Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia

To assess the role of breast US in diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia as the primary imaging modality and to compare US findings and classification system with the mammographic ones. 48 patients suspected of having gynecomastia underwent mammography and US. Two radiologists in consensus retrosp...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.118-122
Hauptverfasser: Telegrafo, M, Introna, T, Coi, L, Cornacchia, I, Rella, L, Stabile Ianora, A A, Angelelli, G, Moschetta, M
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 122
container_issue 3
container_start_page 118
container_title Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery
container_volume 37
creator Telegrafo, M
Introna, T
Coi, L
Cornacchia, I
Rella, L
Stabile Ianora, A A
Angelelli, G
Moschetta, M
description To assess the role of breast US in diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia as the primary imaging modality and to compare US findings and classification system with the mammographic ones. 48 patients suspected of having gynecomastia underwent mammography and US. Two radiologists in consensus retrospectively evaluated mammograms and sonograms. Both US and mammographic images were evaluated categorizing gynecomastia into non-mass, nodular and flame shaped patterns. The two category assignations were compared in order to find any difference. The reference standard for both the classification systems was represented by the cytological examination in 18 out of 44 cases (41%) and the six-month US follow-up in the remaining cases. The US examination revealed pseudo-gynecomastia in 4/48 (8%) and true gynecomastia in the remaining 44 (92%). Gynecomastia was bilateral in 25/44 cases (57%) and unilateral in the remaining 19 (43%). The cases of true gynecomastia included non mass shape in 26/44 cases (59%), nodular shape in 12 (27%) and flame shape in 6 (14%). The mammographic examination revealed the same results as compared with US findings. 18/44 (41%) patients affected by nodular or dendritic gynecomastia underwent cytological examination confirming the presence of glandular tissue and the benign nature of the clinical condition. US could be proposed as the primary imaging tool for diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia, avoiding unnecessary Xray examinations or invasive procedures in case of diffuse gynecomastia. In case of nodular or dendritic patterns, biopsy remains mandatory for a definitive diagnosis.
doi_str_mv 10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.118
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5119698</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1835411326</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-3b1a5a8916c6bd21b0702cd4cb8c1a65cc5cb74ae75873991463c44046d483c13</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpVUU1LAzEQDaLYUvsPRPboZdvM5mtzEVT8goIHLXgL2Wy6jexuarIV-u_dflh0DjPwZua9YR5Cl4AnAEDyaWWWLkwzDHxCxIT0aH6ChiAFpEDZxykaYiIhlRizARrH-In74JBRKc7RIBOCUCHZEN3eBatjl8zfEh2TVXCNDpukz5Vrq6Txpa5dt0kWPiSl01Xr4xavNq01vukXnb5AZwtdRzs-1BGaPz683z-ns9enl_vbWWqooF1KCtBM5xK44UWZQYEFzkxJTZEb0JwZw0whqLaC5YJICZQTQymmvKQ5MUBG6GbPu1oXjS2Nbbuga3U4WXnt1P9O65aq8t-KAUgu857g-kAQ_Nfaxk41Lhpb17q1fh0V5ITR_rkZ70fpftQEH2Owi6MMYLUzQO0MUFsDFBGK9OhW4ervicel33eTHzXhg2o</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1835411326</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Telegrafo, M ; Introna, T ; Coi, L ; Cornacchia, I ; Rella, L ; Stabile Ianora, A A ; Angelelli, G ; Moschetta, M</creator><creatorcontrib>Telegrafo, M ; Introna, T ; Coi, L ; Cornacchia, I ; Rella, L ; Stabile Ianora, A A ; Angelelli, G ; Moschetta, M</creatorcontrib><description>To assess the role of breast US in diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia as the primary imaging modality and to compare US findings and classification system with the mammographic ones. 48 patients suspected of having gynecomastia underwent mammography and US. Two radiologists in consensus retrospectively evaluated mammograms and sonograms. Both US and mammographic images were evaluated categorizing gynecomastia into non-mass, nodular and flame shaped patterns. The two category assignations were compared in order to find any difference. The reference standard for both the classification systems was represented by the cytological examination in 18 out of 44 cases (41%) and the six-month US follow-up in the remaining cases. The US examination revealed pseudo-gynecomastia in 4/48 (8%) and true gynecomastia in the remaining 44 (92%). Gynecomastia was bilateral in 25/44 cases (57%) and unilateral in the remaining 19 (43%). The cases of true gynecomastia included non mass shape in 26/44 cases (59%), nodular shape in 12 (27%) and flame shape in 6 (14%). The mammographic examination revealed the same results as compared with US findings. 18/44 (41%) patients affected by nodular or dendritic gynecomastia underwent cytological examination confirming the presence of glandular tissue and the benign nature of the clinical condition. US could be proposed as the primary imaging tool for diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia, avoiding unnecessary Xray examinations or invasive procedures in case of diffuse gynecomastia. In case of nodular or dendritic patterns, biopsy remains mandatory for a definitive diagnosis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0391-9005</identifier><identifier>ISSN: 1971-145X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1971-145X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.118</identifier><identifier>PMID: 27734795</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Italy: CIC Edizioni Internationali</publisher><subject>Adult ; Aged ; Gynecomastia - diagnostic imaging ; Humans ; Male ; Mammography ; Middle Aged ; Original ; Retrospective Studies ; Ultrasonography ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery, 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.118-122</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2016, CIC Edizioni Internazionali 2016</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-3b1a5a8916c6bd21b0702cd4cb8c1a65cc5cb74ae75873991463c44046d483c13</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5119698/pdf/$$EPDF$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5119698/$$EHTML$$P50$$Gpubmedcentral$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,727,780,784,885,27924,27925,53791,53793</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27734795$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Telegrafo, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Introna, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coi, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cornacchia, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rella, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stabile Ianora, A A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angelelli, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moschetta, M</creatorcontrib><title>Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia</title><title>Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery</title><addtitle>G Chir</addtitle><description>To assess the role of breast US in diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia as the primary imaging modality and to compare US findings and classification system with the mammographic ones. 48 patients suspected of having gynecomastia underwent mammography and US. Two radiologists in consensus retrospectively evaluated mammograms and sonograms. Both US and mammographic images were evaluated categorizing gynecomastia into non-mass, nodular and flame shaped patterns. The two category assignations were compared in order to find any difference. The reference standard for both the classification systems was represented by the cytological examination in 18 out of 44 cases (41%) and the six-month US follow-up in the remaining cases. The US examination revealed pseudo-gynecomastia in 4/48 (8%) and true gynecomastia in the remaining 44 (92%). Gynecomastia was bilateral in 25/44 cases (57%) and unilateral in the remaining 19 (43%). The cases of true gynecomastia included non mass shape in 26/44 cases (59%), nodular shape in 12 (27%) and flame shape in 6 (14%). The mammographic examination revealed the same results as compared with US findings. 18/44 (41%) patients affected by nodular or dendritic gynecomastia underwent cytological examination confirming the presence of glandular tissue and the benign nature of the clinical condition. US could be proposed as the primary imaging tool for diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia, avoiding unnecessary Xray examinations or invasive procedures in case of diffuse gynecomastia. In case of nodular or dendritic patterns, biopsy remains mandatory for a definitive diagnosis.</description><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Gynecomastia - diagnostic imaging</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Ultrasonography</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0391-9005</issn><issn>1971-145X</issn><issn>1971-145X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2016</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpVUU1LAzEQDaLYUvsPRPboZdvM5mtzEVT8goIHLXgL2Wy6jexuarIV-u_dflh0DjPwZua9YR5Cl4AnAEDyaWWWLkwzDHxCxIT0aH6ChiAFpEDZxykaYiIhlRizARrH-In74JBRKc7RIBOCUCHZEN3eBatjl8zfEh2TVXCNDpukz5Vrq6Txpa5dt0kWPiSl01Xr4xavNq01vukXnb5AZwtdRzs-1BGaPz683z-ns9enl_vbWWqooF1KCtBM5xK44UWZQYEFzkxJTZEb0JwZw0whqLaC5YJICZQTQymmvKQ5MUBG6GbPu1oXjS2Nbbuga3U4WXnt1P9O65aq8t-KAUgu857g-kAQ_Nfaxk41Lhpb17q1fh0V5ITR_rkZ70fpftQEH2Owi6MMYLUzQO0MUFsDFBGK9OhW4ervicel33eTHzXhg2o</recordid><startdate>20160501</startdate><enddate>20160501</enddate><creator>Telegrafo, M</creator><creator>Introna, T</creator><creator>Coi, L</creator><creator>Cornacchia, I</creator><creator>Rella, L</creator><creator>Stabile Ianora, A A</creator><creator>Angelelli, G</creator><creator>Moschetta, M</creator><general>CIC Edizioni Internationali</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20160501</creationdate><title>Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia</title><author>Telegrafo, M ; Introna, T ; Coi, L ; Cornacchia, I ; Rella, L ; Stabile Ianora, A A ; Angelelli, G ; Moschetta, M</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-3b1a5a8916c6bd21b0702cd4cb8c1a65cc5cb74ae75873991463c44046d483c13</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2016</creationdate><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Gynecomastia - diagnostic imaging</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Ultrasonography</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Telegrafo, M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Introna, T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coi, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Cornacchia, I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rella, L</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stabile Ianora, A A</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Angelelli, G</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Moschetta, M</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Telegrafo, M</au><au>Introna, T</au><au>Coi, L</au><au>Cornacchia, I</au><au>Rella, L</au><au>Stabile Ianora, A A</au><au>Angelelli, G</au><au>Moschetta, M</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia</atitle><jtitle>Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery</jtitle><addtitle>G Chir</addtitle><date>2016-05-01</date><risdate>2016</risdate><volume>37</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>118</spage><epage>122</epage><pages>118-122</pages><issn>0391-9005</issn><issn>1971-145X</issn><eissn>1971-145X</eissn><abstract>To assess the role of breast US in diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia as the primary imaging modality and to compare US findings and classification system with the mammographic ones. 48 patients suspected of having gynecomastia underwent mammography and US. Two radiologists in consensus retrospectively evaluated mammograms and sonograms. Both US and mammographic images were evaluated categorizing gynecomastia into non-mass, nodular and flame shaped patterns. The two category assignations were compared in order to find any difference. The reference standard for both the classification systems was represented by the cytological examination in 18 out of 44 cases (41%) and the six-month US follow-up in the remaining cases. The US examination revealed pseudo-gynecomastia in 4/48 (8%) and true gynecomastia in the remaining 44 (92%). Gynecomastia was bilateral in 25/44 cases (57%) and unilateral in the remaining 19 (43%). The cases of true gynecomastia included non mass shape in 26/44 cases (59%), nodular shape in 12 (27%) and flame shape in 6 (14%). The mammographic examination revealed the same results as compared with US findings. 18/44 (41%) patients affected by nodular or dendritic gynecomastia underwent cytological examination confirming the presence of glandular tissue and the benign nature of the clinical condition. US could be proposed as the primary imaging tool for diagnosing and classifying gynecomastia, avoiding unnecessary Xray examinations or invasive procedures in case of diffuse gynecomastia. In case of nodular or dendritic patterns, biopsy remains mandatory for a definitive diagnosis.</abstract><cop>Italy</cop><pub>CIC Edizioni Internationali</pub><pmid>27734795</pmid><doi>10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.118</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0391-9005
ispartof Giornale di Chirurgia - Journal of Surgery, 2016-05, Vol.37 (3), p.118-122
issn 0391-9005
1971-145X
1971-145X
language eng
recordid cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_5119698
source MEDLINE; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adult
Aged
Gynecomastia - diagnostic imaging
Humans
Male
Mammography
Middle Aged
Original
Retrospective Studies
Ultrasonography
Young Adult
title Breast US as primary imaging modality for diagnosing gynecomastia
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T12%3A19%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Breast%20US%20as%20primary%20imaging%20modality%20for%20diagnosing%20gynecomastia&rft.jtitle=Giornale%20di%20Chirurgia%20-%20Journal%20of%20Surgery&rft.au=Telegrafo,%20M&rft.date=2016-05-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=118&rft.epage=122&rft.pages=118-122&rft.issn=0391-9005&rft.eissn=1971-145X&rft_id=info:doi/10.11138/gchir/2016.37.3.118&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E1835411326%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1835411326&rft_id=info:pmid/27734795&rfr_iscdi=true