(Radiographics. 1999;19:559-568.)
© RSNA, 1999
Mammographic Appearances of Male Breast Disease1
Alan H. Appelbaum, MB, BCh,
Gregory F. F. Evans, MB, ChB,
Karen R. Levy, MD,
Robin H. Amirkhan, MD and
Terence D. Schumpert, MD
1 From the Departments of Radiology (A.H.A., G.F.F.E.) and Pathology (R.H.A.), Veterans Affairs Medical Center, 4500 S Lancaster Ave, Dallas, TX 75216 and the Departments of Radiology (A.H.A., G.F.F.E., K.R.L., T.D.S.) and Pathology (R.H.A.), University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas. Recipient of a Certificate of Merit award for a scientific exhibit at the 1997 RSNA scientific assembly. Received April 30, 1998; revision requested May 27; final revision received November 5; accepted November 5. Address reprint requests to A.H.A.
 |
Abstract
|
|---|
Various male breast diseases have characteristic mammographic appearances that can be correlated with their pathologic diagnoses. Male breast cancer is usually subareolar and eccentric to the nipple. Margins of the lesions are more frequently well defined, and calcifications are rarer and coarser than those occurring in female breast cancer. Gynecomastia usually appears as a fan-shaped density emanating from the nipple, gradually blending into surrounding fat. It may have prominent extensions into surrounding fat and, in some cases, an appearance similar to that of a heterogeneously dense female breast. Although there are characteristic mammographic features that allow breast cancer in men to be recognized, there is substantial overlap between these features and the mammographic appearance of benign nodular lesions. The mammographic appearance of gynecomastia is not similar to that of male breast cancer, but in rare cases, it can mask malignancy. Gynecomastia can be mimicked by chronic inflammation. All mammographically lucent lesions of the male breast appear to be benign, similar to such lesions in the female breast.
Index Terms: Breast, diseases, 00.731, 00.744, 05.75 • Breast neoplasms, male, 05.329
|
INTRODUCTION
|
|---|
Gynecomastia and breast cancer are the two most important diseases of the male breast. Most other diseases found in the male breast arise from the skin and subcutaneous tissues (eg, fat necrosis, lipoma, and epidermal inclusion cysts). Some lesions that are common in the female breast (eg, fibroadenomas) do not occur in the male breast (1, pp 342–346).
Much less is known about mammography in men compared with women. We, therefore, decided to correlate the mammographic appearances and pathologic diagnoses in 97 cases of histologically proved male breast disease. The pathologic diagnoses in this series included gynecomastia (n = 65 cases), infiltrating ductal carcinoma (n = 9), infiltrating ductal carcinoma with an in situ component (n = 3), normal (n = 5), lipoma (n = 4), lymph node (n = 3), epidermal inclusion cyst (n = 2), subareolar abscess (n = 2), fat necrosis (n = 1), chronic inflammation (n = 1), hematoma (n = 1), and subcutaneous leiomyoma (n = 1). Sixty-one of the 65 cases of gynecomastia and 11 of the 12 cases of male breast cancer were diagnosed as such mammographically.
In this article, we describe and illustrate the mammographic and pathologic appearances of gynecomastia, male breast cancer, and several less common entities as seen in these 97 cases and as discussed in prior literature.
|
GYNECOMASTIA
|
|---|
Clinical Characteristics
Gynecomastia is common; in one series, 57% of the male population over 44 years of age had palpable breast tissue (2). Gynecomastia is characterized by hyperplasia of ductal and stromal elements of the male breast. It manifests clinically as a soft, mobile, tender mass in the retroareolar region (3). Gynecomastia has been associated with an increased serum level of estradiol and a decreased level of testosterone. This increased estradiol-to-testosterone ratio may arise from physiologic changes at puberty and senescence, but it may also be caused by endocrine and hormonal disorders, systemic diseases, neoplasms, and certain drugs (3,4) (Table).
Although gynecomastia and male breast cancer have many similarities and up to 40% of cases of male breast cancer have been reported to be associated with gynecomastia, no definite causality has been established (5).
Mammographic Appearance with Pathologic Correlation
Three mammographic patterns of gynecomastia have been described: nodular, dendritic, and diffuse. Nodular gynecomastia appears as a fan-shaped density radiating from the nipple; it may be symmetric or more prominent in the upper, outer quadrant. The density usually blends gradually into the surrounding fat, but it may be more spherical (3,4,9,10) (Fig 1). The nodular pattern correlates with the pathologic classification of florid gynecomastia, which is thought to be the early phase of gynecomastia. At histologic analysis, florid gynecomastia is characterized by hyperplasia of the intraductal epithelium with loose, cellular stroma and surrounding edema (Figs 2, 3).
View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1a. Nodular gynecomastia. (a) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a subareolar density that appears wedge shaped. (b) On the mediolateral oblique view, the density appears more rounded. Note the gradual tapering of soft tissue into surrounding fat.
|
|
View larger version (53K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 1b. Nodular gynecomastia. (a) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a subareolar density that appears wedge shaped. (b) On the mediolateral oblique view, the density appears more rounded. Note the gradual tapering of soft tissue into surrounding fat.
|
|
View larger version (186K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 2. Florid (nodular) gynecomastia. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x40; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a surgical biopsy specimen shows proliferation of irregularly branching ducts surrounded by loose, edematous, periductal stroma and residual adipose tissue.
|
|
View larger version (171K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 3. Florid (nodular) gynecomastia. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x400; Papanicolaou stain) of a fine-needle aspirate demonstrates clusters of bland, cohesive, ductal epithelial cells.
|
|
Dendritic gynecomastia appears as a retroareolar soft-tissue density with prominent extensions that radiate into the deeper adipose tissue (Fig 4). The dendritic pattern correlates with the pathologic classification of fibrous gynecomastia, which is thought to occur when gynecomastia has been long-standing (9). The histologic characteristics of fibrous gynecomastia are ductal proliferation with dense, fibrotic stroma (9,10) (Fig 5).
View larger version (66K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 4a. Dendritic gynecomastia. Mediolateral oblique (a) and craniocaudal (b) mammograms show stranded densities, which radiate from the nipple and are more prominent in the upper outer quadrant.
|
|
View larger version (59K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 4b. Dendritic gynecomastia. Mediolateral oblique (a) and craniocaudal (b) mammograms show stranded densities, which radiate from the nipple and are more prominent in the upper outer quadrant.
|
|
View larger version (217K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 5. Fibrous (dendritic) gynecomastia. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x100; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a surgical biopsy specimen reveals dense, sparsely cellular, fibrous stroma; no periductal edema; and minimal surrounding adipose tissue.
|
|
Diffuse glandular gynecomastia has a mammographic appearance similar to that of a heterogeneously dense female breast (4,10) (Fig 6).
View larger version (64K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 6. Diffuse glandular gynecomastia. Mediolateral oblique mammogram of a male breast demonstrates an appearance that is very similar to that of a heterogeneously dense female breast.
|
|
These three mammographic patterns were adequate to describe all 65 cases of gynecomastia in our series. However, there were two cases of histologically proved gynecomastia in which the subareolar density was so small that classification was difficult (Fig 7). In the 61 cases of mammographically diagnosed, histologically proved cases of gynecomastia, 47 (77%) cases were classified as nodular, 12 (20%) as dendritic, and two (3%) as diffuse glandular. In the 55 cases of mammographically diagnosed, histologically proved gynecomastia in which bilateral mammograms were available, 46 (84%) cases were bilaterally asymmetric, one (2%) was bilaterally symmetric, and eight (14%) were unilateral.
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 7a. Gynecomastia. (a) Craniocaudal mammogram shows minimal density radiating from the nipple. This finding was histologically proved to represent gynecomastia. (b) Magnified view demonstrates gradual feathering of soft tissue into fat.
|
|
View larger version (87K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 7b. Gynecomastia. (a) Craniocaudal mammogram shows minimal density radiating from the nipple. This finding was histologically proved to represent gynecomastia. (b) Magnified view demonstrates gradual feathering of soft tissue into fat.
|
|
|
MALE BREAST CANCER
|
|---|
Clinical Characteristics
Male breast cancer is substantially less common than gynecomastia and accounts for 1% (6) of all cases of breast cancer and 0.17% of all cancer cases in men. It manifests clinically as a hard, fixed, painless mass. Bloody nipple discharge is common (7).
Risk factors for development of male breast cancer include advanced age, exposure to ionizing radiation, occupational exposure to electromagnetic field radiation, cryptorchidism, testicular injury, Klinefelter syndrome, liver dysfunction, family history of breast cancer, and previous chest trauma (3,4,6,8).
The histologic type of most cases of male breast cancer is either infiltrating ductal carcinoma or ductal carcinoma in situ because the normal male breast contains only ducts, and even in men with gynecomastia, lobule formation is rare. However, all other subtypes of carcinoma seen in women have been found in men (6).
Mammographic Appearance
Male breast cancer usually occurs in a subareolar location or is positioned eccentric to the nipple; occasionally, it occurs in a peripheral position. The margins of the lesions may be well defined, ill defined, or spiculated. The lesions may be round, oval, or irregular and are frequently lobulated. Calcifications are fewer in number, coarser, and less frequently rod-shaped than those seen in female breast cancer (Figs 8–12). Secondary features include skin thickening, nipple retraction, and axillary lymphadenopathy (3,4,10,11) (Figs 13, 14).
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 8. Figures 8–10. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (8) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a lobulated mass with a primarily well-defined margin and eccentrically located relative to the nipple. (9) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a retroareolar mass with ill-defined margins and nipple retraction. (10) Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with an in situ component. Craniocaudal mammogram reveals a lobulated mass with ill-defined margins and coarse calcifications. Nipple retraction is also seen.
|
|
View larger version (50K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 9. Figures 8–10. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (8) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a lobulated mass with a primarily well-defined margin and eccentrically located relative to the nipple. (9) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a retroareolar mass with ill-defined margins and nipple retraction. (10) Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with an in situ component. Craniocaudal mammogram reveals a lobulated mass with ill-defined margins and coarse calcifications. Nipple retraction is also seen.
|
|
View larger version (37K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 10. Figures 8–10. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (8) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a lobulated mass with a primarily well-defined margin and eccentrically located relative to the nipple. (9) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a retroareolar mass with ill-defined margins and nipple retraction. (10) Infiltrating ductal carcinoma with an in situ component. Craniocaudal mammogram reveals a lobulated mass with ill-defined margins and coarse calcifications. Nipple retraction is also seen.
|
|
View larger version (208K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 11. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x200; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a surgical biopsy specimen shows rounded and linear groups of infiltrating malignant cells with solid and glandular foci.
|
|
View larger version (202K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 12. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x400; Papanicolaou stain) of a fine-needle aspirate demonstrates poorly cohesive groups of large, crowded, pleomorphic cells with increased nuclear-to-cytoplasmic ratios, irregular membranes, and macronucleoli.
|
|
View larger version (60K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 13. Figures 13, 14. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (13) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a small lobulated mass with well-defined borders and eccentrically located relative to the nipple. There is obvious nipple retraction. (14) Mediolateral oblique mammogram reveals a subareolar mass with ill-defined margins and overlying skin thickening.
|
|
View larger version (52K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 14. Figures 13, 14. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (13) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a small lobulated mass with well-defined borders and eccentrically located relative to the nipple. There is obvious nipple retraction. (14) Mediolateral oblique mammogram reveals a subareolar mass with ill-defined margins and overlying skin thickening.
|
|
In our series, there were 12 cases of male breast cancer, and calcifications were evident in three, nipple retraction in seven, and skin thickening in seven. In 10 cases, the carcinoma manifested as a nodular lesion, with six lesions being eccentric, three central, and one distant relative to the nipple (Fig 15). Six lesions were well-defined and four ill-defined. Five were lobulated, one round, and four ovoid. In the remaining two cases of primary breast cancer, one manifested as an ulceration and one was not visible because it was obscured by concomitant gynecomastia (Fig 16).
View larger version (62K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 15a. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (a) Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows a mass (arrow), distant from the nipple and overlying the pectoralis muscle. A few pleomorphic microcalcifications are seen adjacent to the mass, which is partially obscured by gynecomastia. (b) Magnification compression view better demonstrates the mass and adjacent microcalcifications. (c) Photomicrograph (original magnification, x40; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a resected specimen shows linear groups of carcinoma cells with glandular foci (left) infiltrating an area of fibrous gynecomastia (right).
|
|
View larger version (58K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 15b. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (a) Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows a mass (arrow), distant from the nipple and overlying the pectoralis muscle. A few pleomorphic microcalcifications are seen adjacent to the mass, which is partially obscured by gynecomastia. (b) Magnification compression view better demonstrates the mass and adjacent microcalcifications. (c) Photomicrograph (original magnification, x40; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a resected specimen shows linear groups of carcinoma cells with glandular foci (left) infiltrating an area of fibrous gynecomastia (right).
|
|
View larger version (203K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 15c. Infiltrating ductal carcinoma. (a) Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows a mass (arrow), distant from the nipple and overlying the pectoralis muscle. A few pleomorphic microcalcifications are seen adjacent to the mass, which is partially obscured by gynecomastia. (b) Magnification compression view better demonstrates the mass and adjacent microcalcifications. (c) Photomicrograph (original magnification, x40; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a resected specimen shows linear groups of carcinoma cells with glandular foci (left) infiltrating an area of fibrous gynecomastia (right).
|
|
View larger version (105K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 16. Bilateral infiltrating ductal carcinoma with an in situ component and gynecomastia. Craniocaudal mammograms demonstrate a nodule medial to the nipple (arrow) and retroareolar gynecomastia in the right breast as well as gynecomastia in the left breast. The gynecomastia in the left breast obscured a 1-cm invasive carcinoma.
|
|
|
NORMAL MALE MAMMOGRAPHIC FINDINGS AND LUCENT LESIONS
|
|---|
The normal male mammogram demonstrates lucent fat with a few strands of ductal or connective tissue extending from the nipple (4,9) (Fig 17). In four cases in our series, the mammograms were interpreted as normal, but the pathologic diagnoses were lipoma, fat necrosis, adipose tissue, and hematoma.
Lipomas usually do and fat necrosis can appear lucent (10,12); thus, the lesions in both of these cases could have been masked by surrounding lucent fat. A lipoma can also manifest as a lucent nodule with a thin radiopaque capsule, and fat necrosis can vary from a lucent nodule to an irregular, spiculated soft-tissue density mass. Calcifications can occur in fat necrosis and can be ringlike or angular and branching (10).
The case diagnosed from the biopsy specimen as adipose tissue could have represented either lipoma, pseudogynecomastia (fat deposition in the male breast), or normal male breast tissue. Pseudogynecomastia is difficult to distinguish from a normal male breast at mammography (4). Diagnosis requires clinical correlation for breast enlargement. Biopsy of a normal male breast or pseudogynecomastia would yield adipose tissue. Biopsy of a lipoma may show a fibrous capsule but frequently yields only adipose tissue.
In the case diagnosed as hematoma, review of the mammograms revealed a small, ill-defined density, which would be consistent with hemorrhage.
|
OTHER BENIGN BREAST LESIONS
|
|---|
Epidermal Inclusion Cyst
Epidermal inclusion cysts are usually round, well-circumscribed, dense masses ranging from 1 to 5 cm in diameter. The cysts are composed of laminated keratin with a wall of epidermis. If the cysts rupture, an inflammatory reaction ensues (13), and the resulting strandedness and indistinct margins of the ruptured cysts make it difficult to distinguish them from malignant lesions at mammography.
In our series, there were two cases of epidermal inclusion cysts. One case had the typical mammographic appearance, and one had the appearance of inflammation (Figs 18–20).
View larger version (48K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 18. Figures 18, 19. Epidermal inclusion cyst. (18) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a dense, well-defined nodule distant from the nipple and gynecomastia. (19) Mediolateral oblique mammogram demonstrates two adjacent nodules and scattered calcifications. Margins of the inferiorly located nodule are obscured by stranded densities. The superiorly located nodule has primarily well-defined borders but is obscured along the inferior margin. Both nodules proved to be epidermal inclusion cysts. Obscuration of borders is presumed to be secondary to inflammation from rupture of the lower cyst.
|
|
View larger version (54K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 19. Figures 18, 19. Epidermal inclusion cyst. (18) Craniocaudal mammogram shows a dense, well-defined nodule distant from the nipple and gynecomastia. (19) Mediolateral oblique mammogram demonstrates two adjacent nodules and scattered calcifications. Margins of the inferiorly located nodule are obscured by stranded densities. The superiorly located nodule has primarily well-defined borders but is obscured along the inferior margin. Both nodules proved to be epidermal inclusion cysts. Obscuration of borders is presumed to be secondary to inflammation from rupture of the lower cyst.
|
|
View larger version (195K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 20. Epidermal inclusion cyst. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x100; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a resected specimen demonstrates a subcutaneous or intradermal cyst lined by true squamous epithelium and filled with horny, keratinaceous material.
|
|
Subcutaneous Leiomyoma
Subcutaneous leiomyomas in the male breast have previously been described as having spiculated margins and being associated with localized skin thickening and retraction (14). These findings, however, were not seen in the single case in our series, in which the sole mammographic finding was an enlarged nipple (Figs 21, 22).
View larger version (186K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 22. Subcutaneous leiomyoma. Photomicrograph (original magnification, x50; hematoxylin-eosin stain) of a resected specimen reveals a poorly demarcated mass composed of interlacing bundles of bland, benign smooth muscle fibers with varying amounts of intermingled collagen bundles.
|
|
Subareolar Abscess
Subareolar abscess is a chronic lesion associated with duct ectasia, which tends to recur unless treated by excision of both the abscess and duct (15). We have seen no prior descriptions of the mammographic appearance of this lesion in male patients.
Two cases of subareolar abscess were seen in our series. In one, the abscess appeared as a nodule with indistinct borders and punctate calcifications (Fig 23). In the second case, no discrete mass was seen, and only stranded densities radiating from the nipple were noted. This case was originally mistaken for gynecomastia, but a review of the images revealed skin thickening, a finding suggestive of the correct diagnosis (Fig 24).
View larger version (74K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 23. Figures 23, 24. Subareolar abscess. (23) Magnified craniocaudal view reveals a nodule with indistinct borders and punctate calcifications, located posterior to the nipple. (24) Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows stranded inflammatory changes that mimic gynecomastia. No mass is identifiable, but skin thickening is seen.
|
|
View larger version (55K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 24. Figures 23, 24. Subareolar abscess. (23) Magnified craniocaudal view reveals a nodule with indistinct borders and punctate calcifications, located posterior to the nipple. (24) Mediolateral oblique mammogram shows stranded inflammatory changes that mimic gynecomastia. No mass is identifiable, but skin thickening is seen.
|
|
Lymph Nodes
A well-defined nodule in the upper outer quadrant of the breast with a lucent center or hilar notch is considered pathognomonic of an intramammary lymph node (1, p 105).
In our series, there were three cases of intramammary lymph nodes, which manifested as well-defined breast nodules. One contained a lucent center and had a well-defined margin and was interpreted as a benign lymph node (Fig 25). The other two did not demonstrate a lucent center or a hilar notch and were considered potentially malignant.
|
CONCLUSIONS
|
|---|
Breast cancer in men has mammographic features that allow it to be recognized, but there is a significant overlap in the mammographic appearances of benign nodular breast lesions and breast cancer. Both malignant and benign lesions may show either circumscribed or poorly defined margins. Coarse calcifications are seen in both benign and malignant masses. A location distant from the nipple may be the most useful finding to suggest a benign lesion, but it is not definitive. In our series, nipple retraction was seen only in malignant lesions, but it was not present in five of the 12 cases of male breast cancer. At our institution, tissue diagnosis of nodular lesions is pursued unless malignancy can be definitively excluded on the basis of mammographic or clinical findings.
The mammographic appearances of gynecomastia and breast cancer do not overlap. However, gynecomastia can be mimicked by chronic inflammatory conditions (Fig 26). In our series, malignancy was masked in only one of 61 cases of mammographically diagnosed, histologically proved cases of gynecomastia. In this case, a mass coexistent with gynecomastia was suspected clinically. We recommend that biopsy should not be performed routinely when gynecomastia is seen but only if a coexistent lesion is suspected clinically or mammographically.
View larger version (87K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
[Download PPT slide]
|
Figure 26. Chronic inflammation. Mediolateral oblique mammogram demonstrates stranded densities radiating from the nipple that mimic gynecomastia. These findings actually represented chronic inflammation and fibrosis from a wound that would not heal.
|
|
All mammographically "invisible" lesions of the male breast in our series were benign, and similar lesions in the female breast have been described as lucent lesions. Lucent lesions of the female breast are invariably benign (1, p 68). We have no reason to believe that this is different in men.
|
Acknowledgments
|
|---|
We gratefully acknowledge the assistance of Nancy S. Gray for photography, Susan A. Boshart, RT(R) (M), for locating cases, and Dorothy P. Smith, BA, for composition of the scientific exhibit associated with this article.
|
Footnotes
|
|---|
CME FEATURE This article meets the criteria for 1.0 credit hour in category 1 of the AMA Physician's Recognition Award. To obtain credit, see the questionnaire on pp 737–744.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES After reading this article and taking the test, the reader will be able to:
• Demonstrate familiarity with risk factors, histopathologic features, and clinical presentation of male breast cancer and gynecomastia.
• Recognize the mammographic characteristics of gynecomastia.
• Recognize the mammographic findings suggestive of malignancy in the male breast.
• Identify the mammographic characteristics of less common lesions in the male breast.
|
References
|
|---|
-
Kopans D. Breast imaging Philadelphia, Pa: Lippincott, 1989.
-
Nutall FQ. Gynecomastia as a physical finding in normal man. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1979; 48:338.[Abstract]
-
Cooper R. Mammography in men. Radiology 1994; 191:651-656.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Dershaw D. Male mammography. AJR 1986; 146:127-131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Heller K. Male breast cancer: a clinicopathologic study of 97 cases. Ann Surg 1978; 188:60-65.[Medline]
-
Thomas D. Breast cancer in men. Epidemiol Rev 1993; 15:220-231.[Free Full Text]
-
Sandler B, Carman C, Perry RR. Cancer of the male breast. Am Surg 1994; 60:816-820.[Medline]
-
Prechtel K, Prechtel V. Breast carcinoma in the man: current results from the viewpoint of clinic and pathology. Pathologe 1997; 18:45-52.[Medline]
-
Michels L, Gold R, Arnat R. Radiography of gynecomastia and other diseases of the male breast. Radiology 1977; 122:117-122.[Abstract]
-
Chantra P, So G, Wollman J, Bassett L. Mammography of the male breast. AJR 1995; 164:853-858.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Dershaw D, Borger P, Deutch B, Liberman L. Mammographic findings in men with breast cancer. AJR 1993; 160:267-270.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
-
Stewart R, Howlett D, Hearn F. Pictorial review: the imaging features of male breast disease. Clin Radiol 1997; 52:739-744.[Medline]
-
Cooper R, Ramamurthy L. Epidermal inclusion cysts in the male breast. Can Assoc Radiol J 1996; 47:92-93.[Medline]
-
Velasco M, Aautoneil F. Leiomyoma of the male areola infiltrating the breast tissue. AJR 1995; 164:511-512.[Medline]
-
Scholefield J, Duncan J, Rogers K. Review of a hospital experience of breast abscesses. Br J Surg 1987; 74:469-470.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
|
|
 
N. Morakkabati-Spitz, H. H. Schild, C. C. Leutner, M. von Falkenhausen, G. Lutterbey, and C. K. Kuhl
Dynamic Contrast-enhanced Breast MR Imaging in Men: Preliminary Results
Radiology,
December 21, 2005;
(2005)
2382041312.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. Shi, D. Georgian-Smith, L. D. Cornell, E. A. Rafferty, M. Staffa, K. Hughes, and D. B. Kopans
Radiological Reasoning: Male Breast Mass with Calcifications
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
December 1, 2005;
185(6_Supplement):
S205 - S210.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. A. Shi, D. Georgian-Smith, and F. S. Chew
Imaging of the Male Breast: Self-Assessment Module
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
December 1, 2005;
185(6_Supplement):
S211 - S213.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
W. T. Yang, G. J. Whitman, E. H. Y. Yuen, G. M. K. Tse, and C. B. Stelling
Sonographic Features of Primary Breast Cancer in Men
Am. J. Roentgenol.,
February 1, 2001;
176(2):
413 - 416.
[Abstract]
[Full Text]
[PDF]
|
|
|
Top
Abstract
INTRODUCTION
