Open Access
Imaging Characteristics of Male Breast Disease
Author(s) -
Adibelli Zehra Hilal,
Oztekin Ozgur,
GunhanBilgen Işil,
Postaci Hakan,
Uslu Adam,
Ilhan Enver
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
the breast journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.533
H-Index - 72
eISSN - 1524-4741
pISSN - 1075-122X
DOI - 10.1111/j.1524-4741.2010.00951.x
Subject(s) - gynecomastia , medicine , fibroadenoma , mammography , malignancy , radiology , biopsy , nipple discharge , breast cancer , pathology , cancer
Abstract: The purpose of the study was to describe the imaging findings of male breast disease. One hundred and sixty‐four male patients, who underwent mammography and ultrasonography (US) between January 1999 and December 2008, were retrospectively evaluated. Seventy‐five patients (46%) underwent biopsy, and 89 patients (54%) were diagnosed radiologically. The radiologic and pathologic diagnoses in 164 cases of this series were 13 cancers (8%), including one ipsilateral and one contralateral breast cancers, 147 cases of gynecomastia (90%), one fibroadenoma (0.6%), two cases of fibrocystic disease of the breast (1.2%), and one epidermoid inclusion cyst (0.6%). Three mammographic patterns were adequate to describe all 147 cases of gynecomastia in our series: 53 patients (36%) had nodular gynecomastia, 46 patients (31%) had dendritic gynecomastia, and 48 patients (33%) had diffuse gynecomastia. Gynecomastia was unilateral in 65% of cases ( n = 95), and bilateral in 35% of cases ( n = 52). On physical examination, two of the malignant lesions had no clinic features of malignancy (15%). On mammography, 11 of 13 malignant masses were demonstrated (85%). A mass with microcalcifications was seen on mammograms in one case (9%). The contours of the masses were irregular in nine cases (82%), well‐circumscribed in two cases (18%). The location of the masses was retroareolar in seven cases (64%) and eccentric to the nipple in four cases (36%). The size of the masses varied between 0.5 cm and 5 cm (mean 2.4 cm). Nipple retraction was evident in five cases (45%), and skin thickening in four cases (36%). All of the malignant masses were demonstrated on ultrasound; however, one of them was seen retrospectively after mammography. All of the masses were hypoechoic and solid, the contours were well‐defined and smooth in two masses (15%), and irregular in 11 masses (85%), and five masses (39%) had posterior prominent shadowing. Axillary lymphadenopathia was detected in two cases (15%). One patient had a previous contralateral breast cancer, and one had an ipsilateral. On mammography, breast cancer characteristically exhibits an irregular subareolar mass, nipple retraction, and skin ulceration or thickening, but sometimes breast cancer has a well‐circumscribed contour and punctuated microcalcifications. Ultrasonography is essential and useful for further characterization and helpful for demonstrating lymphadenopathies of the axillary region.