E-ISSN 2587-0831
Original Article
Efficiency of Imaging Modalities in Male Breast Disease: Can Ultrasound Give Additional Information for Assessment of Gynecomastia Evolution?
1 Department of Radiology, Taksim Gaziosmanpaşa Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey  
2 Department of Radiology, Fatih Sultan Mehmet Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey  
3 Department of Radiology, Bakırköy Training and Research Hospital, İstanbul, Turkey  
Eur J Breast Health 2018; 14: 29-34
DOI: 10.5152/ejbh.2017.3416
This article was viewed 0 times, downloaded 8 times

Key Words: Male breast, gynecomastia, breast cancer, ultrasound, mammography, imaging
Abstract

Objective: The purpose of this study is to present mammography and ultrasound findings of male breast lesions and to investigate the ability of diagnostic modalities in estimating the evolution of gynecomastia.


Materials and Methods: Sixty-nine male patients who admitted to Taksim and Bakirkoy Education and Research Hospitals and underwent mammography (MG) and ultrasonography (US) imaging were retrospectively evaluated. Duration of symptoms and mammographic types of gynecomastia according to Appelbaum's classifications were evaluated, besides the sonographic findings in mammographic types of gynecomastia.


Results: The distribution of 69 cases were as follows: gynecomastia 47 (68.11%), pseudogynecomastia 6 (8.69%) primary breast carcinoma 7 (10.14%), metastatic carcinoma 1 (1.4%), epidermal inclusion cyst 2 (2.8%), abscess 2 (2.8%), lipoma 2 (2.8%), pyogenic granuloma 1 (1.4%), and granulomatous lobular mastitis 1 (1.4%). Gynecomastia patients who had symptoms less than 1 year had nodular gynecomastia (34.6%) as opposed to dendritic gynecomastia (61.5%) (p<0.01) based on mammography results according to Appelbaum's classifications. In patients having symptoms for 1 to 2 years, diffuse gynecomastia (70%) had a higher rate than the dendritic type (20%). Patients having the symptoms more than 2 years had diffuse gynecomastia (57.1%) while 42.9% had dendritic gynecomastia (p<0.001). With sonographic examination patients who had symptoms less than 1 year had higher rates of dendritic gynecomastia (92.3%) than noduler type (1.9 %). Patients having symptoms for 1 to 2 years had more dentritic gynecomastia (70%) than diffuse type (30%). Patients having symptoms more than 2 years had diffuse gynecomastia (57.1%) comparable to dendritic gynecomastia (42.9 %).

 

Conclusion: Diagnostic imaging modalities are efficient tools for estimation of gynecomastia evolution as well as the diagnosis of other male breast diseases. There seems to be an incongruity between duration of clinical complaints and diagnostic imaging classification of gynecomastia. The use of these high resolution US findings may demonstrate an early phase fibrosis especially in patients visualized by mammography as with nodular phase.

 

Cite this article as: Sarıca Ö, Kahraman AN, Öztürk E, Teke M. Efficiency of Imaging Modalities in Male Breast Disease: Can Ultrasound Give Additional Information for Assessment of Gynecomastia Evolution? Eur J Breast Health 2018; 14: 29-34.

 

Key Words
Authors
All
Congresses
Author’s Corner
Survey
AVES | Copyright © 2017 Turkish Federation of Breast Diseases Associations | Latest Update: 29.12.2017