Robinson, Kristin A.

Abstract Objective Parenchymal breast cysts are considered to be rare in men and are sparsely described in the literature. The purpose of this study was to review our institution’s experience with male breast cysts in an effort to improve overall understanding and management of this rare entity. Methods An institutional review board–exempt retrospective study was performed. Radiology reports for males who underwent mammogram and/or breast ultrasound at any of our institution’s primary or satellite locations from January 1995 to January 2020 were screened to find males with breast cysts. If cysts were reported and images were available, case review was performed to confirm parenchymal breast cyst(s) and patient characteristics were collated. Results Of 5425 male cases presenting for breast imaging, 19 (0.4%) cases of male breast cysts were confirmed, with a mean patient age of 41.6 years (range: 2–81 years). The most common indication leading to cyst discovery was a palpable lump, corresponding to the site of the cyst in 5 (26.3%) patients and near the site where cyst(s) were ultimately discovered in 7 (36.8%) patients. There were 8 (42.1%) instances of cysts without concurrent gynecomastia. Three (15.8%) men underwent needle sampling. There were no cases of atypia or malignancy on needle biopsy or on subsequent clinical follow-up, with median clinical follow-up of 70.3 months (range: 3.3–259.4 months). Conclusion Male breast parenchymal cysts are rare, but their prevalence is likely underestimated. If detected incidentally or upon targeted evaluation, biopsy may be averted if classic benign cyst features are identified.

Abstract Objective Breast implant augmentation is the most common cosmetic surgical procedure performed in the United States. The purpose of this study was to determine if patients with breast augmentation surgery are aware of the effect of breast implants on the mammographic detection of cancer. Methods An institutional review board exempt patient awareness survey was distributed at a single breast imaging facility to women undergoing screening mammography. Comparative statistical analyses were performed between patients with and without breast implants. Results The respondents were divided into three groups: no prior breast surgery (74%; 524/711), breast surgery with implants (21%; 152/711), and breast surgery without implants (5%; 35/711). Patients with breast implants were more aware that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (75%; 105/141) and that implants result in the need for more mammogram views (70%; 103/147), as compared with patients with no surgery (46%; 221/484 and 31%; 147/478, respectively) (P < 0.001). More women with breast implants reported learning from breast imaging staff rather than from their surgeon that implants decrease the amount of breast tissue seen on a mammogram (46%; 49/106 vs. 38%; 40/106). Of 137 respondents, 35% (n = 48) reported that the effect of implants on their mammogram was discussed preoperatively. Of those who did not recall a preoperative discussion, 42% (16/38) indicated this knowledge would have factored into their decision to get breast implants. Conclusion This study highlights an opportunity for providers to engage in more education and shared decision-making with patients considering breast augmentation surgery to ensure preoperative counseling includes discussion of the effect of implants on mammography.