How should gynaecomastia be managed?

Background:  The purpose of the present paper was to review the management of men referred to a breast clinic with presumed gynaecomastia. Methods:  A retrospective analysis was carried out of 175 men over the age of 16 years who presented with breast enlargement and/or ‘lumps’, during a 7‐year period to a single‐surgeon. All patients had complete biochemical assessment (liver function tests, γ‐glutamyl transferase, prolactin, α‐fetoprotein, β‐human chorionic gonadotropin), and mammography and/or ultrasound with fine‐needle biopsy if indicated. Results:  One hundred and seventy‐five men, median age 44 years (range: 18−89 years), were assessed. Thirty‐nine had bilateral true gynaecomastia and 88 had unilateral gynaecomastia (53% left). Carcinoma of the breast was diagnosed in eight, pseudo‐­gynaecomastia in 18, 13 had physiological pubertal changes only and nine had other diagnoses. Adverse drug reactions were possibly implicated in the aetiology of 47 patients, alcohol in seven patients, cannabis in one patient, testicular malignancy in four patients and hepatocellular carcinoma in one patient. Five patients were found to have hyperprolactinaemia. Twenty‐four per cent of patients were reassured without intervention; 18% failed to attend follow up. Sixteen per cent were treated with danazol, 15% underwent surgery and 28 were referred for management of their cause. Danazol was effective in 81%, and three patients required surgery when danazol was ineffective. One further patient developed testicular cancer 9 months after presentation. Conclusion:  Men presenting to a breast clinic require clinical assessment to exclude diagnoses other than gynaecomastia. True gynaecomastia can be managed with exclusion of causative factors by non‐invasive investigation and examination. Many patients can be reassured as to the idiopathic nature of the condition and many will fail to attend follow up. Danazol is successful in some patients and surgery should be reserved for resistant cases.