Preview

Pacific Medical Journal

Advanced search

Ultrasonography in gynecomastia diagnosis: Clinical experience

https://doi.org/10.34215/1609-1175-2024-3-75-78

Abstract

Aim. To analyze the applicability of ultrasonography in gynecomastia diagnosis.
Materials and methods. The study included 119 males aged 18 to 74 years with complaints of a lump in the projection of the areola, and/or pain/discomfort in the breast gland area. All the patients underwent an ultrasound examination (US) of the breast. In 112 (94.05%) patients, US revealed changes typical of gynecomastia. All patients were divided into three age groups: 18–44 years (n = 99), 45–59 years (n = 15), 60–74 years (n = 5).
Results. Out of 112 cases, 97 and 15 were identified as gynecomastia and pseudogynecomastia, respectively. The highest incidence of gynecomastia was observed in the first age group, with peaks at 24–26 and 30–32 years. Gynecomastia was more often defined as bilateral (67%); unilateral gynecomastia was found in 21.6% and 11.4% of cases on the left and right breast, respectively. The average diameter of the glandular disc was not statistically different in the studied groups (p > 0.05, p = 0.5), while the thickness of the glandular layer was statistically significantly different and increased with age (p ≤ 0.05). The symptoms of true gynecomastia included: in 22 cases, pain and/or discomfort in the breast; in 37 cases, an increase in size; and in 38 cases, a combination of symptoms. Subcutaneous mastectomy on both sides was performed in 21 patients. Histologically, the fibrous stage of gynecomastia predominated in 85.7% of cases (n = 18), the intermediate stage accounted for 9.5% of cases (n = 2), and the flowering stage was noted in 4.8% of cases (n = 1). The US diagnostic efficacy was determined as follows: specificity 100%, accuracy 96.3%, and sensitivity 95.45%.
Conclusion. Ultrasound examination is an accessible, non-invasive, and safe diagnostic method for patients with suspected breast pathology.

About the Authors

A. V. Goncharov
Far Eastern Federal University; Mammology Center
Russian Federation

Andrey V. Goncharov, assistant professor of the Department of Medical Biochemistry and Biophysics

17v Kalinina st., 690035, Vladivostok, Russia 



E. N. Gavrilov
MSP of the MIA of the Russian Federation for Primorsky region
Russian Federation

Vladivostok



N. A. Cherninkaya
Pacific State Medical University
Russian Federation

Vladivostok



References

1. Cuhaci N, Polat SB, Evranos B, Ersoy R, Cakir B. Gynecomastia: clinical evaluation and management. Indian J Endocrinol Metab. 2014;18(2):150–8. doi: 10.4103/2230-8210.129104

2. Niewoehner CB, Schorer AE. Gynaecomastia and breast cancer in men. BMJ. 2008;336(7646):709–13. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39511.493391.BE

3. Mieritz MG, Rakêt LL, Hagen CP, Nielsen JE, Talman ML, Petersen JH, Sommer SH, Main KM, Jørgensen N, Juul A. A Longitudinal study of growth, sex steroids, and IGF-1 in boys with physiological gynecomastia. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2015;100(10):3752–9. doi: 10.1210/jc.2015-2836

4. Yitta S, Singer CI, Toth HB, Mercado CL. Image presentation. Sonographic appearances of benign and malignant male breast disease with mammographic and pathologic correlation. J Ultrasound Med. 2010;29(6):931–47. doi: 10.7863/jum.2010.29.6.931

5. Bankman I. (ed.). Handbook of medical image processing and analysis. Elsevier, 2008. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-373904-9.X0001-4

6. Fricke A, Lehner GM, Stark GB, Penna V. Gynecomastia: histological appearance in different age groups. J Plast Surg Hand Surg. 2018;52(3):166–71. doi: 10.1080/2000656X.2017.1372291

7. Kim SH, Kim YS. Ultrasonographic and mammographic findings of male breast disease. J Ultrasound Med. 2019;38(1):243–52. doi: 10.1002/jum.14665

8. Yashina YuN, Rozhivanov RV, Kurbatov DG. Modern views on the epidemiology, etiology and pathogenesis of gynecomastia. Andrology and Genital Surgery. 2014;15(3):8–15 (In Russ.) doi: 10.17650/2070-9781-2014-3-8-15

9. Chen PH, Slanetz PJ. Incremental clinical value of ultrasound in men with mammographically confirmed gynecomastia. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(1):123–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.021

10. Sansone A, Romanelli F, Sansone M, Lenzi A, Di Luigi L. Gynecomastia and hormones. Endocrine. 2017;55(1):37–44. doi: 10.1007/s12020-016-0975-9

11. Mathews NM. Prohibited contaminants in dietary supplements. Sports Health. 2018;10(1):19–30. doi: 10.1177/1941738117727736

12. Chen PH, Slanetz PJ. Incremental clinical value of ultrasound in men with mammographically confirmed gynecomastia. Eur J Radiol. 2014;83(1):123–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ejrad.2013.09.021

13. Chau A, Jafarian N, Rosa M. Male Breast: Clinical and Imaging Evaluations of Benign and Malignant Entities with Histologic Correlation. Am J Med. 2016;129(8):776–91. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2016.01.009


Review

For citations:


Goncharov A.V., Gavrilov E.N., Cherninkaya N.A. Ultrasonography in gynecomastia diagnosis: Clinical experience. Pacific Medical Journal. 2024;(3):75-78. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.34215/1609-1175-2024-3-75-78

Views: 457


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 1609-1175 (Print)