Ultrasound and Mammography in the Differential Diagnosis of Gynaecomastia
https://doi.org/10.17238/2072-3180-2024-1-92-99
Abstract
Ultrasound as well as mammography are the priority modalities in the differentiation of breast diseases in men, as they have an optimal ratio of efficiency to ease of investigation. In contrast to, for example, invasive histological examination, which is highly effective but traumatic. Or computed tomography, which has a high radiation load, because of which it is not possible to carry out studies to fix the dynamics of the disease. At the same time, studies of gynaecomastia show a high prevalence in the population, despite the fact that most men do not pay attention and do not know that they may have this pathology. Although this pathology is a significant risk factor for breast oncology. Therefore, the purpose of this review is to summarise the signs that you may see with these two instrumental examinations. They allow with a high degree of probability to allow you to make a tentative diagnosis. At the same time, often these studies together with physical examination methods are sufficient even for a definitive diagnosis, although the sensitivity and specificity of the methods do not reach 100% of the results. This leads to the fact that ultrasound and mammography can be used as the first line of diagnosis of gynaecomastia.
About the Authors
R. A. Pakhomova
Russian Biotechnological University (BIOTECH University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Pakhomova Regina Aleksandrovna – Doctor of Medical Sciences, Head of the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive
125080, Volokolamskoe highway, 11, Moscow
K. V. Klimenko
Russian Biotechnological University (BIOTECH University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Klimenko Konstantin Vladimirovich - Senior Lecturer of the Department of Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery
125080, Volokolamskoe highway, 11, Moscow
T. A. Mihopoulos
Russian Biotechnological University (BIOTECH University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Mihopoulos Thanasis Apostolos - Candidate of Medical Sciences, Professor of the Department of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
125080, Volokolamskoe highway, 11, Moscow
V. Y. Kolesnik
Russian Biotechnological University (BIOTECH University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kolesnik Vasiliy Yaroslavovich - Resident of Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery
125080, Volokolamskoe highway, 11, Moscow
I. A. Karamurzaev
Russian Biotechnological University (BIOTECH University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Karamurzaev Islam Abdullatipovich - Resident of Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery
125080, Volokolamskoe highway, 11, Moscow
D. I. Sergeev
Russian Biotechnological University (BIOTECH University)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Sergeev Denis Igorevich - Head of the academic department of Plastic Surgery and Reconstructive Surgery
125080, Volokolamskoe highway, 11, Moscow
References
1. Aslan Ö., Bayraktaroğlu S., Çinkooğlu A., Ceylan N., Savaş R., Oktay A. Prevalence of Incidental Gynecomastia by Chest Computed Tomography in Patients with a Prediagnosis of COVID-19 Pneumonia. European Journal of Breast Health, 2021, vol. 17, № 2, pp. 173–179. https://doi.org/10.4274/ejbh.galenos.2021.6251
2. Meguerditchian Ari-N., Falardeau M., Martin G. Male breast carcinoma. Canadian Journal of Surgery, 2002, Vol 45, № 4, pp. 296–302.
3. Brinton L.A., Cook M.B., McCormack V., Johnson K.C., Olsson H., Casagrande J.T., Cooke R., Falk R.T., Gapstur S.M., Gaudet M.M., Gaziano J. M., Gkiokas G. at all. Anthropometric and hormonal risk factors for male breast cancer: male breast cancer pooling project results. J. Natl. Cancer Inst, 2014, Vol. 106. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djt465
4. Moshurov I.P., Vorotintseva N.S., Ganzya M.S., Znatkova N.A., Ovechkina M.V. Current views on the diagnosis of breast cancer in men. Bulletin of Experimental and Clinical Surgery, 2016, Vol 9, № 4, pp. 289–295. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18499/2070-478X-2016-9-4-289-295
5. Cuhaci N, Polat S.B., Evranos B., Ersoy R, Cakir B. Gynecomastia: Clinical evaluation and management. Indian Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2014, vol. 18, № 2, pp. 150–158. https://doi.org/10.4103/2230-8210.129104
6. Nguyen P.L., Alibhai S.M. H., Basaria S., D’Amico A.V., Kantoff Ph.W., Keating N.L., Penson D.F., Rosario D.J., Tombal B., Smith M.R. Adverse effects of androgen deprivation therapy and strategies to mitigate them. European Urology, 2015, vol. 68, pp. 909–910. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2014.07.010
7. Önder Ö., Azizova A., Durhan A., Elibol F.D., Akpınar M.G., Demirkazık F. Imaging findings and classification of the common and uncommon male breast diseases. Insights Imaging, 2020, vol. 11, № 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0834-3
8. Mekheal E., Kania B., Vishwakarma U., Joseph D., Kumar V., Maroules M. Gynecomastia and Malignancy: A Case of Male Invasive Ductal Breast Carcinoma Treated with Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy. Am J Case Rep, 2022, vol. 23. https://doi.org/10.12659/ajcr.937370
9. Lapid O., Jolink F., Maijer S.L. Pathological findings in gynecomastia: analysis of 5113 breasts. Annals of Plastic Surgery, 2015, vol. 74, № 2, pp. 163–166. http://doi.org/10.1097/SAP.0b013e3182920aed
10. Telegrafo M., Introna T., Coi L., Cornacchia I., Rella L., Stabile Ianora A.A., Angelelli G., Moschetta. M. Breast US as primary imaging modalityfor diagnosing gynecomastia. Official Journal of ACOI, 2016, vol. 37, № 3, pp.118–122. http://doi.org/10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.118
11. Akimova V.B., Akimov D.V. Comparative analysis of ultrasound and X-ray mammography findings in men with volumetric pathology in the breast projection. Tumors of the female reproductive system, 2015, № 3, pp. 35–42. (In Russ.) http://doi.org/10.17650/1994-4098-2015-1-35-42
12. Shapovalova A. G. Ultrasound as the highest level of clinical diagnosis. Medicine and ecology, 2013, № 1, pp. 11–14. (In Russ.)
13. Yashina Yu.N., Rozhivanov R.V., Kurbatov D.G. Current ideas about the epidemiology, etiology and pathogenesis of gynecomastia. Andrology and genital surgery, 2014, № 3, pp. 8–15. (In Russ.) http://dx.doi.org/10.17650/2070-9781-2014-3-8-15
14. Moore D.C., Schlaepfer L.V., Luc P. Sizonenko P.C. Hormonal Changes During Puberty: V. Transient Pubertal Gynecomastia: Abnormal AndrogenEstrogen Ratios. J. Clin. Endocr. and Metab, 1984, vol. 58, Iss. 3, pp. 492–499. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem-58-3-492
15. Osler D.C. Management of Pubertal Gynecomastia. J. Pediatr, 1977, vol. 91, Iss. 5, pp. 856–857. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-3476(77)81079-2
16. Carlson H.E. Approach to the patient with gynecomastia. The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 2011, vol. 96, Iss. 9, pp. 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.96.9.zeg15a
17. Yuan W.H., Li A.F., Chou Y.H., Hsu H.C., Chen Y.Y. Clinical and ultrasonographic features of male breast tumors: A retrospective analysis. PloS one, 2018, vol. 13, Iss. 3. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0194651
18. Yuksekkaya R., Celikyay F., Ozcetin M., Yuksekkaya M., Asan Y. Assessment of color Doppler ultrasonography findings in gynecomastia. Med Ultrasonography, 2013, vol. 15, № 4, pp. 285–288. https://doi.org/10.11152/mu.2013.2066.154.ry2
19. Ramadan S.U., Gökharman D., Kaçar M., Koşar P., Koşar U. Assessment of vascularity with color Doppler ultrasound in gynecomastia. Diagn Interv Radiol, 2010, № 16, pp. 38–44. https://doi.org/10.4261/1305-3825.dir.2395-08.1
20. Kotlyarov P.M., Sencha A.N., Kashmanova A.V. The role of ultrasound elastography in the diagnosis of focal breast masses in men. Bulletin of the RNCRR of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2015, Vol. 15. (In Russ.) http://vestnik-rncrr.ru/vestnik/v15/papers/kashmanova_v15.htm
21. Bowman J.D., Kim H., Bustamante J.J. Drug-Induced Gynecomastia. Pharmacotherapy, 2012, Vol. 32, Iss. 12, pp. 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1002/phar.1138
22. Glassman L. M. Pathology of the Male Breast. Radiology Assistant. Available at: https://radiologyassistant.nl/breast/male-breast/pathology-ofthe-male-breast
23. Billa E., Kanakis G.A., Goulis D.G. Imaging in gynecomastia. American Society of Andrology and European Academy of Andrology, 2021, Vol. 9, Iss. 5, pp. 1444–1456. https://doi.org/10.1111/andr.13051
24. Moshurov I.P., Vorotynceva N.S., Ganzya M.S. Ginekomastiya kak paraneoplasticheskij sindrom. [Gynecomastia as a paraneoplastic syndrome.] Vestnik eksperimental’noj i klinicheskoj hirurgii,2018, vol. XI, № 1, pp. 38–45. (In Russian) https://doi.org/10.18499/2070-478X-2018-11-1-38-45
25. Borisova M.S., Martynova N.V., Bogdanov S.N. X-ray mammography in the diagnosis of breast cancer. Bulletin of the RNCRR of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, 2013, vol. 13. (In Russ.) http://vestnik.rncrr.ru/vestnik/v13/papers/borisova1_v13.htm
26. Ternovoj S.K., Abduraimov A.B. Radiation mammology. M.: GEOTAR-Media, Moscow, 2007, pp. 53–58. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Pakhomova R.A., Klimenko K.V., Mihopoulos T.A., Kolesnik V.Y., Karamurzaev I.A., Sergeev D.I. Ultrasound and Mammography in the Differential Diagnosis of Gynaecomastia. Moscow Surgical Journal. 2024;(1):92-99. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.17238/2072-3180-2024-1-92-99
Views:
413
Email this article 