Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease representing less than 1% of breast cancers. In the absence of a screening program, such as for females, the diagnostic workup is critical for early detection of MBC.

Objectives: To summarize our institutional experience in the workup of male patients referred for breast imaging, emphasizing the clinical, imaging, and histopathological characteristics of the MBC cohort.

Methods: All male patients who underwent breast imaging between 2011 and 2016 in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical, radiological, and histopathological data were collected and statistically evaluated. All images were reviewed using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Results: 178 male patients (average age 61 years, median age 64), underwent breast imaging in our institution. The most common indication for referral was palpable mass (49%) followed by gynecomastia (16%). Imaging included mostly mammography or ultrasound. Biopsies were performed on 56 patients, 38 (68%) were benign and 18 (32%) were malignant. In all, 13 patients had primary breast cancer and 5 had metastatic disease to the breast. Palpable mass at presentation was strongly associated with malignancy (P = 0.007).

Conclusion: Mammography and ultrasound remain the leading modalities in breast imaging among males for diagnostic workup of palpable mass, with gynecomastia being the predominant diagnosis. However, presentation with palpable mass was also associated with malignancy. Despite a notable MBC rate in our cohort, the likelihood of cancer is low in young patients and in cases of gynecomastia.

Background: Automated breast volumetric sonography (ABVS) is a new technology with various possible applications.

Objectives: To compare ABVS and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the surveillance of women with BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Methods: We conducted a prospective study in Jewish female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent breast MRI and ABVS. The results of both exams performed 6 months apart or less, and relevant clinical data, were reviewed. The BIRADS results were divided into three subgroups according to subsequent expected management: BIRADS 1-2 (normal study), BIRADS 3 (probably benign finding), and BIRADS 4 and 5 (suspicious findings). BIRADS 0 and 6 scores were excluded from the study. Distribution of ABVS and MRI BIRADS scores were compared using McNemar's test, and concordance was calculated using the Cohen kappa test.

Results: Overall, 68 women, 40 BRCA1 and 28 BRCA2 mutation carriers, age range 26–69 (mean 44.55 ± 12.1 years), underwent 79 paired ABVS and MRI examinations. McNemar's test calculations showed no significant difference between MRI and ABVS BIRADS score distribution. Cohen’s kappa test resulted in k = 0.158, an agreement that can be described as only "slight agreement" between both modalities. Of 14 discordant cases there was one cancer, revealed by MRI and not by ABVS performed 6 months prior to MRI.

Conclusions: ABVS showed slight agreement with MRI in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. These preliminary results on a small group of healthy high risk patients suggest that the diagnostic abilities of ABVS are inferior to MRI. Further studies encompassing larger groups are needed.

 

Background: Magnetic resonance imaging of the breast has emerged as a valuable imaging tool in addition to conventional imaging modalities. It has high sensitivity for malignant lesions, and can detect mammographically, sonographically and clinically occult cancers. “MR only” lesions are best biopsied under MR guidance; however, this may be a challenging task.

Objectives:  To evaluate our initial clinical experience with MR-guided core needle breast biopsy and MR-guided needle localization.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 81 women with 97 lesions, who were scheduled for guided core needle biopsy or MR-guided needle localization followed by surgery. Lesions were categorized as malignant, high risk, or benign according to the BI- RADS MR classification system. MR findings were compared with final histopathology or with follow-up imaging findings.

Results: Fifteen (16%) lesions were malignant (9 invasive ductal carcinoma, 2 invasive lobular carcinoma, 4 ductal carcinoma in situ); 7 (7%) lesions were high risk (4 atypical ductal hyperplasia, 3 radial scars); 75 (77%) lesions were benign, mainly fibrocystic changes. Other benign findings were sclerosing adenosis, pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia, fat necrosis, intraductal papilloma, fibroadenoma, capillary hemangioma, and florid ductal hyperplasia. No major complications were encountered.
Conclusions: MR-guided interventional procedures of the breast are accurate, safe and feasible methods for sampling breast lesions detected only by MR and have become a significant tool in the management of certain patients.