GM is an uncommon inflammatory condition of the breast characterized by granuloma and abscess formation (
2), generally affecting young women of reproductive age, mostly during the five years following childbirth (
2-
8). Until now, the largest patient series reported in the literature was that of Yildiz et al. (
8), which involved 30 patients with a diagnosis of idiopathic GM. Thus, to our knowledge, our study represents the second-largest patient series in the literature with an evaluation of radiologic findings of GM.
The absence of complaints or clinical signs suggestive of inflammation despite the presence of a palpable mass in the majority of GM patients, and enlarged axillary lymph nodes in a certain proportion of these subjects, may lead to a suspicion of breast cancer. In addition, GM may not be readily differentiated from breast cancer radiologically (
1-
18). It generally involves one breast, although bilateral involvement has also been reported (
2,
5,
7,
10). In our study, all of our cases had unilateral GM with a predominance of peripheral involvement, and the proportion of patients with retroareolar involvement was higher than that reported previously (
6,
11,
12).
Several studies have reported on MG and US findings in GM patients, and a general consensus exists as to the conventional radiological signs of GM. MG generally shows non-specific signs, the most common of which is focal asymmetric increased density, ill-defined borders, and mass effect, or irregular masses with ill-demarcated borders (
3,
8,
9,
11-
15). MG has low sensitivity for this condition, particularly when considering the younger population that is affected, as the abovementioned findings may not be detected in women with dense breast tissue (
3,
6,
13,
16). The MG findings of the current study are in line with previous reports, and the lesions could not be detected in two of our patients with dense breast tissue.
Since US is commonly used for the initial assessment of young females with palpable breast lesions, most GM patients undergo US examinations prior to diagnosis. The most common US findings in these patients are heterogeneous hypoechoic ill-defined lesions with tubular extensions, as in our study (
3,
6,
11,
13,
15). However, other findings, such as hypoechoic lesions with regular or irregular contours, posterior acoustic enhancement or shadowing, parenchymal heterogeneity, and distortions may also be seen, in addition to skin thickening and diffuse parenchymal edema (
13). One specific advantage of US is its ability to facilitate aspiration in cases of suspected fluid collection. However, it should be borne in mind that cytology alone may not be adequate to exclude underlying malignancy or to diagnose GM, necessitating a confirmatory histopathological diagnosis (
3). In addition, a normal US examination cannot exclude a diagnosis of GM, as demonstrated by one of our cases with asymmetric densities on MG that were not detected by US.
MRI is an imaging modality with high sensitivity and specificity for breast lesions, allowing the detection and assessment of the extent of inflammatory breast conditions. The MRI characteristics of GM have been reported in only a few cases in the literature, and data on the use of MRI in GM are scarce, with a variety of definitions used for the description of MRI findings (
2,
3,
5,
7,
8,
14,
16). In suspected cases of GM, MRI should not lead to delayed biopsy and may be used as a complementary diagnostic method in addition to US and MG in order to exclude a diagnosis of inflammatory breast cancer in cases with symptoms of treatment-resistant mastitis (
17). However, MRI can help in detecting lesions that cannot be visualized by US and MG due to parenchymal edema. In addition, since GM generally affects younger females, MRI may also be useful in cases where MG or US is inconclusive due to the character of the breast parenchyma. The most common MRI findings in our study were solitary or multiple separate or confluent abscesses of different sizes, with marked peripheral ring enhancement, accompanied by intensity changes suggesting edematous inflammation in the peripheral parenchyma, as well as non-mass-like heterogeneous segmental and regional contrast enhancement. In some cases, annular enhancing nodules, probably reflecting micro-abscesses, were only a few millimeters in size. These observations are similar to those reported by Kocaoglu et al. and Gautier et al. (
3,
16). Previous studies have reported variable kinetic curve analysis results between different patients and different lesions (
2,
5,
16). In the study by Gautier et al., non-mass-like contrast-enhanced areas were generally associated with type 1 kinetic curves, while type 3 was the dominant kinetic curve in areas with annular contrast enhancement (
3). In the present study, circumferential contrast enhancement was mostly associated with type 1 kinetic curves, while our findings were consistent with previous reports of non-mass-like contrast enhancement. In this study, MRI could more accurately and clearly identify the extent of disease and the typical findings of the inflammatory process, so it could more confidently classify lesions as BI-RADS 3, compared to conventional methods.
Several limitations of our study should be mentioned, including its retrospective and descriptive character. Second, the study group consisted only of patients with GM. Third, there were a limited number of patients who underwent MG and color Doppler US.
In conclusion, GM has no specific features on MG and US. MRI is a complementary diagnostic tool used with clinical and conventional radiological findings to assist in the diagnosis and differentiation of GM from malignant processes. A focal asymmetric density on MG associated with US findings of heterogeneous hypoechoic ill-defined lesions and tubular extensions, along with MRI findings of ring-enhancing lesions associated with type 1 kinetic curves, can suggest the diagnosis of GM. However, histopathology remains essential for a definitive diagnosis and appropriate management.