Radiological Features of Male Breast Neoplasms: How to Improve the Management of a Rare Disease.

The primary aim of our study was to assess the main mammographic and ultrasonographic features of invasive male breast malignancies. The secondary aim was to evaluate whether a specific radiological presentation would be associated with a worse receptor profile. Radiological images (mammography and/or ultrasound) of all patients who underwent surgery for male invasive breast cancer in our institution between 2008 and 2023 were retrospectively analyzed by two breast radiologists in consensus. All significant features of radiological presentation known in the literature were re-evaluated. Fifty-six patients were selected. The mean age at surgery of patients was 69 years (range: 35-81); in 82% of cases (46 patients), the histologic outcome was invasive ductal carcinoma. A total of 28 out of 56 (50%) patients had preoperative mammography; in 9/28 cases (32%), we found a mass with microcalcifications on mammography. The mass presented high density in 25 out of 28 patients (89%); the mass showed irregular margins in 15/28 (54%) cases. A total of 46 out of 56 patients had preoperative ultrasounds. The lesion showed a solid mass in 41/46 (89%) cases. In 5/46 patients (11%), the lesion was a mass with a mixed (partly liquid-partly solid) structure. We did not find any statistically significant correlation between major types of radiological presentation and tumor receptor arrangement. Knowledge of the main radiologic presentation patterns of malignant male breast neoplasm can help better manage this type of disease, which is rare but whose incidence is increasing.

History of Mammography: Analysis of Breast Imaging Diagnostic Achievements over the Last Century.

Breast cancer is the most common forms of cancer and a leading cause of mortality in women. Early and correct diagnosis is, therefore, essential to save lives. The development of diagnostic imaging applied to the breast has been impressive in recent years and the most used diagnostic test in the world is mammography, a low-dose X-ray technique used for imaging the breast. In the first half of the 20th century, the diagnosis was in practice only clinical, with consequent diagnostic delay and an unfavorable prognosis in the short term. The rise of organized mammography screening has led to a remarkable reduction in mortality through the early detection of breast malignancies. This historical review aims to offer a complete panorama of the development of mammography and breast imaging during the last century. Through this study, we want to understand the foundations of the pillar of radiology applied to the breast through to the most modern applications such as contrast-enhanced mammography (CEM), artificial intelligence, and radiomics. Understanding the history of the development of diagnostic imaging applied to the breast can help us understand how to better direct our efforts toward an increasingly personalized and effective diagnostic approach. The ultimate goal of imaging applied to the detection of breast malignancies should be to reduce mortality from this type of disease as much as possible. With this paper, we want to provide detailed documentation of the main steps in the evolution of breast imaging for the diagnosis of breast neoplasms; we also want to open up new scenarios where the possible current and future applications of imaging are aimed at being more precise and personalized.

Breast Digital Tomosynthesis versus Contrast-Enhanced Mammography: Comparison of Diagnostic Application and Radiation Dose in a Screening Setting.

This study aims to evaluate the Average Glandular Dose (AGD) and diagnostic performance of CEM versus Digital Mammography (DM) as well as versus DM plus one-view Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT), which were performed in the same patients at short intervals of time. A preventive screening examination in high-risk asymptomatic patients between 2020 and 2022 was performed with two-view Digital Mammography (DM) projections (Cranio Caudal and Medio Lateral) plus one Digital Breast Tomosynthesis (DBT) projection (mediolateral oblique, MLO) in a single session examination. For all patients in whom we found a suspicious lesion by using DM + DBT, we performed (within two weeks) a CEM examination. AGD and compression force were compared between the diagnostic methods. All lesions identified by DM + DBT were biopsied; then, we assessed whether lesions found by DBT were also highlighted by DM alone and/or by CEM. We enrolled 49 patients with 49 lesions in the study. The median AGD was lower for DM alone than for CEM (3.41 mGy vs. 4.24 mGy, p = 0.015). The AGD for CEM was significantly lower than for the DM plus one single projection DBT protocol (4.24 mGy vs. 5.55 mGy, p < 0.001). We did not find a statistically significant difference in the median compression force between the CEM and DM + DBT. DM + DBT allows the identification of one more invasive neoplasm one in situ lesion and two high-risk lesions, compared to DM alone. The CEM, compared to DM + DBT, failed to identify only one of the high-risk lesions. According to these results, CEM could be used in the screening of asymptomatic high-risk patients.