scholarly journals COVID-19 Vaccination and Subclinical Axillary Lymphadenopathy on Mammogram: correspondence

Author(s):  
Rujittika Mungmunpuntipantip ◽  
Viroj Wiwanitkit
2018 ◽  
Vol 80 (6) ◽  
pp. 535-538
Author(s):  
Keita TSUTSUI ◽  
Monji KOGA ◽  
Kaori KOGA ◽  
Morishige TAKESHITA ◽  
Shinichi IMAFUKU

2008 ◽  
Vol 34 (10) ◽  
pp. 1172
Author(s):  
Amit Nair ◽  
S. Jaleel ◽  
V. Sathya ◽  
N. Aluwihare ◽  
B. Isgar

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-74
Author(s):  
Tapesh Kumar Paul ◽  
Mosammat Mira Pervin

Secondary in the breast is a very rare condition but may occur usually from contralateral breast and from others like lymphoma, melanoma, ovarian tumors, and pulmonary malignancies and  malignancies of the gastrointestinal and genitourinary tract. Among the primary diseases, melanoma is notorious and unpredictable in its metastatic potentiality and organ of dissemination. There are few reported cases with metastatic melanoma in the breast. We report a case of metastatic deposits in the breasts of a 45year-old lady who presented with bilateral breast lumps with axillary lymphadenopathy having no primary site of melanoma. Journal of Surgical Sciences (2015) Vol. 19 (2) : 72-74


Mastology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Suppl 1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Clarke ◽  
Carolina Nazareth Valadares ◽  
Douglas de Miranda Pires ◽  
Nayara Carvalho de Sá

Introduction: Occult breast carcinoma is a rare presentation of breast cancer, with histological evidence of axillary lymph node involvement and clinical and radiological absence of malignant breast lesions. Its survival is similar to that of the usual presentation. The treatment consists of modified radical mastectomy or axillary drainage with breast irradiation, resulting in similar survival, associated with systemic therapy according to the staging. Neoadjuvant therapy should be considered in N2-3 axillary cases. Differential diagnoses of axillary lymphadenopathies include: non-granulomatous causes (reactive, lymphoma, metastatic carcinoma) and granulomatous causes (infectious – toxoplasmosis, tuberculosis, sarcoidosis, atypical mycobacteria). Objectives: To report the case of a patient who needed a differential diagnosis among the various causes of axillary lymphadenopathy. Methods: This is a literature review conducted in the PubMed database, using the keywords "granulomatous lymphadenitis", "breast sarcoidosis", "occult breast cancer". Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. Case report: V.F.S., female, 51 years old, was referred to an evaluation of axillary lymphadenopathy in May 2019. She was followed by the department of pulmonology due to mediastinal sarcoidosis since 2017. Physical examination indicated breasts without changes. Axillary lymph nodes had increased volume and were mobile and fibroelastic. Mammography revealed only axillary lymph nodes with bilaterally increased density, and the ultrasound showed the presence of atypical bilateral lymph nodes. Neither presented breast lesions. Axillary lymph node core biopsy was compatible with granulomatous lymphadenitis. This result corroborates the diagnosis of sarcoidosis affecting peripheral lymph nodes. The patient was referred back to the department of pulmonology, with no specific treatment since she is oligosymptomatic. Discussion: Despite the context of benign granulomatous disease, malignancy overlying the condition of sarcoidosis must be ruled out. The biopsy provided a safe and definitive diagnosis, excluding the possibility of occult breast carcinoma. The patient will continue to undergo breast cancer screening as indicated for her age and usual risk. Conclusion: In the presentation of axillary lymphadenopathy, the mastologist must know the various diagnoses to be considered. The most feared include lymphoma and carcinoma metastasis with occult primary site. A proper workup can determine the diagnosis and guide the appropriate treatment.


2021 ◽  
pp. 089033442110565
Author(s):  
Jia Ming Low ◽  
Le Ye Lee ◽  
Yvonne Peng Mei Ng ◽  
Youjia Zhong ◽  
Zubair Amin

Background: Pre-approval clinical trials of the Pfizer/BioNTech messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine, BNT162b2 did not include participants who were breastfeeding. Therefore, there is limited evidence about outcomes of breastfeeding mother–child dyads and effects on breastfeeding after vaccination. Research Aims: To determine: (1) solicited adverse effects (e.g., axillary lymphadenopathy, mastitis, and breast engorgement), which are unique to lactating individuals; and (2) systemic and local adverse effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine on mothers and potential effects on their breastfed infants. Method: This was a prospective cohort study of lactating healthcare workers ( N = 88) in Singapore who received two doses of BNT162b2 vaccination (Pfizer/BioNTech). The outcomes of mother–child dyads within 28 days after the second vaccine dose were determined through a participant-completed questionnaire. Results: Minimal effects related to breastfeeding were reported by this cohort; three of 88 (3.4%) participants had mastitis, one (1.1%) participant experienced breast engorgement, five of 88 (5.7%) participants reported cervical or axillary lymphadenopathy. There was no change in human milk supply after vaccination. The most common side effect was pain/redness/swelling at the injection site, which was experienced by 57 (64.8%) participants. There were no serious adverse events of anaphylaxis or hospital admissions. There were no short-term adverse effects reported in the infants of 67 lactating participants who breastfed within 72 hr after BNT162b2 vaccination. Conclusions: BNT162b2 vaccination was well tolerated in lactating participants and was not associated with short-term adverse effects in their breastfed infants. Study Protocol Registration: The study protocol was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04802278).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document