Transition from gynaecomastia to lipomastia in pubertal boys

Autor: Jonas Ackermann, Andre Barth, Alexandra Kulle, Paul-Martin Holterhus, Reinhard W. Holl, Thomas Reinehr
Jazyk: angličtina
Rok vydání: 2021
Předmět:
Male
Endocrinology
Diabetes and Metabolism

Physiology
oestradiol
Palpation
Pubertal stage
0302 clinical medicine
Endocrinology
DDC 570 / Life sciences
Interquartile range
Testosterone
Longitudinal Studies
Child
skin and connective tissue diseases
medicine.diagnostic_test
Estradiol
Testosteron
Dihydrotestosterone
Gynäkomastie
Dihydrotestosteron
030220 oncology & carcinogenesis
Androgens
IGF‐1
Gynecomastia
Androgene
Insulin-like Growth Factor I
medicine.medical_specialty
oestrogens
Adolescent
030209 endocrinology & metabolism
gynaecomastia
pseudogynaecomastia
03 medical and health sciences
ddc:570
Internal medicine
Linear regression
Breast enlargement
medicine
Östrogene
Humans
ddc:610
Androstenedione
business.industry
Puberty
Estrogens
IGFBP‐3
business
DDC 610 / Medicine & health
Follow-Up Studies
Hormone
DOI: 10.18725/oparu-44451
Popis: Objective Gynaecomastia is frequent in pubertal boys and is regarded as a self‐limiting abnormality. However, longitudinal studies proving this hypothesis are scarce. Design Longitudinal follow‐up study (median 2.4, range 1.0‐4.8 years). Methods The regression of breast diameter was analysed in 31 pubertal boys aged 11.7‐16.1 (median 13.2) years with gynaecomastia. Furthermore, weight changes (as BMI‐SDS) and pubertal stage, oestradiol [E2], oestriol, oestrone, androstenedione, testosterone [T], dihydrotestosterone, gonadotropins, IGF‐1, and IGFBP‐3 serum concentrations determined at first clinical presentation were related to breast diameter regression determined by palpation and disappearance of breast glandular tissue in ultrasound in follow‐up to identify possible predictors of breast regression. Results During the observation period, the breast diameter decreased (in median −1 (interquartile range [IQR] −5 to +1) cm). At follow‐up, 6% of boys had no breast enlargement any more, and 65% developed lipomastia. Gynaecomastia was still present in 29%. None of the analysed hormones was related significantly to breast diameter regression or disappearance of breast glandular tissue. In multiple linear regression analyses adjusted for observational period, as well as age and BMI‐SDS at first presentation, changes in BMI‐SDS (β‐coefficient 6.0 ± 2.3, p = .015) but not the E2/T ratio or any other hormone determined at baseline was related to changes in breast diameter. Conclusions Breast diameter regression seems not to be predictable by a hormone profile in pubertal boys with gynaecomastia. In pubertal boys presenting with gynaecomastia, conversion to lipomastia of smaller volume is common. The reduction of weight status was the best predictor of breast diameter regression.
publishedVersion
Databáze: OpenAIRE