RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION AND IMPORTANCE: Breast pathology in adolescents is rare and predominantly benign, with abnormalities including congenital anomalies, infections, mastodynia, nipple discharge, and mostly benign breast masses. Fibroepithelial tumors, the most common type, form a heterogeneous group that includes benign, borderline, and malignant entities such as phyllodes tumors. Differentiation of these tumors, especially various types of fibroadenomas, requires histopathological examination due to their similar radiological appearances and lesion heterogeneity. Recognizing the nature of these lesions is crucial to avoid missing malignant forms with metastatic potential. Giant juvenile fibroadenoma is a quite rare benign fibroepithelial tumour, that cannot be differentiate from phyllodes tumors before anatomopathological examination. CASE REPORT: We report the case of a 14-year-old patient who presented with a rapidly enlarging mass in the left breast, and the diagnosis of giant juvenile adenofibroma was confirmed after surgical treatment. CLINICAL DISCUSSION: Giant juvenile fibroadenomas occurs in adolescent girl and constitutes 0.5 % - 4 % of all fibroadenomas cases. When it exceeds 5 cm, weighs more than 500 g, or occupies more than 4/5 of the breast, it is considered as giant. It is characterized by a rapid increase in size, causing distortion and compression of the breast. Breast ultrasound is the first imaging modality, showing a large, well-limited hypo or iso echoic mass. The main differential diagnosis should be made with phyllodes tumors. The diagnosis is considered based on clinical and radiological features but is confirmed only after surgical excision of the mass and histological study. CONCLUSION: The discovery of a breast mass in an adolescent should prompt further investigations to avoid overlooking a fibroepithelial tumour. The most probable diagnoses are giant juvenile fibroadenoma and phyllodes tumors.
RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Lipoma is the most common benign tumor of adipose tissue. Giant lipoma of the breast is defined as lesions larger than 10 cm and weighing more than 1000 g. A breast lipoma rapidly enlarging and fast growing; can be managed as a malignant tumor. It is crucial to make a correct diagnosis to prevent an overtreatment. CASE PRESENTATION: A 48-year-old patient presented with a painless, huge rapidly growing tumor in her right breast. Physical examination and imaging studies was suggestive of benign lipomatous breast tumor: A breast lipoma, a fibroadenolipoma or adenolipoma, an angiolipoma, or a breast fatty hamartoma. The patient underwent surgical excision of the mass, and histological examination confirmed the diagnosis of a giant breast lipoma. DISCUSSION: Giant breast lipoma is a rare benign tumor that develops in the breast tissue. They can mimic various breast conditions, even neoplastic conditions. Giant breast lipomas are often treated with surgical excision to avoid recurrence. CONCLUSION: Giant breast lipoma rapidly growing can pose a diagnostic challenge due to its resemblance to various benign or malignant pathologies. Unnecessary invasive investigations can be avoided with better understanding and improved imaging-based diagnosis of giant breast lipoma.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIMS: Gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is incriminated as a cause of non-asthmatic infantile wheeze. To date, no diagnostic test is considered standard for GERD-related airway reflux diagnosis. Oesophageal combined multiple channel intraluminal impedance and pH (MII-pH) monitoring is proposed to be a sensitive tool for evaluation of all GERD including infantile wheeze. We aimed to determine the GERD prevalence amongst wheezy infants in the first year of life using combined MII-pH versus pH monitoring alone and evaluate the sensitivity and specificity of objective MII-pH monitoring parameters in GERD-associated infantile wheeze diagnosis compared to those of lipid-laden macrophage index (LLMI). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-eight wheezy infants below 1year of age were evaluated for GERD using oesophageal combined MII-pH monitoring and LLMI. RESULTS: Totally, 60.5% of cases had abnormal MII-pH; only 7.9% of them had abnormal pH monitoring. LLMI was significantly higher in wheezy infants with abnormal MII-pH than infants with normal MII-pH monitoring (112±88 versus 70±48; P=0.036). The current definitions of abnormal MII-pH study, reflux index≥10% and distal reflux episodes≥100, had low sensitivity (23%) but high specificity (100% and 96%, respectively) in GERD-related aspiration diagnosis defined by LLMI≥100. Using ROC curves, bolus contact time≥2.4% and proximal reflux episodes≥46 had 61% and 54% sensitivity and 64% and 76% specificity, respectively, in GERD-related aspiration diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Combined MII-pH is superior to pH monitoring in reflux-associated infantile wheeze diagnosis. Objective data including proximal reflux episodes and bolus contact time should be combined with the current parameters used in reflux-associated infantile wheeze diagnosis.
Asunto(s)
Reflujo Gastroesofágico/diagnóstico , Ruidos Respiratorios/etiología , Área Bajo la Curva , Líquido del Lavado Bronquioalveolar/citología , Impedancia Eléctrica , Monitorización del pH Esofágico , Femenino , Reflujo Gastroesofágico/complicaciones , Humanos , Lactante , Metabolismo de los Lípidos , Macrófagos/metabolismo , Masculino , Estudios Prospectivos , Curva ROC , Índice de Severidad de la EnfermedadRESUMEN
Background. There is no gold standard test for diagnosis of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) associated infantile wheezing. Objectives. To evaluate the value of bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) pepsin assay in diagnosis of GERD in wheezy infants. Methods. Fifty-two wheezy infants were evaluated for GERD using esophageal combined impedance-pH (MII-pH) monitoring, esophagogastroduodenoscopy with esophageal biopsies, and BAL pepsin. Tracheobronchial aspirates from 10 healthy infants planned for surgery without history of respiratory problems were examined for pepsin. Results. Wheezy infants with silent reflux and wheezy infants with typical GERD symptoms but normal MII-pH had significantly higher BAL pepsin compared to healthy control (45.3 ± 8.6 and 42.8 ± 8 versus 29 ± 2.6, P < 0.0001 and P = 0.011, resp.). BAL pepsin had sensitivity (61.7%, 72 %, and 70%) and specificity (55.5%, 52.9%, and 53%) to diagnose GERD associated infantile wheeze compared to abnormal MII-pH, reflux esophagitis, and lipid laden macrophage index, respectively. Conclusion. A stepwise approach for assessment of GERD in wheezy infants is advised. In those with silent reflux, a trial of antireflux therapy is warranted with no need for further pepsin assay. But when combined MII-pH is negative despite the presence of typical GERD symptoms, pepsin assay will be needed to rule out GERD related aspiration.