AC Portal
Document Navigator

Breast Imaging of Lactating Women

Variant: 1   Breast cancer screening during lactation. Initial imaging.
Procedure Appropriateness Category Relative Radiation Level
Digital breast tomosynthesis screening Usually Appropriate ☢☢
Mammography screening Usually Appropriate ☢☢
US breast May Be Appropriate O
MRI breast without and with IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
MRI breast without IV contrast Usually Not Appropriate O
Sestamibi MBI Usually Not Appropriate ☢☢☢

Panel Members
Roberta M. diFlorio-Alexander, MD, MSa; Priscilla J. Slanetz, MD, MPHb; Mary S. Newell, MDc; Linda Moy, MDd; Paul Baron, MDe; Aarati D. Didwania, MDf; Samantha L. Heller, MD, PhDg; Anna I. Holbrook, MDh; Alana A. Lewin, MDi; Ana P. Lourenco, MDj; Tejas S. Mehta, MD, MPHk; Bethany L. Niell, MD, PhDl; Ashley R. Stuckey, MDm; Daymen S. Tuscano, MDn; Nina S. Vincoff, MDo; Susan P. Weinstein, MDp.
Summary of Literature Review
Introduction/Background
Discussion of Procedures by Variant
Variant 1: Breast cancer screening during lactation. Initial imaging.
Variant 1: Breast cancer screening during lactation. Initial imaging.
A. Mammography and DBT
Variant 1: Breast cancer screening during lactation. Initial imaging.
B. US Breast
Variant 1: Breast cancer screening during lactation. Initial imaging.
C. MRI Breast
Variant 1: Breast cancer screening during lactation. Initial imaging.
D. Sestamibi MBI
Summary of Recommendations
Supporting Documents

The evidence table, literature search, and appendix for this topic are available at https://acsearch.acr.org/list. The appendix includes the strength of evidence assessment and the final rating round tabulations for each recommendation.

For additional information on the Appropriateness Criteria methodology and other supporting documents, please go to the ACR website at https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Clinical-Tools-and-Reference/Appropriateness-Criteria.

Appropriateness Category Names and Definitions

Appropriateness Category Name

Appropriateness Rating

Appropriateness Category Definition

Usually Appropriate

7, 8, or 9

The imaging procedure or treatment is indicated in the specified clinical scenarios at a favorable risk-benefit ratio for patients.

May Be Appropriate

4, 5, or 6

The imaging procedure or treatment may be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios as an alternative to imaging procedures or treatments with a more favorable risk-benefit ratio, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is equivocal.

May Be Appropriate (Disagreement)

5

The individual ratings are too dispersed from the panel median. The different label provides transparency regarding the panel’s recommendation. “May be appropriate” is the rating category and a rating of 5 is assigned.

Usually Not Appropriate

1, 2, or 3

The imaging procedure or treatment is unlikely to be indicated in the specified clinical scenarios, or the risk-benefit ratio for patients is likely to be unfavorable.
Relative Radiation Level Information

Potential adverse health effects associated with radiation exposure are an important factor to consider when selecting the appropriate imaging procedure. Because there is a wide range of radiation exposures associated with different diagnostic procedures, a relative radiation level (RRL) indication has been included for each imaging examination. The RRLs are based on effective dose, which is a radiation dose quantity that is used to estimate population total radiation risk associated with an imaging procedure. Patients in the pediatric age group are at inherently higher risk from exposure, because of both organ sensitivity and longer life expectancy (relevant to the long latency that appears to accompany radiation exposure). For these reasons, the RRL dose estimate ranges for pediatric examinations are lower as compared with those specified for adults (see Table below). Additional information regarding radiation dose assessment for imaging examinations can be found in the ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction document.

Relative Radiation Level Designations

Relative Radiation Level*

Adult Effective Dose Estimate Range

Pediatric Effective Dose Estimate Range

O

0 mSv

 0 mSv

☢

<0.1 mSv

<0.03 mSv

☢☢

0.1-1 mSv

0.03-0.3 mSv

☢☢☢

1-10 mSv

0.3-3 mSv

☢☢☢☢

10-30 mSv

3-10 mSv

☢☢☢☢☢

30-100 mSv

10-30 mSv

*RRL assignments for some of the examinations cannot be made, because the actual patient doses in these procedures vary as a function of a number of factors (e.g., region of the body exposed to ionizing radiation, the imaging guidance that is used). The RRLs for these examinations are designated as “Varies.”
References
1. Ayyappan AP, Kulkarni S, Crystal P. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: spectrum of imaging appearances. Br J Radiol. 2010;83(990):529-534.
2. McCready J, Arendt LM, Glover E, et al. Pregnancy-associated breast cancers are driven by differences in adipose stromal cells present during lactation. Breast Cancer Res. 2014;16(1):R2.
3. Newman J. Breastfeeding and radiologic procedures. Can Fam Physician. 53(4):630-1, 2007 Apr.
4. Ulery M, Carter L, McFarlin BL, Giurgescu C. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: significance of early detection. J Midwifery Womens Health. 2009;54(5):357-363.
5. Bure LA, Azoulay L, Benjamin A, Abenhaim HA. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: a review for the obstetrical care provider. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2011;33(4):330-337.
6. Helewa M, Levesque P, Provencher D, Lea RH, Rosolowich V, Shapiro HM. Breast cancer, pregnancy, and breastfeeding. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2002;24(2):164-180; quiz 181-164.
7. Langer A, Mohallem M, Stevens D, Rouzier R, Lerebours F, Cherel P. A single-institution study of 117 pregnancy-associated breast cancers (PABC): Presentation, imaging, clinicopathological data and outcome. Diagn Interv Imaging. 2014;95(4):435-441.
8. Reed W, Hannisdal E, Skovlund E, Thoresen S, Lilleng P, Nesland JM. Pregnancy and breast cancer: a population-based study. Virchows Arch. 2003;443(1):44-50.
9. Sabate JM, Clotet M, Torrubia S, et al. Radiologic evaluation of breast disorders related to pregnancy and lactation. [Review] [86 refs]. Radiographics. 27 Suppl 1:S101-24, 2007 Oct.
10. Vashi R, Hooley R, Butler R, Geisel J, Philpotts L. Breast imaging of the pregnant and lactating patient: physiologic changes and common benign entities. [Review]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 200(2):329-36, 2013 Feb.
11. Cordoba O, Llurba E, Saura C, et al. Multidisciplinary approach to breast cancer diagnosed during pregnancy: maternal and neonatal outcomes. Breast. 2013;22(4):515-519.
12. Canoy JM, Mitchell GS, Unold D, Miller V. A radiologic review of common breast disorders in pregnancy and the perinatal period. [Review]. Semin Ultrasound CT MR. 33(1):78-85, 2012 Feb.
13. Joshi S, Dialani V, Marotti J, Mehta TS, Slanetz PJ. Breast disease in the pregnant and lactating patient: radiological-pathological correlation. Insights Imaging. 2013;4(5):527-538.
14. Ramsay DT, Kent JC, Hartmann RA, Hartmann PE. Anatomy of the lactating human breast redefined with ultrasound imaging. J Anat. 2005;206(6):525-534.
15. 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. [Review]. AJR. American Journal of Roentgenology. 200(2):321-8, 2013 Feb.
16. Barnes DM, Newman LA. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer: a literature review. Surg Clin North Am. 2007;87(2):417-430, x.
17. Hartman EK, Eslick GD. The prognosis of women diagnosed with breast cancer before, during and after pregnancy: a meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160(2):347-360.
18. Madaras L, Kovacs KA, Szasz AM, et al. Clinicopathological features and prognosis of pregnancy associated breast cancer - a matched case control study. Pathol Oncol Res. 20(3):581-90, 2014 Jul.
19. Myers KS, Green LA, Lebron L, Morris EA. Imaging Appearance and Clinical Impact of Preoperative Breast MRI in Pregnancy-Associated Breast Cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017;209(3):W177-W183.
20. Doyle S, Messiou C, Rutherford JM, Dineen RA. Cancer presenting during pregnancy: radiological perspectives. Clin Radiol. 2009;64(9):857-871.
21. Janni W, Rack B, Gerber B, et al. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer -- special features in diagnosis and treatment. Onkologie. 2006;29(3):107-112.
22. Kalogerakos K, Sofoudis C, Tzonis P, Koutsouradis P, Katsoulis G. Breast cancer and pregnancy; overview of international bibliography. [Review]. Journal of B.U.On.. 18(2):308-13, 2013 Apr-Jun.
23. Psyrri A, Burtness B. Pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Cancer J. 2005;11(2):83-95.
24. 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.
25. Yang WT. Staging of breast cancer with ultrasound. [Review]. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT & MR. 32(4):331-41, 2011 Aug.
26. Ahn BY, Kim HH, Moon WK, et al. Pregnancy- and lactation-associated breast cancer: mammographic and sonographic findings. J Ultrasound Med. 2003;22(5):491-497; quiz 498-499.
27. Liberman L, Giess CS, Dershaw DD, Deutch BM, Petrek JA. Imaging of pregnancy-associated breast cancer. Radiology. 1994;191(1):245-248.
28. Robbins J, Jeffries D, Roubidoux M, Helvie M. Accuracy of diagnostic mammography and breast ultrasound during pregnancy and lactation.[Erratum appears in AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2011 May;196(5):1237]. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 196(3):716-22, 2011 Mar.
29. Faridi MM, Dewan P, Batra P. Rusty pipe syndrome: counselling a key intervention. Breastfeed Rev. 2013;21(3):27-30.
30. Silva JR, Carvalho R, Maia C, Osorio M, Barbosa M. Rusty pipe syndrome, a cause of bloody nipple discharge: case report. Breastfeed Med. 2014;9(8):411-412.
31. Lafreniere R. Bloody nipple discharge during pregnancy: a rationale for conservative treatment. J Surg Oncol. 1990;43(4):228-230.
32. Expert Panel on Breast Imaging:, Lee SJ, Trikha S, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria R Evaluation of Nipple Discharge. [Review]. J. Am. Coll. Radiol.. 14(5S):S138-S153, 2017 May.
33. American College of Radiology. Manual on Contrast Media. Available at: https://www.acr.org/Clinical-Resources/Contrast-Manual.
34. Espinosa LA, Daniel BL, Vidarsson L, Zakhour M, Ikeda DM, Herfkens RJ. The lactating breast: contrast-enhanced MR imaging of normal tissue and cancer. Radiology. 2005;237(2):429-436.
35. Talele AC, Slanetz PJ, Edmister WB, Yeh ED, Kopans DB. The lactating breast: MRI findings and literature review. Breast J. 2003;9(3):237-240.
36. Moy L, Heller SL, Bailey L, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Palpable Breast Masses. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S203-S24.
37. Mainiero MB, Moy L, Baron P, et al. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Breast Cancer Screening. J Am Coll Radiol 2017;14:S383-S90.
38. Obenauer S, Dammert S. Palpable masses in breast during lactation. Clin Imaging. 2007; 31(1):1-5.
39. Brem RF, Tabar L, Duffy SW, et al. Assessing improvement in detection of breast cancer with three-dimensional automated breast US in women with dense breast tissue: the SomoInsight Study. Radiology. 274(3):663-73, 2015 Mar.
40. Giuliano V, Giuliano C. Improved breast cancer detection in asymptomatic women using 3D-automated breast ultrasound in mammographically dense breasts. Clin Imaging 2013;37:480-6.
41. Boivin G, de Korvin B, Marion J, Duvauferrier R. Is a breast MRI possible and indicated in case of suspicion of breast cancer during lactation?. [Review]. Diagn Interv Imaging. 93(11):823-7, 2012 Nov.
42. Kubik-Huch RA, Gottstein-Aalame NM, Frenzel T, et al. Gadopentetate dimeglumine excretion into human breast milk during lactation. Radiology. 216(2):555-8, 2000 Aug.
43. Tremblay E, Therasse E, Thomassin-Naggara I, Trop I. Quality initiatives: guidelines for use of medical imaging during pregnancy and lactation. Radiographics. 32(3):897-911, 2012 May-Jun.
44. NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Version 1.2016. 2016; Available at: https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/pdf/breast-screening.pdf.
45. Swinford AE, Adler DD, Garver KA. Mammographic appearance of the breasts during pregnancy and lactation: false assumptions. Acad Radiol. 1998; 5(7):467-472.
46. Bock K, Hadji P, Ramaswamy A, Schmidt S, Duda VF. Rationale for a diagnostic chain in gestational breast tumor diagnosis. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2006;273(6):337-345.
47. Son EJ, Oh KK, Kim EK. Pregnancy-associated breast disease: radiologic features and diagnostic dilemmas. Yonsei Med J. 2006;47(1):34-42.
48. Stavros AT. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
49. McGrath SE, Ring A. Chemotherapy for breast cancer in pregnancy: evidence and guidance for oncologists. Ther Adv Med Oncol. 2011;3(2):73-83.
50. Nye L, Huyck TK, Gradishar WJ. Diagnostic and treatment considerations when newly diagnosed breast cancer coincides with pregnancy: a case report and review of literature. J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2012;10(2):145-148.
51. 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.
52. Candelaria RP, Huang ML, Adrada BE, et al. Incremental Cancer Detection of Locoregional Restaging with Diagnostic Mammography Combined with Whole-Breast and Regional Nodal Ultrasound in Women with Newly Diagnosed Breast Cancer. Acad Radiol. 24(2):191-199, 2017 02.
53. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology. 2004; 233(3):830-849.
54. Kim J, Han W, Moon HG, et al. Low rates of additional cancer detection by magnetic resonance imaging in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who undergo preoperative mammography and ultrasonography. J Breast Cancer. 2014;17(2):167-173.
55. American College of Radiology. ACR–SPR Practice Parameter for the Safe and Optimal Performance of Fetal Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=89+&releaseId=2.
56. American College of Radiology. ACR-SPR Practice Parameter for Imaging Pregnant or Potentially Pregnant Patients with Ionizing Radiation.  Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=23+&releaseId=2.
57. American College of Radiology. ACR-ACOG-AIUM-SMFM-SRU Practice Parameter for the Performance of Standard Diagnostic Obstetrical Ultrasound. Available at: https://gravitas.acr.org/PPTS/GetDocumentView?docId=28+&releaseId=2.
58. Expert Panel on MR Safety, Kanal E, Barkovich AJ, et al. ACR guidance document on MR safe practices: 2013. J Magn Reson Imaging. 37(3):501-30, 2013 Mar.
59. American College of Radiology. ACR Appropriateness Criteria® Radiation Dose Assessment Introduction. Available at: https://edge.sitecorecloud.io/americancoldf5f-acrorgf92a-productioncb02-3650/media/ACR/Files/Clinical/Appropriateness-Criteria/ACR-Appropriateness-Criteria-Radiation-Dose-Assessment-Introduction.pdf.
Disclaimer

The ACR Committee on Appropriateness Criteria and its expert panels have developed criteria for determining appropriate imaging examinations for diagnosis and treatment of specified medical condition(s). These criteria are intended to guide radiologists, radiation oncologists and referring physicians in making decisions regarding radiologic imaging and treatment. Generally, the complexity and severity of a patient’s clinical condition should dictate the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Only those examinations generally used for evaluation of the patient’s condition are ranked.  Other imaging studies necessary to evaluate other co-existent diseases or other medical consequences of this condition are not considered in this document. The availability of equipment or personnel may influence the selection of appropriate imaging procedures or treatments. Imaging techniques classified as investigational by the FDA have not been considered in developing these criteria; however, study of new equipment and applications should be encouraged. The ultimate decision regarding the appropriateness of any specific radiologic examination or treatment must be made by the referring physician and radiologist in light of all the circumstances presented in an individual examination.