Outcome of Men Presenting with Clinical Breast Problems: The Role of Mammography and Ultrasound
dc.contributor.author | Patterson, Stephanie K. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Helvie, Mark A. | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Aziz, Khadija | en_US |
dc.contributor.author | Nees, Alexis V. | en_US |
dc.date.accessioned | 2010-06-01T21:39:26Z | |
dc.date.available | 2010-06-01T21:39:26Z | |
dc.date.issued | 2006-09 | en_US |
dc.identifier.citation | Patterson, Stephanie K.; Helvie, Mark A.; Aziz, Khadija; Nees, Alexis V. (2006). "Outcome of Men Presenting with Clinical Breast Problems: The Role of Mammography and Ultrasound." The Breast Journal 12(5): 418-423. <http://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74705> | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1075-122X | en_US |
dc.identifier.issn | 1524-4741 | en_US |
dc.identifier.uri | https://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/74705 | |
dc.identifier.uri | http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=16958958&dopt=citation | en_US |
dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this study was to determine the outcome of men presenting with clinical breast problems for breast imaging and to evaluate the role of mammography and ultrasound in the diagnosis of benign and malignant breast problems. We retrospectively reviewed clinical, radiographic, and pathologic records of 165 consecutive symptomatic men presenting to Breast Imaging over a 4 year period. We assessed the clinical indication for referral, mammographic findings, sonographic findings, histologic results, and clinical outcomes. Patients ranged in age from 22 to 96 years. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) category 4 and 5 mammograms and solid sonographic masses were considered suspicious for malignancy. Six of 165 men (4%) had primary breast carcinoma, which were mammographically suspicious in all 6 (100%). Five were invasive ductal carcinoma and one was ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). Of 164 mammograms, 20 (12%) were suspicious. Six were cancer and 14 were benign. Clinical follow-up for 2 years or biopsy results were available for 138 of the 165 men (84%). Twelve with benign mammographic findings had benign biopsies. All men with benign mammography not undergoing biopsy were cancer free. Sensitivity for cancer detection (mammography) was 100% and specificity was 90%. Positive predictive value (mammography) was 32% (6 of 19) and the negative predictive value was 100%. Sonography was performed in 68 of the 165 men (41%). Three of three cancers (100%) were solid sonographic masses. There were 9 of 68 false-positive examinations (13%). Sensitivity and negative predictive value for cancer detection (ultrasound) was 100% and specificity was 74%. The most common clinical indication for referral was mass/thickening (56%). Mammography had excellent sensitivity and specificity for breast cancer detection and should be included as the initial imaging examination of men with clinical breast problems. The negative predictive value of 100% for mammography suggests that mammograms read as normal or negative need no further examination if the clinical findings are not suspicious. A normal ultrasound in these men confirms the negative predictive value of a normal mammogram. | en_US |
dc.format.extent | 147721 bytes | |
dc.format.extent | 3109 bytes | |
dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | |
dc.format.mimetype | text/plain | |
dc.publisher | Blackwell Publishing Inc | en_US |
dc.rights | ©2006, Copyright the Authors Journal compilation ©2006, Blackwell Publishing, Inc. | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Breast | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Male | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Mammography | en_US |
dc.subject.other | Ultrasound | en_US |
dc.title | Outcome of Men Presenting with Clinical Breast Problems: The Role of Mammography and Ultrasound | en_US |
dc.type | Article | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbsecondlevel | Obstetrics and Gynecology | en_US |
dc.subject.hlbtoplevel | Health Sciences | en_US |
dc.description.peerreviewed | Peer Reviewed | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationum | * Department of Radiology, University of Michigan Hospitals, Ann Arbor, Michigan; and | en_US |
dc.contributor.affiliationother | † Department of Diagnostic Radiology, University of Kentucky Medical Center, Lexington, Kentucky | en_US |
dc.identifier.pmid | 16958958 | en_US |
dc.description.bitstreamurl | http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/74705/1/j.1075-122X.2006.00298.x.pdf | |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1111/j.1075-122X.2006.00298.x | en_US |
dc.identifier.source | The Breast Journal | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Jemal A, Tiwari RC, Murray T, et al. Cancer statistics, 2004. CA Cancer J Clin 2004; 54: 8 – 29. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Giordano SH, Cohen DS, Buzdar AU, Perkins G, Hortobagyi G. Breast carcinoma in men: a population-based study. Cancer 2004; 101: 51 – 57. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Scott-Connor CEH, Jochimsen PR, Menck HR, Winchester DJ. An analysis of male and female breast cancer treatment and survival among demographically identical pairs of patients. Surgery 1999; 125: 775 – 81. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Donegan WL, Redlich PN, Lang PJ, Gall MT. Carcinoma of the breast in males. Cancer 1998; 83: 498 – 509. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Meguerditchian A-N, Falardeau M, Martin G. Male breast carcinoma. Can J Surg 2002; 45: 296 – 302. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cooper RA, Gunter BA, Ramamurthy L. Mammography in men. Radiology 1994; 191: 651 – 56. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Chantra PK, So GJ, Wollman JS, Bassett LW. Mammography of the male breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 164: 853 – 58. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Evans GFF, Anthony T, Appelbaum AH, et al. The diagnostic accuracy of mammography in the evaluation of male breast disease. Am J Surg 2001; 181: 96 – 100. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 9. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System, 4th ed. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 10. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System: Ultrasound. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology, 2003. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Gunhan-Bilgen I, Bozkaya H, Ustun EE, Memis A. Male breast disease: clinical, mammographic, and ultrasonographic features. Eur J Radiol 2002; 43: 246 – 55. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Appelbaum AH, Evans GFF, Levy KR, Amirkhan RH, Schumpert TD. Mammographic appearances of male breast disease. Radiographics 1999; 19: 559 – 68. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Braunstein GD. Gynecomastia. N Engl J Med 1993; 328: 490 – 95. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Ciatto S, Iossa A, Bonardi R, Pacini P. Male breast carcinoma. Review of a multicenter series of 150 cases. Tumori 1990; 76: 555 – 58. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Cutuli B, Lacroze M, Dilhuydy JM, et al. Male breast cancer: results of the treatments and prognostic factors in 397 cases. Eur J Cancer 1995; 31A: 1960 – 64. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Vetto J, Schmidt W, Pommier R, DiTomasso J, Eppich H, Wood W. Accurate and cost-effective evaluation of breast masses in males. Am J Surg 1998; 175: 383 – 87. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Joshi A, Kapila K, Verma K. Fine needle aspiration cytology in the management of male breast masses. Acta Cytol 1999; 43: 334 – 38. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Sneige N, Holder PD, Katz RL, et al. Fine-needle aspiration cytology of the male breast in a cancer center. Diagn Cytopathol 1993; 9: 691 – 97. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Dershaw DD, Borgen PI, Deutch BM, Liberman L. Mammographic findings in men with breast cancer. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1993; 160: 267 – 70. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Yang WT, Whitman GJ, Yuen EHY, Tse GMK, Stelling CB. Sonographic features of primary breast cancer in men. AJR 2001; 176: 413 – 16. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Rissanen TJ, Makarainen HP, Kallioinen MJ, Kiviniemi HO, Salmela PI. Radiography of the male breast in gynecomastia. Acta Radiol 1992; 33: 110 – 14. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Jackson VP, Gilmor RL. Male breast carcinoma and gynecomastia: comparison of mammography with sonography. Radiology 1983; 149: 533 – 36. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Stewart RAL, Howlett DC, Hearn FJ. Pictorial review: the imaging features of male breast disease. Clin Radiol 1997; 52: 739 – 44. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | 24. National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology. Breast Cancer Screening and Diagnosis. Jenkintown, PA: National Comprehensive Cancer Network, 2003. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Anderson WF, Althuis MD, Brinton LA, Devesa SS. Is male breast cancer similar or different than female breast cancer? Breast Cancer Res Treat 2004; 83: 77 – 86. | en_US |
dc.identifier.citedreference | Hittmair AP, Lininger RA, Tavassoli FA. Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the male breast: a morphologic study of 84 cases of pure DCIS and 30 cases of DCIS associated with invasive carcinoma—a preliminary report. Cancer 1998; 83: 2139 – 49. | en_US |
dc.owningcollname | Interdisciplinary and Peer-Reviewed |
Files in this item
Remediation of Harmful Language
The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.
Accessibility
If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.