Management of nipple discharge by clinical findings

In a review of 249 office patients who complained of nipple discharge, breast nodularity and duct ectasia was the cause in three quarters. The clinical diagnosis was made by observing that more than one duct was involved and by the color of the discharge. On average, the patients were 10 years younger than those with cysts and 20 years younger than those with carcinoma. In half, the discharge could persist or recur for months or years. Nipple discharge was not commonly associated with carcinoma, and when it was, the carcinoma was almost always palpable. Nipple discharge, including bloody discharge, should be regarded as a sign of a benign breast disorder, not of breast cancer. Duct papillomas can be recognized by exploring the single profusely discharging duct, regardless of the color of the discharge. Other than patients with an obvious lump, the only patients who require surgical exploration are those with a single profusely discharging duct, not because cancer is a significant possibility but merely to rid the patient of the nuisance of the continuing discharge from a duct papilloma. Of 249 patients with nipple discharge, breast nodularity and duct ectasia was the cause in 75 percent. The median age of these patients was the mid 30s. The discharge was chronic or recurring in half. Only 4 percent of all the patients with nipple discharge had an associated breast cancer. When cancer was present, an obvious lump was usually palpable. Bloody discharge was much more likely to be associated with benign breast disorders than cancer. A single profusely discharging duct should be explored regardless of the discharge color because of the likelihood of finding a duct papilloma.