Abstract
The purpose of this presentation is to show the ultrasonography findings of normal variants and benign and malignant diseases that affect the nipple-areolar complex. Many of which have unspecific clinical and radiological presentations that can present a challenge for medical specialists. Experienced specialists need to know the different imaging modalities used to study the nipple-areolar complex and the aspect not exactly senology, as well as dermatologist who approach the ultrasound must know the anatomy of this complex area. We will show you a combined clinical and radiological approach to evaluate the nipple-areolar complex, the findings for the normal morphology and the most common benign and malignant diseases that can affect this region. We discuss the characteristics of the different ultrasonography findings and provide guidance on how to avoid artifacts and pitfalls.
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 and anatomy
The nipple-areolar complex is a specialized region of the mammary gland. It is a major anatomic landmark of the breast, where the lactiferous ducts draining the 15 to 20 lobes of the mammary gland converge, these lobes are oriented radially toward the nipple, and each lobe is made up of several lobules. From each lobule departed a lactiferous duct that in turn branches and ends in the terminal ductal lobular unit (TDLU), which is the functional unit of the breast gland [1]. In the subareolar region, the ducts expand to form the lactiferous sinus just before it enters the nipple of the breast [2]. This area contains the Montgomery glands, large intermediate-stage sebaceous glands that are embryologically transitional between sweat glands and mammary glands and are capable of secreting milk (Fig. 1) [3].
Ultrasound
Ultrasound is very common in the study of the nipple-areolar complex, the reason are being widely available and not requiring ionizing radiation. The nipple can cause a posterior acoustic shadow [1](Fig. 2), to avoid this problem are described various techniques for evaluating the nipple-areolar complex with ultrasound: it is helpful to angle the probe radially so that the ultrasound beam hits the major axis of the duct perpendicularly to enable the entire length of the duct to be seen or peripheral compression and traction with the probe itself is the one that achieves the best angle of incidence on the subareolar ducts [4] (Fig. 3). More useful and detailed vascular information on breast lesions can be done by the advent of new technology such as the microvascular flow imaging, a new ultrasound technique with better ability than color Doppler imaging to identify small vessels that have slow blood flow, and it permits better evaluation of the features, especially microvascular architecture, of various lesions[5].
Benign disease
Zuska’s disease
The pathogenesis of Zuska’s disease involves squamous metaplasia of the cuboidal epithelium lining the lactiferous ducts. The squamous lining produces large amounts of keratin that obstructs and dilates the ducts, leading to acute inflammatory infiltrates and cellular debris. These ducts become secondarily infected as a result of stasis and bacterial invasion, which leads to abscess formation. The abscess may drain spontaneously and can develop into a periareolar cutaneous fistula [6, 7]. It predominantly affects non-lactating middle-aged women, and is directly associated with tobacco smoking, that is thought to have a direct toxic effect on the retroareolar ductal epithelium or an indirect effect via the hoemonal stimulation of breast secretion, thus predisposing to Zuska’s disease [8, 9]. It presents as a painful, erythematous subareolar mass and recurring fistula at the edge of the areola [6]. The diagnosis is clinical, but ultrasound is useful for assessing the extent of the disease (Fig. 4).
Infection and abscess of montgomery glands
An abscess is an accumulation of pus that arises due to an obstructed Montgomery gland. Hormonal activity affects the function and therefore the size of sebaceous glands [10]. This glands represents an entrance to bacteria (staphylococcus aureus and other gram +) [11]. Patients may present clinically with pain associated with a palpable superficial mass (Fig. 5a). The gland will appear on US imaging as a round, iso-/hypoechoic, mass with circumscribed or indistinct margins(Fig. 5b). The ultrasound is also important to guide the percutaneous puncture and the antibiogram. [11]
Abscess from foreign bodies
Nipple piercing is a growing fashion trend among young people and has shown an increase over the last years. More frequent are the abscess that may occur between 2 week or months after the operation. US imaging show hypoechoic lesion (Fig. 6) [12]
Ductal ectasia
Asymptomatic or incidental mammary ductal ectasia is thought to occur secondary to the involution process of the breast, which begins at menopause. The development of symptoms with mammary duct ectasia is proposed to result from the accumulation of secretions resulting in an inflammatory response [13]. The ductal ectasia can also may develop secondarily to ductal obstruction from thickened secretions associated with the inflammatory response in periductal mastitis [14]. Mammary ductal ectasia is defined as benign dilatation of the ductal system > 3 mm in diameter. On sonography, dilated ducts are filled with fluid, and concentrated secretions and debris are visible as circumscribed hypoechoic mass with internal echoes, which are difficult to differentiate from intraductal tumors [15] (Fig. 7).Movement of echogenic materials on realtime sonography may be a diagnostic feature of ductal ectasia [16]. Apart from compressing the duct to check to see whether it collapses, Doppler studies can be very useful because intraductal masses can have flow signals inside them that indicate vascularization [17]. Asymmetric ductal ectasia is associated with a higher risk of malignancy and warrants further work-up with ultrasonography and potentially biopsy, particularly if a ductal wall abnormality such as thickening or irregularity is identified or intraductal hypoechoic contents are identified [18].
Papilloma
Intraductal papillomas are relatively common benign neoplasms originating from proximal ducts or retroareolar mammary ducts, usually within a central duct near the nipple[19]. Clinically, patients may present with pain, a palpable abnormality, or nipple discharge, which is typically clear or serosanguinous. Intraductal papillomas are the most common cause of pathological nipple discharge and occur most commonly in perimenopausal women[20]. Papillomas are known to occur anywhere within the ductal system and are classified into central and peripheral types [21]. As opposed to a solitary central intraductal papilloma, multiple peripheral papillomas arising in the terminal ductal lobular units are associated with higher rates of atypia and malignancy [19]. Ultrasound findings of an intraductal papilloma include a circumscribed or irregular eccentric solid mass within a dilated duct (Fig. 8). It can have the appearance of a mural nodule [21]. Colour Doppler imaging can differentiate inspissated secretions from a papilloma by identifying flow within the fibrovascular stalk of the papilloma [22]. Strain elastography for imaging lesion stiffness is being used as a diagnostic aid in the malignant/benign discrimination of breast diseases that’s because malignant masses in the breast tend to be harder than the surrounding normal tissue. [23]
Adenoma
Nipple adenoma is an uncommon benign tumor, a rare variant of a papillary lesion, with unknown prevalence [24]. Histologically, an epithelial proliferation with a retained myoepithelial cell layer occupies the surrounding stroma of lactiferous ducts [24]. Clinically, it manifests with pain as a palpable nipple, and possibly skin changes that simulates Paget disease or fibroadenomas and it is rarely associated with bloody nipple discharge. It is visualized as a round, homogeneous, hypoechoic mass with circumscribed margins with micro or macro-calcification and internal vascularity on colour Doppler images [25] (Fig. 9). Complete surgical excision is recommended given the non-specific clinical presentation and differential considerations including Paget disease [26].
Fibroadenomas
Fibroadenomas are the most common benign tumors of the breast. They are composed of epithelium and stroma of terminal ductal-lobular units [27]. They are classically round or oval in shape, firm and rubbery in consistency, smooth, and very mobile, they are generally not painful, but they can be associated with some tenderness[28].
US findings of fibroadenomas usually show round, oval, or lobulated shapes, which are sharply defined by a pseudocapsule of compressed parenchyma (a poorly defined margin or an irregular shape is associated with a malign disease). Therefore, fibroadenomas are typically well-circumscribed round or oval solid masses, compressible but not easily deformed with the probe, associated with smooth contours and homogeneous internal echoes on sonography [28]. However, some fibroadenomas have atypical sonographic findings, such as posterior shadowing, phyllodes, collagen bundles, adenosis, and microcalcifications (Fig. 10) [29]. Ultrasound is also an accurate method of assessing the size of the lesion and permits size to be monitored in women treated conservatively.
Malignant pathology
Paget’s disease
Paget disease is a rare malignancy of the breast characterized by infiltration of the nipple epidermis by adenocarcinoma cells, presumably through ductal proliferation. Clinical presentation of Paget disease may include unilateral pruritus, eczema, erythema, skin erosion or ulceration, nipple retraction or inversion, or nipple discharge [30] (Fig. 11).As opposed to benign eczema, which is typically bilateral, Paget disease will be unilateral [30]. More than 90% of cases of Paget disease are associated with an additional underlying breast malignancy like ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) [30]. Nevertheless, ultrasound or mammographic findings such as skin thickening with or without underlying microcalcifications, ductal ectasia, or a mass (Fig. 11), may be negative in up to 50% of cases, that’s the reason for the utility of magnetic resonance (MR) imaging, in patients with Paget disease for evaluation of the nipple-areolar complex and identification of an additional underlying malignancy in the breast [31, 32] (Fig. 11).
Invasive ductal carcinoma
Invasive ductal carcinoma is the most common malignant tumor of the breast. Occasionally, it can be located immediately behind the nipple or it can originate in another location and extend to the nipple [33]. In cases involving the nipple-areolar complex, the most common clinical manifestation is unilateral nipple retraction and distortion of the areola. Invasive ductal carcinoma generally presents as an ill-defined retroareolar mass, hypoechogenic, with irregular or spiculated defined borders, rich internal vascularity at the color Doppler [34]. Male breast cancer can occasionally develop in the subareolar region, but most breast cancers and other breast conditions occur in other parts of the breast and tend to spare the subareolar region and nipple [35] (Fig. 12). The infiltrating ductal carcinoma is the most common histologic subtype of male breast cancer (approximately 80% of breast cancer cases in men) that is usually unilateral, occurring bilaterally in less than 1% of cases [36]. Male breast cancer most commonly manifests as a painless palpable mass, other signs and symptoms include nipple ulceration or retraction, nipple discharge, skin thickening, and palpable axillary lymph nodes [37] (Fig. 12).
Conclusion
Summarily, nipples may be affected by various benign and malignant pathologies, several of which have similar clinical and imaging presentations. Imaging studies play an essential role in the diagnostic workup of conditions involving the nipple-areolar complex. Radiologists and dermatologist must be accustomed to meticulous management of the different imaging presentation. It is essential to evaluate the clinical, radiological, and histological findings together to establish an accurate diagnosis.
Abbreviations
- TDLU:
-
Terminal ductal lobular unit
- US:
-
Ultrasound/ultrasonography
- DCIS:
-
Ductal carcinoma in situ
- MSCT:
-
CT multi-slices
References
Nicholson BT, Harvey JA, Cohen MA (2009) Nipple-areolar complex: normal anatomy and benign and malignant processes. Radiographics 29(2):509–523. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.292085128
Love SM, Barsky SH (2004) Anatomy of the nipple and breast ducts revisited. Cancer 101(9):1947–1957. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.20559
Kopans DB, Meyer JE, Sadowsky N (1984) Breast imaging. N Engl J Med 310(15):960–967. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJM198404123101506
Yoon JH, Yoon H, Kim EK, Moon HJ, Park YV, Kim MJ (2017) Ultrasonographic evaluation of women with pathologic nipple discharge. Ultrasonography 36(4):310–320. https://doi.org/10.14366/usg.17013
Rumolo M, Santarsiere M, Menna B, Minelli R, Vergara E, Brunetti A, Gisonni P (2022) Color doppler and microvascular flow imaging to evaluate the degree of inflammation in a case of hidradenitis suppurativa. J Vasc Ultrasound. https://doi.org/10.1177/15443167211066491
Zuska JJ, Crile G Jr, Ayres WW (1951) Fistulas of lactifierous ducts. Am J Surg 81(3):312–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9610(51)90233-4
Serrano LF, Rojas-Rojas MM, Machado FA (2020) Zuska’s breast disease: Breast imaging findings and histopathologic overview. Indian J Radiol Imaging 30(3):327–333. https://doi.org/10.4103/ijri.IJRI_207_20
Gollapalli V, Liao J, Dudakovic A, Sugg SL, Scott-Conner CE, Weigel RJ (2010) Risk factors for development and recurrence of primary breast abscesses. J Am Coll Surg 211(1):41–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2010.04.007
Schäfer P, Fürrer C, Mermillod B (1988) An association of cigarette smoking with recurrent subareolar breast abscess. Int J Epidemiol 17(4):810–813. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/17.4.810
Smith KR, Thiboutot DM (2008) Thematic review series: skin lipids. Sebaceous gland lipids: friend or foe? J Lipid Res 49(2):271–281. https://doi.org/10.1194/jlr.R700015-JLR200
Dixon JM (2013) Breast infection. BMJ 16(347):f3291. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3291
Kapsimalakou S, Grande-Nagel I, Simon M, Fischer D, Thill M, Stöckelhuber BM (2010) Breast abscess following nipple piercing: a case report and review of the literature. Arch Gynecol Obstet 282(6):623–626. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-010-1560-8
Haagensen CD (1951) Mammary-duct ectasia: a disease that may simulate carcinoma. Cancer 4(4):749–761. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0142(195107)4:4%3c749::aid-cncr2820040413%3e3.0.co;2-f
Lyons D, Wahab RA, Vijapura C, Mahoney MC (2021) The nipple-areolar complex: comprehensive imaging review. Clin Radiol 76(3):172–184. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crad.2020.09.013
Leong PW, Chotai NC, Kulkarni S (2018) Imaging features of inflammatory breast disorders: a pictorial essay. Korean J Radiol 19(1):5–14. https://doi.org/10.3348/kjr.2018.19.1.5
Huynh PT, Parellada JA, de Paredes ES, Harvey J, Smith D, Holley L, Maxin M (1997) Dilated duct pattern at mammography. Radiology 204(1):137–141. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.204.1.9205235
Ferris-James DM, Iuanow E, Mehta TS, Shaheen RM, Slanetz PJ (2012) Imaging approaches to diagnosis and management of common ductal abnormalities. Radiographics 32(4):1009–1030. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.324115150
Hsu C-Y, Chiou S-Y, Chou Y-H, Lai C-H, Chiou H-J, Chiang H-R, Chen S-P, Wang H-K, Yen C-S, Chang C-Y (2005) Clinical significance of ductal dilatation on breast ultrasonogram. J Med Ultrasound 13:127–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0929-6441(09)60101-6
Eiada R, Chong J, Kulkarni S, Goldberg F, Muradali D (2012) Papillary lesions of the breast: MRI, ultrasound, and mammographic appearances. AJR Am J Roentgenol 198(2):264–271. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.11.7922
Expert Panel on Breast Imaging, Lee SJ, Trikha S, Moy L, Baron P, diFlorio RM, Green ED, Heller SL, Holbrook AI, Lewin AA, Lourenco AP, Niell BL, Slanetz PJ, Stuckey AR, Vincoff NS, Weinstein SP, Yepes MM, Newell MS (2017) ACR appropriateness criteria® evaluation of nipple discharge. J Am Coll Radiol 14(5):138–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2017.01.030
Cilotti A, Bagnolesi P, Napoli V, Lencioni R, Bartolozzi C (1991) Papilloma intraduttale solitario della mammella [Studio ecografico di 12 casi Solitary intraductal papilloma of the breast. An echographic study of 12 cases]. Radiol Med 82(5):617–620
Kiran S, Jeong YJ, Nelson ME, Ring A, Johnson MB, Sheth PA, Ma Y, Sener SF, Lang JE (2018) Are we overtreating intraductal papillomas? J Surg Res 231:387–394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jss.2018.06.008
Kokubu Y, Yamada K, Tanabe M, Izumori A, Kato C, Horii R, Ohno S, Matsueda K (2021) Evaluating the usefulness of breast strain elastography for intraductal lesions. J Med Ultrason 48(1):63–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10396-020-01070-2
Dillon DA, Lester SC (2009) Lesions of the nipple. Surg Pathol Clin 2(2):391–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.path.2009.02.010
Spyropoulou GA, Pavlidis L, Trakatelli M, Athanasiou E, Pazarli E, Sotiriadis D, Demiri E (2015) Rare benign tumours of the nipple. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 29(1):7–13. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.12623
Bonito DIM, Cantile M, Collina F, D’Aiuto M, Liguori G, Cecio DE, Botti G (2014) Adenoma of the nipple: a clinicopathological report of 13 cases. Oncol Lett 7(6):1839–1842. https://doi.org/10.3892/ol.2014.2000
Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E (1989) Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology 172(3):671–675. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiology.172.3.2549564
Houssami N, Cheung MN, Dixon JM (2001) Fibroadenoma of the breast. Med J Aust 174(4):185–188. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2001.tb143215.x
Macedo M, Bassaganyas C, Ganau S, Sanfeliu E, Ubeda B, Bargallo X (2020) Ultrasound findings of breast adenomas. J Ultrasound Med 39(11):2173–2180. https://doi.org/10.1002/jum.15328
Lim HS, Jeong SJ, Lee JS, Park MH, Kim JW, Shin SS, Park JG, Kang HK (2011) Paget disease of the breast: mammographic, US, and MR imaging findings with pathologic correlation. Radiographics 31(7):1973–1987. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.317115070
Geffroy D, Doutriaux-Dumoulins I, Labbe-Devilliers C, Meingan P, Houdebine S, Sagan C, Dejode M, Ricaud-Couprie M (2011) Maladie de Paget du mamelon et principaux diagnostics différentiels [Paget’s disease of the nipple and differential diagnosis]. J Radiol 92(10):889–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jradio.2011.07.010
Morrogh M, Morris EA, Liberman L, Van Zee K, Cody HS 3rd, King TA (2008) MRI identifies otherwise occult disease in select patients with Paget disease of the nipple. J Am Coll Surg 206(2):316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jamcollsurg.2007.07.046
Sanders MA, Brock JE, Harrison BT, Wieczorek TJ, Hong X, Guidi AJ, Dillon DA, Max L, Lester SC (2018) Nipple-Invasive Primary Carcinomas: Clinical, Imaging, and Pathologic Features of Breast Carcinomas Originating in the Nipple. Arch Pathol Lab Med 142(5):598–605. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2017-0226-OA
Catalano O, Varelli C (2021) Ecografia della mammella. E.L.I. medica, Napoli
Nguyen C, Kettler MD, Swirsky ME, Miller VI, Scott C, Krause R, Hadro JA (2013) Male breast disease: pictorial review with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics 33(3):763–779. https://doi.org/10.1148/rg.333125137
Johansen Taber KA, Morisy LR, Osbahr AJ 3rd, Dickinson BD (2010) Male breast cancer: risk factors, diagnosis, and management (review). Oncol Rep 24(5):1115–1120. https://doi.org/10.3892/or_00000962
Mathew J, Perkins GH, Stephens T, Middleton LP, Yang WT (2008) Primary breast cancer in men: clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings in 57 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol 191(6):1631–1639. https://doi.org/10.2214/AJR.08.1076
Funding
The authors have not disclosed any funding.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that there are no financial or other relations that could lead to a conflict of interest.
Ethical statement
This study was approved by the local research ethics committee and all the subjects enrolled were informed about the examinations and the procedure, and their written consents were obtained before the US examination.
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 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
Luigi, B., Carlo, V., Corrado, C. et al. The nipple-areolar complex: anatomy, methods and pathologic findings, between senologist and dermatologist. J Ultrasound 26, 239–247 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00722-y
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40477-022-00722-y