Synchronous bilateral ductal carcinoma in situ of the male breast associated with gynecomastia in a 30-year-old patient following repeated injections of stanozolol

Surgical treatment of gynaecomastia: a standard of care in plastic surgery

Background

Many techniques for the surgical treatment of gynaecomastia have been reported to be effective with reasonable limited scar formation. The aim of this study was to develop a grade adopted algorithm for effective and scar sparing techniques in reconstruction of the male breast dependent on aetiology and grading.

Methods

Operative techniques, results, rates of revisions and complications were recorded between 2006 and 2018 and results of 164 male patients were analysed, retrospectively. Skin resecting methods have been used in the earlier stage but were later replaced by minimal periareolar incisions and subcutaneous mastectomy. Resections were combined with ultrasound-assisted liposuction up to grade 2b and inferior pedicled breast reduction in 3rd degree gynaecomastias resulting in reduction of scars and effective removal of breast tissue.

Results

Retrospective analysis showed that a periareolar mastopexy was used in 24% of patients with gynaecomastia grade I, IIa and IIb to reshape the breast after subcutaneous mastectomy in the early stage of this study from 2006 to 2010. With the established standardised use of ultrasound-assisted liposuction, only 2% of patients required a mastopexy in the following years. In grade 3 gynaecomastia, the classical approach resulting in an inverted t-scar was later abandoned for an approach with a periareolar and submammary scar and inferior dermoglandular flap. The rate of secondary surgery with the used techniques did not increase.

Conclusions

When using standardised techniques in reshaping the male breast, an aesthetically pleasing and safe result can be achieved by scar sparing techniques in a safe single-stage procedure.

Level of evidence

Level IV, therapeutic study.

Incidental unilateral and bilateral ductal carcinoma in situ encountered in the surgical management of young male gynecomastia

BACKGROUND

The increased risk for malignant tumors associated with male gynecomastia has been well established and many authors have reported cases of concurrent gynecomastia and ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in the same breast. Synchronous bilateral breast cancer in association with gynecomastia is exceptionally rare. We aim to report and evaluate the management outcome of 5 cases of gynecomastia associated with DCIS (1 bilateral and 4 unilateral).

METHODS

A retrospective database analysis of the surgical treatment outcome of 74 male patients who had gynecomastia was done. A bilateral subcutaneous nipple-preserving mastectomy approach was done to all. Histopathology reports were reviewed.

RESULTS

74 patients diagnosed and treated for gynecomastia were included. The incidence rate of gynecomastia in our hospital male patients was 0.17%. The mean age was 22 years, range 17-29 years. Five (6.76%) patients were found in histopathology specimens to have DCIS, 1 patient (23 years old) had bilateral DCIS of low grade, 4 patients had unilateral positive involvement, 3 had right breast DCIS, and 1 had left breast DCIS, and all were of low-grade papillary subtype. The incidence of ductal carcinoma in situ among our series gynecomastia patients was 6.76%.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that gynecomastia is a benign breast disease but recent reports had described malignant variants, mostly DCIS, including 5 young males in our series. Therefore, regardless of the age group, histopathological examination of the resected gynecomastia tissue should be carefully done in all patients. Further evidence-based studies are needed to investigate the optimum management of incidental DCIS in gynecomastia specimens.

[Surgical therapy of gynecomastia]

Nowadays surgical intervention is an essential part of the treatment of idiopathic gynecomastia. Choosing the right method is crucial and is based on the current status in the clinical and histological evaluation. Before finalizing the process of choosing a specific method a prior interdisciplinary evaluation of the patient is necessary to ascertain clear indications for a surgical intervention. Liposuction is one of the methods which have become popular in recent years. The advantages are the possible combination with traditional techniques, such as subcutaneous mastectomy or periareolar mastopexy. The main indication is for gynecomastia stage IIa/b and is justifiable due to the reduction in surgical complications and scarring. Furthermore this technique provides an excellent aesthetical outcome for the patient. A total of 162 patients suffering from gynecomastia stages I-III (according to Simon) were surgically treated between 2000 and 2010 and these cases were retrospectively evaluated. The results showed a decline in the use of a T-shaped incision in combination with subcutaneous mastectomy with periareolar tightening compared to an increase in the use of subcutaneous mastectomy in combination with liposuction. The excised tissue should always be sent for histological examination to make sure no malignant cells were present.

Incidental finding of synchronous bilateral ductal carcinoma in situ associated with gynecomastia in a 15-year-old obese boy: case report and review of the literature

Carcinoma of the breast is rarely encountered in the male population and is even less prevalent in the pediatric male population. Studies have suggested an association between male breast carcinoma and gynecomastia, but conflicting results have been shown. Only 3 cases of carcinoma in situ associated with bilateral gynecomastia during puberty have been described in the literature. Here, we present the case of a 15-year-old boy with bilateral gynecomastia who was found to have synchronous bilateral ductal carcinoma in situ.

Ductal carcinoma in situ in a 25-year-old man presenting with apparent unilateral gynecomastia

Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) in a young man is rarely reported. Our patient, a 25-year-old man, presented with apparent symptomatic unilateral gynecomastia. He has a strong history of cancer on both the maternal and paternal sides of his family, including breast and lung (maternal) and melanoma, colon, and pancreatic (paternal). His mother tested negative for BRCA1 and BRCA2. There is no information on paternal genetic testing.The patient was treated with left subcutaneous mastectomy. Upon histologic review of the sample, concurrent gynecomastia and DCIS were discovered. To date, only 4 cases of gynecomastia and DCIS have been described in younger male patients. Because only 30%-50% of patients with DCIS eventually develop invasive cancer in the subsequent 10-20 years, DCIS prevalence in the general population may be higher than predicted. This case underscores the importance of family history in any patient presenting with a breast mass. Patients must be made aware of the risk, however small it may be, and physicians must remain cautious of cancer in young men with gynecomastia.

A 16-year-old male with gynecomastia and ductal carcinoma in situ

While gynecomastia is common in adolescents, male breast cancer in the pediatric population is exceedingly rare. Occasional reports describe malignant and pre-malignant lesions in mastectomy specimens for gynecomastia in young adults. We present a 16-year-old male with unilateral gynecomastia discovered to have ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS), treated by mastectomy with 4 year follow-up.

Bilateral synchronous ductal carcinoma in situ in a young man: case report and review of the literature

We report a rare case of synchronous bilateral ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) developing in a man with long-standing gynecomastia. He underwent bilateral staged subcutaneous mastectomies with the right side being performed first at age 26 years. Histology confirmed bilateral pure DCIS. There was no identifiable causative factor for the development of bilateral DCIS, and there was no familial history of the disease. He ultimately experienced progression to total bilateral mastectomies. This case highlights the importance of remaining vigilant about the presence of malignancy in normally benign conditions.