.
Litton JK. Breast cancer and fertility. Curr Treat Options Oncol. 2012;13(2):137–45. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11864-012-0185-5.
Tehrani OS. Systemic treatments in pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2020;1252:115–24. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-41596-9_15.
Berry DL, Theriault RL, Holmes FA, Parisi VM, Booser DJ, Singletary SE, et al. Management of breast cancer during pregnancy using a standardized protocol. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17(3):855–61. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1999.17.3.855.
Funding
Drs. Chung, De Jesus, Elhatw, Ferreira Dalla Pria, Guirguis, Joiner, and Patel, Ms. Jean, and Ms. Vishwanath declare that they have no conflict of interest. Dr. Moseley is a medical imaging consultant for Merit Medical, Hologic, and Siemens Medical.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors contributed to the conception and design of this review. All authors gave final approval of the version of the review to be published, and all authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Human and Animal Rights
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Chung, H.L., Joiner, J., Ferreira Dalla Pria, H.R. et al. Breast Imaging Considerations in Symptomatic Young, Pregnant, and Lactating Women. Curr Breast Cancer Rep 15, 119–126 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00485-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12609-023-00485-3