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.

 

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has an important role in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Suspicious findings on MRI are further evaluated with ultrasound. This case series illustrates the use of automated breast volumetric ultrasound (ABVS) as a tool for second-look ultrasound (SLUS) following MRI. Seven women underwent breast MRI with findings necessitating SLUS. ABVS was used for second look and all MRI lesions were detected. Four cancers, one fibroadenoma and two benign lesions, were diagnosed. This case series shows that ABVS can be used as a tool for SLUS following MRI and in some cases is superior to hand-held ultrasound.

Background: The imaging parameters that mandate further diagnostic workup in focal asymmetric breast densities are not clearly defined.

Objectives: To identify indications for further workup in FABD[1] by comparing mammographic and ultrasonographic findings with the pathology results of women with FABD.

Methods: Ninety-four women (97 FABD) were referred for core needle biopsy after incidental discovery of FABD on routine mammograms (n=83) or on diagnostic mammograms performed for palpable masses (n=11). Clinical data included patient’s age, use of hormone replacement therapy, family history of breast cancer, and the presence of a palpable mass. Mammograms and sonograms were evaluated for lesion size and location, associated calcifications, architectural distortion, and change from previous examinations when available. Two patient groups emerged according to the pathological findings and the data were compared.

Results: The average age, size and location of the lesions in the malignant (n=5) and benign (n=92) groups were similar. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) for the presence of a clinically palpable mass (60% vs. 9%, respectively), a cluster of calcifications (60% vs. 12%), associated architectural distortion (exclusively in the malignant group) and a solid mass on sonography (50% vs. 9%). The malignant group had a higher rate of family history of breast cancer and HRT[2] use.

Conclusions: FABD usually present a benign etiology and can safely be managed by follow‑up. The presence of an architectural distortion, a cluster of malignant‑appearing or indeterminate calcifications, a sonographic mass with features of possible malignancy, or a clinically palpable mass mandates tissue diagnosis.