Maria Adele Marino1,2, Ayca Gucalp3,4, Doris Leithner1,5, Delia Keating1, Daly Avendano1,6, Blanca Bernard-Davila1, Elizabeth A Morris1, Katja Pinker1,7, Maxine S Jochelson8. 1. Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA. 2. Department of Biomedical Sciences and Morphologic and Functional Imaging, University of Messina, Messina, Italy. 3. Breast Medicine Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 4. Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medical College, New York, NY, USA. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany. 6. Department Breast Imaging, Breast Cancer Center TecSalud, ITESM Monterrey, Monterrey, Nuevo Leon, Mexico. 7. Division of Molecular and Gender Imaging, Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 8. Department of Radiology, Breast Imaging Service, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, 300 E 66th Street, New York, NY, 10065, USA. jochelsm@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of mammography for breast cancer screening in a population of males at increased risk for breast cancer. METHODS: In this HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved single-institution study, mammography records and clinical data of 827 male patients who underwent digital mammography from September 2011-July 2018 were analyzed via the electronic medical record. 664 of these men presented with masses, pain, or nipple discharge and were excluded from this study. The remaining 163 asymptomatic men with familial and/or personal history of breast cancer, or with a known germline mutation in BRCA, underwent screening mammography and were included in this analysis. RESULTS: 163 asymptomatic men (age: mean 63 years, range 24-87 years) underwent 806 screening mammograms. 125/163 (77%) had a personal history of breast cancer and 72/163 (44%) had a family history of breast cancer. 24/163 (15%) were known mutation carriers: 4/24 (17%) BRCA1 and 20/24 (83%) BRCA2. 792/806 (98%) of the screening mammograms were negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2); 10/806 (1.2%) were classified as BI-RADS 3, all of which were eventually downgraded to BI-RADS 2 on follow-up. 4/806 (0.4%) mammograms were abnormal (BI-RADS 4/5): all were malignant. The cancer detection rate in this cohort was 4.9 cancers/1000 examinations. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, screening mammography yielded a cancer detection rate of 4.9 cancers/1000 examinations which is like the detection rate of screening mammography in a population of women at average risk, indicating that screening mammography is of value in male patients at high risk for breast cancer.
PURPOSE: To investigate the utility of mammography for breast cancer screening in a population of males at increased risk for breast cancer. METHODS: In this HIPAA-compliant institutional review board-approved single-institution study, mammography records and clinical data of 827 male patients who underwent digital mammography from September 2011-July 2018 were analyzed via the electronic medical record. 664 of these men presented with masses, pain, or nipple discharge and were excluded from this study. The remaining 163 asymptomatic men with familial and/or personal history of breast cancer, or with a known germline mutation in BRCA, underwent screening mammography and were included in this analysis. RESULTS: 163 asymptomatic men (age: mean 63 years, range 24-87 years) underwent 806 screening mammograms. 125/163 (77%) had a personal history of breast cancer and 72/163 (44%) had a family history of breast cancer. 24/163 (15%) were known mutation carriers: 4/24 (17%) BRCA1 and 20/24 (83%) BRCA2. 792/806 (98%) of the screening mammograms were negative (BI-RADS 1 or 2); 10/806 (1.2%) were classified as BI-RADS 3, all of which were eventually downgraded to BI-RADS 2 on follow-up. 4/806 (0.4%) mammograms were abnormal (BI-RADS 4/5): all were malignant. The cancer detection rate in this cohort was 4.9 cancers/1000 examinations. CONCLUSIONS: In our cohort, screening mammography yielded a cancer detection rate of 4.9 cancers/1000 examinations which is like the detection rate of screening mammography in a population of women at average risk, indicating that screening mammography is of value in male patients at high risk for breast cancer.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast cancer; Diagnosis; Digital mammography; Male; Screening
Authors: Valentina Silvestri; Goska Leslie; Daniel R Barnes; Bjarni A Agnarsson; Kristiina Aittomäki; Elisa Alducci; Irene L Andrulis; Rosa B Barkardottir; Alicia Barroso; Daniel Barrowdale; Javier Benitez; Bernardo Bonanni; Ake Borg; Saundra S Buys; Trinidad Caldés; Maria A Caligo; Carlo Capalbo; Ian Campbell; Wendy K Chung; Kathleen B M Claes; Sarah V Colonna; Laura Cortesi; Fergus J Couch; Miguel de la Hoya; Orland Diez; Yuan Chun Ding; Susan Domchek; Douglas F Easton; Bent Ejlertsen; Christoph Engel; D Gareth Evans; Lidia Feliubadalò; Lenka Foretova; Florentia Fostira; Lajos Géczi; Anne-Marie Gerdes; Gord Glendon; Andrew K Godwin; David E Goldgar; Eric Hahnen; Frans B L Hogervorst; John L Hopper; Peter J Hulick; Claudine Isaacs; Angel Izquierdo; Paul A James; Ramunas Janavicius; Uffe Birk Jensen; Esther M John; Vijai Joseph; Irene Konstantopoulou; Allison W Kurian; Ava Kwong; Elisabetta Landucci; Fabienne Lesueur; Jennifer T Loud; Eva Machackova; Phuong L Mai; Keivan Majidzadeh-A; Siranoush Manoukian; Marco Montagna; Lidia Moserle; Anna Marie Mulligan; Katherine L Nathanson; Heli Nevanlinna; Joanne Ngeow; Liene Nikitina-Zake; Kenneth Offit; Edith Olah; Olufunmilayo I Olopade; Ana Osorio; Laura Papi; Sue K Park; Inge Sokilde Pedersen; Pedro Perez-Segura; Annabeth H Petersen; Pedro Pinto; Berardino Porfirio; Miquel Angel Pujana; Paolo Radice; Johanna Rantala; Muhammad U Rashid; Barak Rosenzweig; Maria Rossing; Marta Santamariña; Rita K Schmutzler; Leigha Senter; Jacques Simard; Christian F Singer; Angela R Solano; Melissa C Southey; Linda Steele; Zoe Steinsnyder; Dominique Stoppa-Lyonnet; Yen Yen Tan; Manuel R Teixeira; Soo H Teo; Mary Beth Terry; Mads Thomassen; Amanda E Toland; Sara Torres-Esquius; Nadine Tung; Christi J van Asperen; Ana Vega; Alessandra Viel; Jeroen Vierstraete; Barbara Wappenschmidt; Jeffrey N Weitzel; Greet Wieme; Sook-Yee Yoon; Kristin K Zorn; Lesley McGuffog; Michael T Parsons; Ute Hamann; Mark H Greene; Judy A Kirk; Susan L Neuhausen; Timothy R Rebbeck; Marc Tischkowitz; Georgia Chenevix-Trench; Antonis C Antoniou; Eitan Friedman; Laura Ottini Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 31.777
Authors: Gábor Forrai; Eszter Kovács; Éva Ambrózay; Miklós Barta; Katalin Borbély; Zsolt Lengyel; Katalin Ormándi; Zoltán Péntek; Tasnádi Tünde; Éva Sebő Journal: Pathol Oncol Res Date: 2022-06-08 Impact factor: 2.874
Authors: Ryan W Woods; Lonie R Salkowski; Mai Elezaby; Elizabeth S Burnside; Roberta M Strigel; Amy M Fowler Journal: Clin Imaging Date: 2019-11-28 Impact factor: 1.605