Granulomatous lobular mastitis (GLM) is a rare and chronic benign inflammatory disease of the breast. Difficulties exist in the management of GLM for many front-line surgeons and medical specialists who care for patients with inflammatory disorders of the breast. This consensus is summarized to establish evidence-based recommendations for the management of GLM. Literature was reviewed using PubMed from January 1, 1971 to July 31, 2020. Sixty-six international experienced multidisciplinary experts from 11 countries or regions were invited to review the evidence. Levels of evidence were determined using the American College of Physicians grading system, and recommendations were discussed until consensus. Experts discussed and concluded 30 recommendations on historical definitions, etiology and predisposing factors, diagnosis criteria, treatment, clinical stages, relapse and recurrence of GLM. GLM was recommended as a widely accepted definition. In addition, this consensus introduced a new clinical stages and management algorithm for GLM to provide individual treatment strategies. In conclusion, diagnosis of GLM depends on a combination of history, clinical manifestations, imaging examinations, laboratory examinations and pathology. The approach to treatment of GLM should be applied according to the different clinical stage of GLM. This evidence-based consensus would be valuable to assist front-line surgeons and medical specialists in the optimal management of GLM.

The addition of oxalipatin to neoadjuvant radiochemotherapy in LARC led to higher rate of tumor downstaging. Longer follow-up is needed to evaluate PFS.

No abstract

Purpose Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis is a rare relapsing benign inflammatory breast disease with unknown etiology. Its clinical features and imaging signs may mimic inflammatory breast cancer or some other inflammatory breast disease. This may interfere with correct and timely diagnosis and thus impose an additional burden on the costs of diagnosis and therapy, as well as patient anxiety. We aimed to characterize the imaging findings of this disease and introduce two new imaging signs.Materials and methods This prospective study examined 36 patients with imaging and a clinical diagnosis of mastitis granulomatosis who were untreated and then confirmed by pathology. Demographic information, clinical data, imaging findings, and signs were recorded. Results The age range of the patients was 22-60 years with an average of 36 years. Most of the patients (78%) were at reproductive age. None of the patients had a family history of granulomatous mastitis. Most patients with granulomatous mastitis (89%) lived in regions with low socioeconomic status. For most patients, sonography indicated a heterogeneous hypoechoic mass with irregular shape and ill-defined margin (26 cases; 72.2%). Focal asymmetry (36%) and obscured mass (36%) were the most common mammographic findings. Two signs of duct ectasia containing secretion and high-flow pseudocyst appearance were described. Conclusion Mammographic and ultrasound findings can highly suggest a diagnosis of granulomatous mastitis in an appropriate clinical context.

Pseudoangiomatous stromal hyperplasia (PASH) of the breast is a pathology that is usually diagnosed by accident during pathological examination of other breast lesions. PASH is an uncommon and benign tumoral lesion of the mammary stroma that can be pathologically mistaken for other tumours, such as phyllodes, fibroadenoma, and sometimes even angiosarcoma. We report the case of a 45-year-old woman with complaints of huge bilateral breast enlargement. This is a rare case of PASH presenting with gigantomastia and involving bilateral breasts and axillae simultaneously. Mammography, ultrasonography, and MRI features are illustrated with histopathological correlation.

Background: Benefits and harms of screening mammography have been disputed in recent years. This fact, along with the limitations of mammography as well as its unavailability in all our medical centers, tempted us to evaluate the accuracy of thermography in detecting breast abnormalities. Patients and Methods: All patients who were candidates for breast biopsy were examined by both mammography and thermography before tissue sampling in a referral center between January 2013 and January 2014. We defined sensitivities and specificities, and positive predictive values (PPVs) and negative predictive values (NPVs), of the 2 modalities in comparison with histologic results as the gold standard. Results: 132 patients were included. The median age of all patients was 49.5 ± 10.3 years (range 24-75 years). The sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, and accuracy for mammography were 80.5%, 73.3%, 85.4%, 66.0%, and 76.9%, respectively, whereas for thermography the figures were 81.6%, 57.8%, 78.9%, 61.9%, and 69.7%, respectively. Conclusion: Our study confirms that, at the present time, thermography cannot substitute for mammography for the early diagnosis of breast cancer.

No abstract

BackgroundBreast density is a well-known independent risk factor for breast cancer and can significantly affect the sensitivity of screening mammograms.ObjectiveWe aimed to evaluate the intra- and inter-observer consistencies of breast density assessments using methods outlined in the fourth and fifth editions of the American College of Radiology (ACR) Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) guidelines to determine which method is more reliable.Materials and methodsThree radiologists with subspecialties in breast imaging defined breast density in 72 mammograms four times each: twice using the fourth edition of the ACR BI-RADS guidelines and twice using the fifth edition. The intra- and inter-observer agreements were calculated and compared for each method.ResultsThe weighted kappa values for the overall intra-observer agreement were 0.955 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.931–0.980) and 0.938 (95% CI: 0.907–0.968) when breast densities were assessed according to criteria outlined in the fourth and fifth ACR BI-RADS editions, respectively. The difference between these values was not statistically significant (p = .4). The overall Fleiss-Cohen (quadratic) weighted kappa for inter-observer agreement were 0.623 (95% CI: 0.517–0.729) and 0.702 (95% CI: 0.589–0.815) when breast densities were assessed according to criteria outlined in the fourth and fifth ACR BI-RADS editions, respectively. The difference between these values was not statistically significant (p = .32). Similarly, there were no significant differences in the evaluation of breast density (overall) when comparing breast density assignment using criteria outlined in the fourth and fifth ACR BI-RADS edition (p = .582).ConclusionThe ACR BI-RADS guideline is an acceptable method to classify breast density, resulting in substantial inter-observer agreements using criteria outlined in both the fourth and fifth editions. The intra-observer agreement was nearly perfect for radiologists using criteria outlined in both sets of guidelines. Moreover, although the percentage of women who were classified as having dense breasts was higher when radiologists used the fifth edition of ACR BI-RADS guidelines than when they used the fourth edition, this difference was not statistically significant.