Publication:
Gynecomastia: Mammographic and Ultrasonographic Findings

dc.authorscopusid6602274084
dc.authorscopusid6603429684
dc.authorscopusid6602743597
dc.authorscopusid6603778576
dc.contributor.authorYalin, T.
dc.contributor.authorBayrak, I.K.
dc.contributor.authorÖzen, N.
dc.contributor.authorBelet, U.
dc.date.accessioned2025-12-11T02:22:29Z
dc.date.issued2004
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Yalin] Türkay C., Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Bayrak] Ilkay Koray, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Özen] Necati, Genel Cerrahi, Samsun, Turkey; [Belet] Ümit, Faculty of Medicine, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractThe study is designed to discus and compare mammographic and ultrasonographic views of fibroglandular patterns in different types of gynecomastia. We evaluated 118 breasts of 77 male with gynecomastia between April 1994 and March 2002. We grouped gynecomastia patterns in mammography according to fibroglandular distribution and classified them as dendritic, nodular, nodular-dendritic. We correlated and discussed mammographic and ultrasonographic characteristics of these gynecomastia patterns. Gynecomastia type was dendritic in 35 (30%), nodular in 43 (%36) and the remaining 40 (34%) were nodular-dendritic. Ultrasonographic findings in 28 (80%) of dendritic, 20 (47%) of nodular-dendritic, 6 (15%) of nodular types showed hyperechoic fibroglandular tissue, but in 7 (20%) of dendritic, 23 (53%) of nodular-dendritic, 34 (85%) of nodular types showed subareolar triangular or nodular sonolucency. Density and diffuseness of fibroglandular elements on mammograms determine ultrasonographic findings. Ultrasonographic diagnosis is less certain In those patients with subareolar sonolucency. When diffusely scattered fibroglandular elements on mammograms and/or hyperechoic sonographic views were seen. diagnosis of gynecomastia would be much more easy. It is apparent that combination of mammography with ultrasonography and careful attention to subtle changes on both modalities will improve diagnostic accuracy.en_US
dc.identifier.endpage162en_US
dc.identifier.issn1300-2996
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-58149145285
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/A
dc.identifier.startpage156en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12712/47861
dc.identifier.volume21en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityN/A
dc.language.isotren_US
dc.relation.ispartofOndokuz Mayis Universitesi Tip Dergisien_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectGynecomastiaen_US
dc.subjectMale Breasten_US
dc.subjectMammographyen_US
dc.subjectUltrasonographyen_US
dc.titleGynecomastia: Mammographic and Ultrasonographic Findingsen_US
dc.title.alternativeJinekomasti: Mamografi ve Ultrasonografi Bulgularıen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files