DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.18203/2320-6012.ijrms20174920

Comparison of ultrasound, mammography and histopathology findings of the cases with gynecomastia

Fatma Beyazal Çeliker, Ercan İnci, Nurten Sever, Ahmet Tan Cimilli, Arzu Turan

Abstract


Background: Gynecomastia is the development of a fibroepithelial structure in the male breast as a result of many benign and malignant effects. In this study, after the confirmation of gynecomastia diagnosis in the male cases with swelling, mass and tenderness in the breast using ultrasound and mammography examinations, its etiology was clarified by laboratory tests. In case of suspicion, the diagnosis was confirmed using Fine-Needle Aspiration Biopsy (FNAB). The adequacy of ultrasound and mammography was discussed with the obtained information and the information in the literature, and the etiological and radiological classification was done.

Methods: Ultrasound and mammography examinations were performed on 74 male patients with growth, palpable masses or pain in the breast. Biochemistry and hormone analysis were performed with imaging methods in the cases of possible gynecomastia. Biopsy was performed on the cases with the suspicion.

Results: Gynecomastia were divided into three types in ultrasonic and mammographic examination. The most frequent gynecomastia was observed as Type 3 (51.43%) in ultrasonic examination and as diffuse type (61.42%) in mammographic examination. Pain and tenderness accompanied with swelling at the breast were present in 37.84% of the cases. 31.42% had pubertal gynecomastia, 25.71% had gynecomastia secondary to drug use, and 15% had idiopathic gynecomastia.

Conclusions: Combined use of ultrasound and mammography in the diagnosis and classification of gynecomastia is highly sufficient and biopsy should be performed if malignancy is suspected.

 


Keywords


Gynecomastia, Mammography, Ultrasound

Full Text:

PDF

References


Donegan WL. Common benign contitions of the breast. Gynecomastia. Cancer of the Breast. London: WB Saunders. 1995:100-3.

Gabrilove JL, Sharma DC, Wotiz HH, Dorfman RI. Feminizing adrenocortical tumors in the male: a review of 52 cases including a case report. Medicine. 1965;44(1):37-79.

Wigley KD, Thomas JL, Bernardino ME, and Rosenbaum JL. Sonography of gynecomastia. Am J Roentgen. 1981;136(5):927-930.

Hodson GR, Urdaneta LF, Al-Jurf AS, and Jochimsen PR. Male breast carcinoma. The Am Surg. 1985;51(1):47-49.

Norris HJ, Taylor HB. Relationship of histologic features to behavior of cystosarcoma phyllodes. Analysis of ninety‐four cases. Cancer. 1967;20(12):2090-9.

Chantra PK, So GJ, Wollman JS, and Bassett LW. Mammography of the male breast. AJR. 1995;164(4):853-858.

Michels LG, Gold RH, and Arndt RD. Radiography of Gynecomastia and Other Disorders of the Male Breast 1. Radiology. 1977;122(1):117-122.

Harper P. The male breast. Imaging characteristics. Ultrasound mammography, Baltimore P. Harper. University Park Press. 1985;7:11.

Cole-Beuglet C, Schwartz GF, Kurtz AB, Patchefsky AS, and Goldberg BB. Ultrasound mammography for male breast enlargement. J Ultras Medic. 1982;1(8):301-305.

Wigley KD, Thomas JL, Bernardino ME, and Rosenbaum JL. Sonography of gynecomastia. Am J Roentgen. 1981;136(5):927-930.

Thomas DB. Breast cancer in men. Epidemiologic reviews. 1992;15(1):220-231.

Appelbaum AH, Evans GF, Levy KR, Amirkhan RH, and Schumpert TD. Mammographic appearances of male breast disease 1. Radiographic. 1999;19(3):559-568.

Evans GF, Anthony T, Appelbaum AH, Schumpert TD, Levy KR, Amirkhan RH, and Turnage RH. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography in the evaluation of male breast disease. Am J Surg. 2001;181(2):96-100.

Braunstein GD. Gynecomastia. New Eng J Medic. 1993;328(7):490-495.