A New Imaging Workup of The Male Breast: Single-View Mammography and Ultrasonography

Main Article Content

Gulten Sezgin
Yeliz Yilmaz
Melda Apaydin
Makbule Varer
Seyran Yigit

Keywords

Male breast imaging, Mammography, Ultrasonography

Abstract

Background: There is no generally accepted standard radiological approach to male breast diseases. Ultrasonography and mammography are the most preferred methods for imaging. The purpose of this study is to investigate the diagnostic performances of only single-view (mediolateral oblique) mammography and routine two-view mammography in the male breast diseases and also to evaluate the contribution of ultrasonography to the diagnosis and the management of the disease.
Methods: Three hundred-twenty male patients’ breast imaging findings were evaluated retrospectively. Only mediolateral oblique and routine two-view mammograms were re-evaluated four months apart by two breast radiologists. The kappa value was calculated to measure consistency between two groups. The sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive value, and detection accuracy of malignancy were calculated for both mammographic examinations and ultrasonography.
Results: The accuracy of detection of malignant breast masses according to mediolateral oblique and two-view mammograms, and ultrasonography were 96.3 %, 97.5 %, and 99.5 %, respectively. Consistency between single-view and two-view mammograms was excellent (? = 0.967) and statistically significant (p=0.000). Two-view mammograms did not make any contribution to single-view mammograms.
Conclusion: Only mediolateral oblique mammogram is sufficient in terms of characterization, spread and localization of the lesion, as long as mastectomy is preferred and the findings are supported by ultrasonography. Since there is no diagnostic performance difference, only mediolateral oblique view would protect from the potential adverse effects of extra radiation exposure and this is an important advantage.

References

1. Yuan WH, Li AF, Chou YH, Hsu HC, Chen YY. Clinical and ultrasonographic features of male breast tumors: A retrospective analysis. PLoS One. 2018;13(3):e0194651.
2. Lawson P, Nissan N, Faermann R, Halshtok O, Shalmon A, Gotleib M, et al. Trends in Imaging Workup of the Male Breast: Experience from a Single Center. Isr Med Assoc J. 2019; 21(10):666-70.
3. Gao Y, Goldberg JE, Young TK, Babb JS, Moy L, Heller SL. Breast Cancer Screening in High-Risk Men: A 12-year Longitudinal Observational Study of Male Breast Imaging Utilization and Outcomes. Radiology. 2019;293(2):282-91.
4. Chen PH, Slanetz PJ. Incremental clinical value of ultrasound in men with mammographically confirmed gynecomastia. Eur J Radiol. 2014; 83(1):123-9.
5. Nguyen C, Kettler MD, Swirsky ME, Miller VI, Scott C, Krause R, et al. Male breast disease: pictorial review with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiographics. 2013;33(3):763-79.
6. Agrawal A, Ayantunde AA, Rampaul R, Robertson JF. Male breast cancer: a review of clinical management. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2007;103(1):11-21.
7. Adibelli ZH, Oztekin O, Postaci H, Uslu A. The Diagnostic Accuracy of Mammography and Ultrasound in the Evaluation of Male Breast Disease: A New Algorithm. Breast Care (Basel). 2009;4(4):255-9.
8. Hines SL, Tan WW, Yasrebi M, DePeri ER, Perez EA. The role of mammography in male patients with breast symptoms. Mayo Clin Proc. 2007;82(3):297-300.
9. Munn S. When should men undergo mammo-graphy? AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2002;178(6): 1419-20.
10. Yoon B, Chae EY, Cha JH, Shin HJ, Choi WJ, Kim HH. Male patients with unilateral breast symptoms: an optimal imaging approach. Eur Radiol. 2020;30(8):4242-50.
11. [Available from: https://www.acr.org/-/media/ ACR/Files/Appropriateness-
Criteria/RadiationDoseAssessmentIntro.pdf.
12.Blakely EA. Biological effects of cosmic radiation: deterministic and stochastic. Health Phys. 2000; 79(5):495-506.
13.Available from: radiopaedia.org/articles/ mediolateral-oblique-view.
14. Ng AM, Dissanayake D, Metcalf C, Wylie E. Clinical and imaging features of male breast disease, with pathological correlation: a pictorial essay. J Med Imaging Radiat Oncol. 2014;58(2): 189-98.
15. Mathew J, Perkins GH, Stephens T, Middleton LP, Yang WT. Primary breast cancer in men: clinical, imaging, and pathologic findings in 57 patients. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2008; 191(6):1631-9.
16. Gunhan-Bilgen I, Bozkaya H, Ustun E, Memis A. Male breast disease: clinical, mammographic, and ultrasonographic features. Eur J Radiol. 2002;43(3):246-55.
17. Appelbaum AH, Evans GF, Levy KR, Amirkhan RH, Schumpert TD. Mammographic appearances of male breast disease. Radiographics. 1999; 19(3):559-68.
18. Dershaw DD, Borgen PI, Deutch BM, Liberman L. Mammographic findings in men with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol. 1993;160(2): 267-70.
19. Brenner RJ, Weitzel JN, Hansen N, Boasberg P. Screening-detected breast cancer in a man with BRCA2 mutation: case report. Radiology. 2004;230(2):553-5.
20. Patterson SK, Helvie MA, Aziz K, Nees AV. Outcome of men presenting with clinical breast problems: the role of mammography and ultrasound. Breast J. 2006;12(5):418-23.
21. Evans GF, Anthony T, Turnage RH, Schumpert TD, Levy KR, Amirkhan RH, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography in the evaluation of male breast disease. Am J Surg. 2001;181(2):96-100.
22. Lapid O, Siebenga P, Zonderland HM. Overuse of imaging the male breast-findings in 557 patients. Breast J. 2015;21(3):219-23.
23. Freedman BC, Keto J, Rosenbaum Smith SM. Screening mammography in men with BRCA mutations: is there a role? Breast J. 2012;18(1): 73-5.
24. Fentiman IS. Surgical options for male breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2018; 172(3): 539-44.
25.Sauder CAM, Bateni SB, Davidson AJ, Nishijima DK. Breast Conserving Surgery Compared With Mastectomy in Male Breast Cancer: A Brief Systematic Review. Clin Breast Cancer. 2020;20(3):e309-e14.