Temporal resolution of idiopathic granulomatous mastitis with resumption of bromocriptine therapy for prolactinoma.

INTRODUCTION: Idiopathic granulomatous mastitis (IGM) is becoming more commonly recognized and reported more often. Currently, many recommend corticosteroids in its management. PRESENTATION OF CASE: A 34-year-old G3P2 Hispanic female, 28 weeks pregnant, presented with a 19cm right breast mass. She had a known prolactinoma treated with bromocriptine which was discontinued during her pregnancy. Ultrasound guided core biopsy procedure revealed granulomatous mastitis. The patient was told that the mass would resolve with observation. The patient seen at another institution by an infectious disease specialist who started treatment with amphotericin for presumptive disseminated coccidioidomycosis. Repeated titers were negative for coccidioides antibody. Repeat cultures were negative as well. Due to the persistence of the infectious disease specialist, tissue cultures were performed on fresh tissue specimens, which did not grow bacterial, fungal, nor acid fast organisms. The amphotericin regimen resulted in no improvement of her breast mass after 10 weeks. Within two weeks of stopping the antifungal therapy, however, the mass diminished to 6cm. The patient delivered at 39 weeks. Bromocriptine was restarted, and within 4 weeks, the lesion was no longer palpable. She had not shown signs of recurrence for 32 months. DISCUSSION: Treatment recommendations for IGM vary widely but antibiotics and antifungal medications are not recommended. Corticosteroid treatment is most commonly recommended, however, outcomes may not be different from management with observation. Prolactin may be involved in the pathophysiology of the process. CONCLUSION: IGM is becoming recognized more frequently. Observation and patience with natural history can be an effective management.

Predictors of margin status after breast-conserving operations in an underscreened population.

PURPOSE: Negative margins after lumpectomy remain a prominent issue in breast surgery. The current study was performed to evaluate patient-related variables that affect risk for positive margins in an underscreened population. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed of all patients who underwent breast-conserving operations from 2001 to 2010. Sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment variables were evaluated. One millimeter from tumor to inked margin was considered a negative margin. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to identify variables which affect margin status after a lumpectomy. RESULTS: Over the time period evaluated, 69 patients had positive margins (31 %) and 155 (69 %) had negative margins. Overall use of screening mammography was poor (36 %). In unadjusted analysis, patients with positive margins were less likely to have undergone screening mammography (p = 0.003) and presented with a palpable mass (p = 0.01). Histopathologic variables which predicted increased risk for positive margins included larger pathologic size, greater number of pathologically involved lymph nodes, higher pathologic stage, presence of lymphovascular invasion (LVI) and extensive intraductal component (EIC), p < 0.05. In multivariate analysis, clinical stage, poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC were associated with positive margins (p < 0.05). By contrast, use of preoperative chemotherapy was associated with attaining negative margins (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Factors associated with positive margins after lumpectomy included poor histologic grade, LVI, and EIC. Use of preoperative chemotherapy was the strongest independent predictor of lower risk for positive margins.