Bilateral DCIS following gynecomastia surgery. Role of nipple sparing mastectomy. A case report and review of literature

Male ductal carcinoma in situ: diagnosis and management of a rare disease in men

Ductal carcinoma in situ is very rare in male patients, accounting for approximately 5%-7% of all male breast cancers. We present a case of a man in his early 70s who presented with bloody nipple discharge and gynaecomastia and was subsequently diagnosed with ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS). We discuss his management with surgical resection and the consideration of adjuvant treatment. We also review the existing literature on the presentation, diagnosis and management of DCIS in men.

Male Breast Cancer Patient and Surgeon Experience: The Male WhySurg Study

BACKGROUND

Little is known about the experience of the male breast cancer patient. Mastectomy is often offered despite evidence that breast-conserving surgery (BCS) provides similar outcomes.

METHODS

Two concurrent online surveys were distributed from August to October 2020 via social media to male breast cancer (MBC) patients and by email to American Society of Breast Surgeon members. The MBC patients were asked their opinions about their surgery, and the surgeons were asked to provide surgical recommendations for MBC patients.

RESULTS

The survey involved 63 MBC patients with a mean age of 62 years (range, 31-79 years). Five MBC patients (7.9 %) stated that their surgeon recommended BCS, but 54 (85.7 %) of the patients underwent unilateral, and 8 (12.7 %) underwent bilateral mastectomy. Most of the patients (n = 60, 96.8 %) had no reconstruction. One third of the patients (n = 21, 33.3 %) felt somewhat or very uncomfortable with their appearance after surgery. The response rate was 16.5 % for the surgeons. Of the 438 surgeons who answered the survey, 298 (73.3 %) were female, 215 (51.7 %) were fellowship-trained, and 244 (58.9 %) had been practicing for 16 years or longer. More than half of surgeons (n = 259, 59.1 %) routinely offered BCS to eligible men, and 180 (41.3 %) stated they had performed BCS on a man with breast cancer. Whereas 89 (20.8 %) of the surgeons stated that they routinely offer reconstruction to MBC patients, 87 (20.3 %) said they do not offer reconstruction, 96 (22.4 %) said they offer it only if the patient requests it, and 157 (36.6 %) said they never consider it as an option.

CONCLUSIONS

The study found discordance between MBC patients' satisfaction with their surgery and surgeon recommendations and experience. These data present an opportunity to optimize the MBC patient experience.

Male Breast Cancer: Treatment Trends, Reported Outcomes, and Suggested Recommendations

Male breast cancer (MBC) is unfamiliar to most men, and its optimal treatment options are not well recognized by many treating physicians. The lack of MBC specific clinical trials contributes to the limitations of understanding MBC specific pathology, treatment options, and outcomes. This state-of-affairs contribute to perpetuating the use of treatment methods derived from our existing knowledge of female breast cancer (FBC). Previous studies demonstrate that men are often undertreated or disproportionately treated using more invasive surgical procedures even in the early stages of MBC. The purpose of this investigation was to thoroughly discuss current MBC treatment options, provide an evidence-based summary of their outcomes, note recent improvements, discuss important considerations and recommendations. Our goal is to aid the treatment decision process for patients and treating physicians.

Is routine pathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia necessary? A 15-year retrospective pathological and literature review

OBJECTIVE

To reconsider the routine plastic surgical practice of requesting histopathological evaluation of tissue from gynecomastia.

METHOD

The present study was a retrospective histopathological review (15-year period [1996 to 2012]) involving gynecomastia tissue samples received at the pathology laboratory in the Saskatoon Health Region (Saskatchewan). The Laboratory Information System (LIS) identified all specimens using the key search words "gynecomastia", "gynaecomastia", "gynecomazia" and "gynaecomazia". A literature review to identify all cases of incidentally discovered malignancies in gynecomastia tissue specimens over a 15-year period (1996 to present) was undertaken.

RESULTS

The 15-year LIS search detected a total of 452 patients that included two cases of pseudogynecomastia (0.4%). Patients' age ranged from five to 92 years and 43% of the cases were bilateral (28% left sided, 29% right sided). The weight of the specimens received ranged from 0.2 g to 1147.2 g. All cases showed no significant histopathological concerns. The number of tissue blocks sampled ranged from one to 42, averaging four blocks/case (approximately $105/case), resulting in a cost of approximately $3,200/year, with a 15-year expenditure of approximately $48,000. The literature review identified a total of 15 incidental findings: ductal carcinoma in situ (12 cases), atypical ductal hyperplasia (two cases) and infiltrating ductal carcinoma (one case).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of evidence-based literature, and because no significant pathological findings were detected in this particular cohort of 452 cases with 2178 slides, the authors believe it is time to re-evaluate whether routine histopathological examination of tissue from gynecomastia remains necessary. The current climate of health care budget fiscal restraints warrants reassessment of the current policies and practices of sending tissue samples of gynecomastia incurring negative productivity costs on routine histopathological examination.