• IMA sites
  • IMAJ services
  • IMA journals
  • Follow us
  • Alternate Text Alternate Text
עמוד בית
Thu, 07.12.23

Search results

October 2019
Philip Lawson MD, Noam Nissan MD PhD, Renata Faermann MD, Osnat Halshtok MD, Anat Shalmon MD, Michael Gotleib MD, Merav Akiva Ben David MD and Miri Sklair Levy MD

Background: Male breast cancer (MBC) is a rare disease representing less than 1% of breast cancers. In the absence of a screening program, such as for females, the diagnostic workup is critical for early detection of MBC.

Objectives: To summarize our institutional experience in the workup of male patients referred for breast imaging, emphasizing the clinical, imaging, and histopathological characteristics of the MBC cohort.

Methods: All male patients who underwent breast imaging between 2011 and 2016 in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical, radiological, and histopathological data were collected and statistically evaluated. All images were reviewed using the American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System.

Results: 178 male patients (average age 61 years, median age 64), underwent breast imaging in our institution. The most common indication for referral was palpable mass (49%) followed by gynecomastia (16%). Imaging included mostly mammography or ultrasound. Biopsies were performed on 56 patients, 38 (68%) were benign and 18 (32%) were malignant. In all, 13 patients had primary breast cancer and 5 had metastatic disease to the breast. Palpable mass at presentation was strongly associated with malignancy (P = 0.007).

Conclusion: Mammography and ultrasound remain the leading modalities in breast imaging among males for diagnostic workup of palpable mass, with gynecomastia being the predominant diagnosis. However, presentation with palpable mass was also associated with malignancy. Despite a notable MBC rate in our cohort, the likelihood of cancer is low in young patients and in cases of gynecomastia.

October 2016
Osnat Halshtok Neiman MD, Zippy Erlich PhD, Eitan Friedman M PhD, Arie Rundstein MD, Anat Shalmon MD, Yael Servadio MD and Miri Sklair Levy MD

Background: Automated breast volumetric sonography (ABVS) is a new technology with various possible applications.

Objectives: To compare ABVS and breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in the surveillance of women with BRCA1/2 gene mutation carriers.

Methods: We conducted a prospective study in Jewish female BRCA1/2 mutation carriers who underwent breast MRI and ABVS. The results of both exams performed 6 months apart or less, and relevant clinical data, were reviewed. The BIRADS results were divided into three subgroups according to subsequent expected management: BIRADS 1-2 (normal study), BIRADS 3 (probably benign finding), and BIRADS 4 and 5 (suspicious findings). BIRADS 0 and 6 scores were excluded from the study. Distribution of ABVS and MRI BIRADS scores were compared using McNemar's test, and concordance was calculated using the Cohen kappa test.

Results: Overall, 68 women, 40 BRCA1 and 28 BRCA2 mutation carriers, age range 26–69 (mean 44.55 ± 12.1 years), underwent 79 paired ABVS and MRI examinations. McNemar's test calculations showed no significant difference between MRI and ABVS BIRADS score distribution. Cohen’s kappa test resulted in k = 0.158, an agreement that can be described as only "slight agreement" between both modalities. Of 14 discordant cases there was one cancer, revealed by MRI and not by ABVS performed 6 months prior to MRI.

Conclusions: ABVS showed slight agreement with MRI in BRCA1/2 mutation carriers. These preliminary results on a small group of healthy high risk patients suggest that the diagnostic abilities of ABVS are inferior to MRI. Further studies encompassing larger groups are needed.


July 2015
Osnat Halshtok-Neiman MD, Anat Shalmon MD, Arie Rundetsein MD, Yael Servadio MD, Michael Gotleib MD and Miri Sklair-Levy MD

Breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) has an important role in the detection and diagnosis of breast cancer. Suspicious findings on MRI are further evaluated with ultrasound. This case series illustrates the use of automated breast volumetric ultrasound (ABVS) as a tool for second-look ultrasound (SLUS) following MRI. Seven women underwent breast MRI with findings necessitating SLUS. ABVS was used for second look and all MRI lesions were detected. Four cancers, one fibroadenoma and two benign lesions, were diagnosed. This case series shows that ABVS can be used as a tool for SLUS following MRI and in some cases is superior to hand-held ultrasound.

February 2013
O. Halshtok Neiman, S. Sadetzki, A. Chetrit, S. Raskin, G. Yaniv and C. Hoffmann
 Background: MRI differentiation between metastases and high grade gliomas is a challenging task. Contrast enhancement and size of edema do not provide clear-cut differentiators. The differences in the properties of the peritumoral edema between these tumor types may be exploited to distinguish between them, using MRI perfusion sequences, which are capable of imaging edema in the clinical setting and may be a reliable method to make this differentiation.

Objectives: To assess the ability of perfusion-weighted imaging to differentiate between high grade gliomas and brain metastases.

Methods: During 5 months, 21 patients (age 40–85, median age 61, 16 males and 5 females) with either glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) or metastasis (pathology proven), underwent MRI for assessment of the tumor prior to surgery. Most of the scans were done at 3 Tesla. The scans included perfusion-weighted imaging sequences. Perfusion in the tumor, in the peritumoral edema and in normal tissue were assessed using Functool® software. The ratios of tumor perfusion and peritumoral edema perfusion to normal tissue perfusion were calculated and compared.

Results: Bleeding artifact precluded perfusion assessment in four patients. There was no statistically significant difference between the tumor perfusion ratios of high grade gliomas and those of metastases. The edema perfusion ratios were higher in GBM than in metastases (P = 0.007).

Conclusions: Perfusion-weighted imaging of peritumoral edema can help to differentiate between GBM and metastases.

July 2010
O. Halshtok, O. Goitein, R. Abu Sham'a, H. Granit, M. Glikson and E. Konen
Background: Until recently, cardiac pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators were considered an absolute contraindication for magnetic resonance imaging. Given the significant increase in implanting such devices, these contraindications will preclude MRI scanning in a large patient population. Several recent reports have addressed the safety and feasibility of MRI in the presence of cardiac implantable devices.

Objectives: To summarize our experience with MRI scanning in the presence of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter defibrillators.

Methods: Eighteen patients (15 males and 3 females, median 59) were scanned using a 1.5 T MRI scanner. A clinical discussion was held to verify the absolute medical necessity of the study before performing the scan. Scan supervision included device interrogation and programming beforehand, patient monitoring during, and device interrogation and reprogramming after the scan. Full resuscitation equipment was available outside the MRI suite.

Results: Thirty-four scans were performed, and all but one were of diagnostic quality. Anatomic regions included the brain (N=26), cervical spine (N=2), lumbar spine (N=1), cardiac (N=2), abdomen (N=1), abdomen and pelvis (N=1) and pelvis (N=1). None of the patients reported any side effects and no life-threatening events occurred during or following the scans. Five cases of device spontaneous reversion to backup mode were recorded (four in the same patient). Device replacement was not required in any patient.

Conclusions: In this small cohort of patients MRI scanning in the presence of cardiac implantable devices was safe. MRI in these patients is feasible although not recommended for routine scans. Scans should be considered on a case-to-case basis and performed in a dedicated specialized setup.


Legal Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal or medical advice on any matter.
The IMA is not responsible for and expressly disclaims liability for damages of any kind arising from the use of or reliance on information contained within the site.
© All rights to information on this site are reserved and are the property of the Israeli Medical Association. Privacy policy

2 Twin Towers, 35 Jabotinsky, POB 4292, Ramat Gan 5251108 Israel