Israel Medical Association Journal

Background: Pathologic breast conditions are rare in childhood and adolescence. The spectrum of breast disease in the pediatric age group is different from that in adults, and most lesions are benign

Objectives: To describe the causes and characteristics of breast asymmetry in adolescents with normal endocrine profiles and sexual development.

Methods: The files of patients with a diagnosis of breast asymmetry referred to a tertiary pediatric center from 1990 to 2007 were reviewed for history and findings on physical examination with or without imaging, treatment and outcome.

Results: Eleven patients aged 12.5 to 18 years were identified. The cause of the breast asymmetry was traced to unpreventable medical factors in eight patients (physiologic, Poland anomaly, scleroderma), preventable/iatrogenic factors in two patients (chest tissue biopsy, thoracic drain), and possible combined medical-iatrogenic factors in one patient (scoliosis treated by a body brace). All patients were referred for breast reconstruction after full breast development.

Conclusions: Severe breast asymmetry in adolescence may be due to congenital factors, diseases involving the breast tissue, or to the effects of medical treatment, and may have severe adverse psychological and social implications. To prevent iatrogenic breast asymmetry, physicians should be made aware of the sensitivity of the breast tissue and should avoid unnecessary tests/procedures that involve the chest wall. In most cases a precise medical history and physical examination can differentiate between physiologic and non-physiologic causes.

Background: The imaging parameters that mandate further diagnostic workup in focal asymmetric breast densities are not clearly defined.

Objectives: To identify indications for further workup in FABD[1] by comparing mammographic and ultrasonographic findings with the pathology results of women with FABD.

Methods: Ninety-four women (97 FABD) were referred for core needle biopsy after incidental discovery of FABD on routine mammograms (n=83) or on diagnostic mammograms performed for palpable masses (n=11). Clinical data included patient’s age, use of hormone replacement therapy, family history of breast cancer, and the presence of a palpable mass. Mammograms and sonograms were evaluated for lesion size and location, associated calcifications, architectural distortion, and change from previous examinations when available. Two patient groups emerged according to the pathological findings and the data were compared.

Results: The average age, size and location of the lesions in the malignant (n=5) and benign (n=92) groups were similar. There was a significant difference (P < 0.05) for the presence of a clinically palpable mass (60% vs. 9%, respectively), a cluster of calcifications (60% vs. 12%), associated architectural distortion (exclusively in the malignant group) and a solid mass on sonography (50% vs. 9%). The malignant group had a higher rate of family history of breast cancer and HRT[2] use.

Conclusions: FABD usually present a benign etiology and can safely be managed by follow‑up. The presence of an architectural distortion, a cluster of malignant‑appearing or indeterminate calcifications, a sonographic mass with features of possible malignancy, or a clinically palpable mass mandates tissue diagnosis.