Lupus mastitis in men

To analyze the pathophysiological aspects of lupus mastitis (LM), clinical presentation, epidemiology, radiological and histological findings, and treatment, to disseminate it to the academic community and draw attention to this pathology as one of the differential diagnoses in the management of breast lesions in males, especially in the case of breast cancer in men. A literature review was done by searching scientific studies in the PubMed / Medline, Scopus, Scielo, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. Relevant scientifically validated studies related to lupus mastitis in men were selected. The analysis, review and selection of articles carried out in pairs, blindly and separately, based on the reading of the title and abstract, with a third reviewer in case of disagreement. The LM should be suspect in patients known to have lupus erythematosus who present painful breast nodules associated with skin changes. However, LM can be the initial manifestation of lupus and mimic, both clinically and imaging, malignant neoplasms. The histopathological diagnostic criteria are well-established, finding mainly hyaline fat necrosis and lymphoplasmacytic infiltrate. Treatment must be drug-based as invasive procedures can exacerbate the injury. Due to physiological and anatomical aspects, this condition can appear and evolve differently in men. The knowledge of this pathology is necessary to carry out the correct approach since the non-identification of the disease and its erroneous management can lead to complications and irreversible sequelae to the patient.


Introduction
Lupus panniculitis or lupus profundus is a rare presentation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) or discoid lupus erythematosus (DLE), which affects about 2-3% of lupus patients and is more associated with the discoid form (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008).
It is the subcutaneous tissue acute or chronic inflammation promoted by the lupus autoimmune action (Kinonen et al., 2010). The first description was from Kaposi (1883), who reported the presence of subcutaneous nodules associated with SLE. Irgang (1940) described that the involvement of subcutaneous adipose tissue by SLE would be the lupus erythematosus profundus. Some authors use the terms lupus panniculitis and lupus erythematosus profundus as synonyms, while others claim that the presence of skin changes overlying the lesion is called lupus erythematosus profundus (Morgan & Callen, 2001). Arnold (1948) proposed the name lupus erythematosus profundus Kaposi-Irgang, called Irgang-Kaposi Syndrome by some authors (Guerre et al., 2009;Mosier et al., 2013;Sabaté et al., 2006).
Clinically and radiologically, LM presents as firm and painful breast subcutaneous nodules associated with overlying skin lesions (Summers et al., 2009). Because these findings mimic malignant conditions, histopathological analysis is necessary to exclude malignancies and confirm LM since the disease has well-defined histological diagnostic criteria (Cerveira et al., 2006;Summers et al., 2009).
The surgical trauma can exacerbate the disease, therefore, opting for minimally invasive diagnostic procedures and conservative treatment is the best choice. LM is a benign pathology with a great response to drug therapy, being essential to carry out a correct and accurate diagnostic approach (Bayar et al., 2007).
Due to the rarity of this type of lupus manifestation and, above all, in males, the present review aimed to analyze the pathophysiological aspects of the disease, epidemiology, clinical presentation, radiological and histopathological findings, differential diagnoses, and treatment. It is relevant to disseminate the LM before the academic community and draw the attention of this pathology as one of the differential diagnoses in the approach to breast lesions in men, especially in male breast cancer.

Methodology
The research and the literature review were carried out in the PubMed / Medline, Scopus, Scielo, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases, known as gray literature. Studies related to lupus mastitis in men were selected through the combination of indexes present in the MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) Platform -PubMed / Medline: Mastitis, Lupus erythematosus panniculitis, Breast diseases, Male breast neoplasms, Male breast tumors, Men's health. Relevant scientifically validated studies carried out in humans in the cohort modalities, systematic review, reviews, case-control, cross-sectional, case series, case reports, and randomized clinical trials were included. The analysis and selection of the articles were carried out in pairs, blindly and separately, based on the reading of the title and abstract, with a third reviewer in case of disagreement. Studies that addressed other topics involving SLE, and did not have a full text or at least one keyword in the title or abstract, were excluded from the research (Pereira et al., 2018).

Epidemiology
All ethnic groups, genders, and age groups are liable to develop lupus panniculitis and, consequently, LM. Lupus panniculitis occurs in about 2-3% of patients with lupus (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008). Although most cases of LM occur in adult women, due to the higher prevalence of lupus in women of childbearing age, men can also be affected (Mosier et al., 2013).
In the literature, there are around 50 published cases of LM, five of which in men (Kinonen et al., 2010;Sharma et al., 2020;Voizad et al., 2017;Warne et al., 2011). Therefore, a 9:1 ratio for women compared to men. Summers et al. (2009) also found this proportion.
Most male patients have a previous diagnosis of lupus, and one patient was diagnosed with LM being the first lupus manifestation (Kinonen et al., 2010;Thapa et al., 2016;Voizad et al., 2017).
The average age of men at the time of the LM diagnosis is 43.5 years (39-50 years). Thus, there is a higher prevalence of the diagnosis in middle-aged adults. In cases of previously diagnosed lupus, the time of evolution until the onset of LM is approximately 13 years in male patients (Martella et al., 2008). There is no description of these patients' ethnicity. Table 1 summarizes the epidemiological data of LM cases in men. Progressive and painful growth of the right breast for 6 months, hardened on palpation, without skin changes.

Fernandez-Flores
Male, 42 years old Not specified. Moderate and diffuse enlargement of the left breast, red and scaly plaque.
Lump in the left breast for three months, irregular and solid, measuring 2 x 2 cm, no skin changes. Ipsilateral axillary lymph node enlargement measuring 1.5 cm.

Male, 39 years old
No previous history of comorbidities. It was the first manifestation of the DLE.
Gradual increase of bilateral breast lumps for 18 months. Palpable subcutaneous mass, measuring 3 x 3 cm on the left and 2 x 2 cm on the right.

Winkelmann (1983)
Male, age not specified Not specified. Not specified.

Etiology / Pathophysiology
SLE is a chronic autoimmune disease with a heterogeneous presentation that affects the organism through autoantibodies and immune complexes. When there is only skin involvement, it is called DLE. Lupus panniculitis is a rare manifestation of SLE or DLE in the subcutaneous tissue, and when it affects the breasts is called lupus mastitis (LM) (Summers et al., 2009).
The evolution of LM can occur during or after the active course of SLE or be the first manifestation of lupus (Summers et al., 2009). In the literature, there are rare reports of LM as the primary manifestation of SLE or DLE. In male patients, there is only one report, described by Thapa et al. (2016).
The exact pathophysiology of lupus mastitis is undefined (Kinonen et al., 2010). According to Goulabchand et al. (2020), the immunomodulatory role of the mammary glands associates with the pathophysiology of autoimmune diseases. The principal evidence points to a relationship between LM and autoimmune activity, in which autoantibodies and immune complexes cause initial tissue damage in the breast (Summers et al., 2009).
In this regard, researchers proved the presence of immunocomplexes in the areas affected by LM through direct immunofluorescence of blood vessels and the dermis-epidermis junction of the basement membrane (Cerveira et al., 2006;Kinonen et al., 2010;Summers et al., 2009). Another point that confirms the autoimmune concept is that the indicated treatments are based on immunosuppression and obtain positive and scientifically validated results (Kinonen et al., 2010;Summers et al., 2009).
In patients with DLE, the involvement of the panniculus occurs from the propagation of the cutaneous inflammatory process, reaching subcutaneous and deep tissues (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002). In patients without a previous skin lesion, the deep inflammation of the panniculus adiposus results from lymphocytic vasculitis (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002).
In addition, it is possible to trigger or exacerbate the lesion after trauma, especially surgical trauma, such as performing a biopsy for LM histopathological confirmation (Cerveira et al., 2006;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002;Kinonen et al., 2010).
In acute cases, the lesion is painful, and the skin may be violet or erythematous. The presence of skin changes in LM increases the breast cancer similarity (Voizad et al., 2017).
In male patients, the most common complaints are progressive and diffuse growth of the subcutaneous mammary nodule, pain, hardened consistency, associated with skin erythema, and time of evolution between 3-18 months, from the beginning of the symptoms to medical care (Crevits et al., 2009;Fernandez-Flores et al., 2006;Martella et al., 2008;Thapa et al., 2016). Table 1 summarizes the clinical manifestations data of LM cases in men.
Because it is a chronic disease, during its course alternates periods of remission and recurrence of the lesion, in the same initial site or even in the contralateral breast (Kinonen et al., 2010;Mosier et al., 2013). When spontaneously regressing, it is possible to cause lipoatrophy areas and atrophic scar or even not to leave sequelae (Arsenovic, & Terzic, 2008;Kinonen et al., 2010;Mosier et al., 2013;Sabaté et al., 2006). In advanced cases and without the correct treatment, ulcerations, painful mass persistence, and skin retraction occur (Cho et al., 2008;Summers et al., 2009).
The association with lymph node enlargement, especially in the axillary region ipsilateral to the nodular lesion, can be found in some patients. In male patients, Martella et al. (2008) reported the presence of palpable ipsilateral axillary lymph node enlargement. Lymph node enlargements are reactive to the inflammatory process of LM, however, ruling out malignancy should only be done through histopathological analysis (Voizad et al., 2017).
Systemic symptoms of panniculitis are not usual and, when present, are related to other forms of SLE. Approximately 50% of patients with panniculitis have mild types of systemic lupus (Summers et al., 2009).
In the literature, although rare, there are reports of association of LM with other autoimmune diseases, such as polyarteritis nodosa (Vineetha et al., 2016). In men, mastitis was associated with the antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (Martella et al., 2008).
Among the serum tests, it is possible to observe the positivity of antinuclear antibodies, extractable nuclear antigens and anti-DNA antibodies, high erythrocyte sedimentation rate, and consumption of complement C4 (Guerre et al., 2009;Summers et al., 2009). The alteration in these exams has no diagnostic significance, and they are usually not measured (Summers et al., 2009). Research, Society and Development, v. 10, n. 7, e2210716182, 2021 (CC BY 4.0) | ISSN 2525-3409 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i7.16182 6 Thus, the initial diagnostic hypothesis of LM should be clinical, and the doctor must be attentive to the signs and symptoms of the disease to identify it early.

Radiology
In the clinical suspicion of LM, a radiological evaluation is mandatory. The most used and indicated imaging exams in a suspected breast lesion are mammography, ultrasound (US), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). It is interesting to associate more than one of the available methods to have more detailed analysis (Thapa et al., 2016).
Below are shown the main features found in each radiological method. Table 2 exposes the imaging tests performed and the imaging findings described in the published male LM cases.

Mammography
The affected breast presents an increase of tissue densification, with a heterogeneous, irregular, and ill-defined mass (Thapa et al., 2016). Initially, microcalcifications with thin and linear ramifications can exist, which gradually become more coarse to form the dystrophic calcifications characteristic of fat necrosis (Crevits et al., 2009;Lee et al., 2019;Mosier et al., 2013;Summers et al., 2009).
The initial density and calcification findings, especially with the fine linear features on mammography, mimics breast cancer (Mosier et al., 2013).

Breast ultrasound
The ultrasound findings show a heterogeneous subcutaneous mass, with irregular and ill-defined margins, hypoechoic in its initial phase (fibrotic phase) (Lee et al., 2019;Martella et al., 2008;Mosier et al., 2013). As the disease progresses, the lesion begins to have an acoustic shadow due to calcifications, and a hyperechoic focus, due to the infiltration of the subcutaneous cell tissue and the breast parenchyma (Mosier et al., 2013;Thapa et al., 2016;Voizad et al., 2017).
Other modifications are the lesion extension to the subcutaneous fat, the skin thickening overlying the lesion, and intralesional vascularization (Lee et al., 2019;Mosier et al., 2013;Summers et al., 2009;Thapa et al., 2016). The cutaneous alteration seen in the image must be carefully analyzed, as it may represent an advanced carcinoma manifestation (Cho et al., 2008;Sabaté et al., 2006).
In a male patient with bilateral breast lesions, Thapa et al. (2016) identified the presence of multiple small bilateral axillary and cervical lymph nodes with attenuation of the hilum on ultrasound examination.

Magnetic Resonance Imaging
There are few reports of its application in LM. Despite being convenient in assessing the extent of the lesion, cutaneous involvement (thickening), and response to treatment, it has low specificity in the differential diagnosis with malignancy (Cho et al., 2008;Mosier et al., 2013;Sabaté et al., 2006;Summers et al., 2009).
The T1 sequence shows an irregular, heterogeneous mass, with thick peripheral enhancement and an aspect of fat necrosis (Lee et al., 2019;Mosier et al., 2013;Sabaté et al., 2006;Summers et al., 2009;Thapa et al., 2016). At T2, the lesion shows signs of peripheral hypointensity and central hyperintensity (Sabaté et al., 2006;Thapa et al., 2016). Thapa et al. (2016) were the first to report the use of MRI in a male patient. Enhancement kinetics demonstrated a type 1 pattern, a feature of a benign lesion.

Biopsy / Histopathological
Because the association between clinical and radiological examinations is often inconclusive for LM and due to the high similarity to breast cancer, the biopsy assists in the correct diagnosis and avoids surgery in a disease with clinical treatment (Thapa et al., 2016). Table 3 shows the biopsy methods and the histopathological findings of published cases of LM in men.
The accomplishment of invasive procedures in the lupus lesion can exacerbate the disease and make healing difficult or provide a painful and chronic ulcer. In this sense, biopsies should perform through minimally invasive procedures ( show the potential risk of this surgical action (Kinonen et al., 2010;Lucivero et al., 2011). Therefore, it is necessary to institute an adequate diagnostic strategy to avoid multiple biopsies.
Lymphocytic vasculitis infiltrating small and medium caliber vessels may be present. Microcalcifications appear in advanced cases. Other findings are sclerosis, lobular and ductal atrophy, fibrosis, germinal centers, lymphoid follicles, mucin deposit, hyalinization of the subdermal papillary zones, and skin changes of the DLE (Kinonen et al., 2010;Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013;Summers et al., 2009).
There is a predominance in LM male patients of lymphocytic panniculitis and vasculitis, with lobular and septal lymphocytic infiltrate. Other changes found were hyaline fat necrosis, perivascular inflammation, presence of lymphoid follicles, vacuolar changes in the dermo-epidermal junction, and thickening of the basement membrane (Fernandez-Flores et al., 2006;Martella et al., 2008;Thapa et al., 2016).
Histopathological findings of LM are divided into major and minor criteria. Major criteria are hyaline fat necrosis, lymphocytic infiltrate with lymphoid nodules involving necrosis, lobular or periseptal panniculitis, and microcalcifications.
Minor criteria are lymphocytic vasculitis, mucin deposition, hyalinization of the subdermal papillary zones, and discoid lupus erythematosus alterations on the overlying skin (Cerveira et al., 2006).
In addition to collaborating in the differential diagnosis, the criteria are considered virtually pathognomonic for LM, and it is not necessary to have all the features to confirm the diagnosis (Cerveira et al., 2006;Voizad et al., 2017;Warne et al., 2011).
Thus, even in patients without a previous diagnosis of SLE or DLE, the findings strongly suggest the involvement of lupus panniculitis, with the doctor being responsible for the clinical and laboratory investigation of lupus and the follow-up of these patients.
The association between necrosis, sclerosis of the dermis collagen, and lymphocytic infiltrate is responsible for the hardened consistency of the lesion on clinical examination and increased breast densification in radiology (Nigar et al., 2007).
In the analysis by direct immunofluorescence, the LM findings show linear deposition of the IgM immunoglobulin and the C3 complement at the dermo-epidermal junction and around the blood vessels (Cernea et al., 1993;Cerveira et al., 2006).
Immunohistochemistry represents a significant aid in the differential diagnosis, especially in the differentiation of lymphoproliferative and oncological diseases from benign pathologies. The results reveal, in general, a combination of CD20+ B lymphocytes and CD3+ and CD4+ T lymphocytes (Kinonen et al., 2010). Fernández-Flores et al. (2006) analyzed immunohistochemistry in cases of LM in men and demonstrated the presence of type B (CD20+) and T (CD3+, CD4+, CD8-) lymphocytes and histiocytes (CD68+). In addition, they performed the analysis of a molecular study based on the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), showing polyclonal rearrangement of IgH (CDR2 and CDR3) and T-cell gamma-receptor (Fernandez-Flores et al., 2006).
PCR demonstrated polyclonal rearrangement of IgH (CDR2 and CDR3) and T-cell gamma-receptor

Thapa (2016)
Ultrasound-guided core biopsy: fibrofatty tissue infiltrated by lymphoplasmacytic cells with a lobular and septal distribution. Some vessels had sclerosis, edema, and lymphocytic infiltration

Differential diagnosis
For being a rare pathology, LM is often not remembered, making its diagnosis difficult. Despite the clinical evaluation associated with imaging and histopathological exams confirming the diagnosis, during its evolution phases, LM mimics malignant diseases. Thus, performing the differential diagnosis is essential.
The hypothesis of breast cancer should always be considered. Among the histological types, inflammatory and medullary breast carcinomas are the most similar to LM (Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013;Warne et al., 2011).
In the early stages, LM appears as a solitary nodule, hardened and associated with skin changes, making it even more similar clinically and radiologically to cancer (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Crevits et al., 2009;Martella et al., 2008;Thapa et al., 2016). Imaging exams do not contribute much to differentiation and, therefore, histology should rule out the presence of malignant cells (Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013;Warne et al., 2011).
When LM cutaneous alterations are present, such as redness and the "orange peel" aspect, the lesion simulates inflammatory breast carcinoma (Cernea et al., 1993;Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013). In imaging, both manifest as masses, densification, and microcalcifications (Voizad et al., 2017). MRI can be helpful to indicate, through post-contrast enhancement, the best site for biopsy in the malignancy suspicion (Voizad et al., 2017). Histopathological analysis reveals infiltration of tumor cells in the lymphatic vessels of the dermis (Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013).
The differential diagnosis with medullary carcinoma becomes most significant when the pathologist receives insufficient samples of the lesion and describes a predominance of peripheral lymphoplasmacytic reaction (Rosa & Mohammadi, the anatomopathological can help since the lesions of the medullary carcinoma are usually larger and delimited (Kinonen et al., 2010;Warne et al., 2011).
Breast lymphoma is usually metastatic non-Hodgkin lymphoma. On physical examination, it may manifest as a breast lump and be associated with ipsilateral axillary or generalized adenopathy (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002). Mammography usually shows single or multiple dense nodules, unilateral or bilateral. Calcifications and skin ulceration are not common (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002;Mosier et al., 2013). In histopathology, the presence of perivascular lymphocytic infiltration in breast tissues should increase the degree of the disease, while the presence of germinal centers contributes to the exclusion (Mosier et al., 2013;Summers et al., 2009;Georgian-Smith et al., 2020).
Immunohistochemical analysis is of great value in differential diagnosis (Mosier et al., 2013).
Although rare, a specific histological type of non-Hodgkin lymphoma, subcutaneous panniculitis-type T-cell lymphoma, can appear in the breast (Kinonen et al., 2010;Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013). Clinically similar to LM, it presents recurrent subcutaneous nodules associated with erythematous plaques (Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013). Histopathological examination shows a lobular lymphocytic infiltrate, simulating lobular panniculitis (Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013). Such lymphocytes appear to be atypical and larger than those found in LM, although there is a predominance of small and medium lymphocytes in the histological visualization (Kinonen et al., 2010).
Another difference for LM is the typical presence of coagulative fat necrosis and the absence of germinal centers (Kinonen et al., 2010;Mosier et al., 2013). Immunohistochemistry and T-cell receptor gene rearrangement collaborate to investigate and exclude the clonality of T-cells, which is present in lymphoma (Kinonen et al., 2010).
Granulomatous mastitis is a rare affection of the breasts, usually normal on mammography and clinically very similar to LM because it manifests remissions and exacerbations (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002). In histological examination, it presents a granulomatous reaction formed by lymphocytes, histiocytes, plasma cells, and, rarely, eosinophils, which may be associated with the erasure of the lobular architecture and the formation of microabscesses (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002). The cytological exam also shows to be helpful in the differential diagnosis with LM (Yip et al., 2000).
The diabetic mastopathy, as it evolves as a firm and painful palpable mass, is part of the differential diagnoses of LM, even though radiologically and laboratory tests can be ruled out, especially in patients known to be diabetic (Mosier et al., 2010;Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013).
Breast tuberculosis, depending on the endemic region of the disease, is also a differential diagnosis (Wani et al., 2009).
The association with laboratory and imaging tests is significant to assess the extra-mammary involvement by Mycobacterium tuberculosis. Histopathological examination reveals caseous necrosis and epithelioid cell granulomas (Mosier et al., 2013).
Granulomatous mastitis, diabetic mastopathy, and mammary tuberculosis have some characteristics in common. In these lesions, the masses do not show MRI enhancement, unlike LM, which presents post-contrast peripheral enhancement (Mosier et al., 2013). The marked histopathological difference of granulomatous diseases and diabetic mastopathy for LM is the absence of lymphocytic vasculitis and hyaline fat necrosis (Arsenovic & Terzic, 2008;Georgian-Smith et al., 2002;Mosier et al., 2013;Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013).
A localized form of scleroderma, morphea, in its stage of lipoatrophy also characterizes a differential diagnosis of LM.

Treatment / Follow-up
After the diagnosis, the initial treatment should be clinical. The use of hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial, is considered the first therapeutic option (Cerveira et al., 2006;Dandinoglu et al., 2013;Voizad et al., 2017). The recommended dose for LM treatment is 200mg/day (Summers et al., 2009). In men, there is a good response of LM after the institution of the antimalarial therapy, and remission is expected 3 to 6 months after the beginning of clinical treatment (Cernea et al., 1993;Summers et al., 2009;Thapa et al., 2016). Table 4 summarizes the treatment and follow-up used in published cases of LM in men.
The combination with systemic corticosteroids is indicated in cases without response to antimalarials and may use prednisone at a dose of 1mg/kg/day (Summers et al., 2009). Thapa et al. (2016) associated hydroxychloroquine and prednisolone, obtaining good results in a male patient. The application of topical corticosteroids is not effective in controlling the disease (Summers et al., 2009;Voizad et al., 2017).
For lesions unresponsive to the initial management and to avoid chronic corticosteroids use, immunosuppressants such as cyclophosphamide and intralesional triamcinolone acetonide may be applied (Castro et al., 2004;Cernea et al., 1993;Mosier et al., 2013).
Other corticosteroid-sparing immunosuppressive drugs used in the treatment of lupus and amenable to application in LM are methotrexate and azathioprine, although their use in LM in men has not yet been reported (Yan et al., 2020). Some studies mention the possibility of using dapsone and thalidomide, especially if there are adverse reactions to hydroxychloroquine (Fernandez-Torres et al., 2009;Rosa & Mohammadi, 2013).
Surgical treatment through mastectomy should be avoided since surgical trauma can favor the progression and the disease worsening. Surgical procedures are reserved only for cases clinically refractory to drug therapies and in situations where there is a high suspicion of malignancy (Bayar et al., 2007;Castro et al., 2004;Cerveira et al., 2006;Dandinoglu et al., 2013;Summers et al., 2009).
The follow-up of the patient is necessary to monitor the evolution of the condition and possible recurrences. MRI plays a relevant role in the LM patient's follow-up. As treatment starts, the peripheral enhancement of the lesion becomes more tenuous and discontinuous (Lee et al., 2019;Mosier et al., 2013). Thapa et al. (2016) reported an expressive improvement in the symptoms and the ultrasound aspect of the breast in 45 days after the treatment institution.

Thapa (2016)
Hydroxychloroquine and Prednisolone Significant reduction of the swelling and pain after 45 days of treatment. Ultrasound showed a decrease in the size of the lesion.

Conclusion
LM is a rare form of lupus erythematosus profundus that affects patients with SLE or DLE and maybe the first manifestation of the disease. Clinically it appears like a breast mass associated with local inflammatory signs, and the differential diagnosis with breast cancer is necessary and challenging.
The clinical-radiological correlations are significant to direct the investigation and suggest a biopsy through minimally invasive procedures to avoid exacerbation and worsening of the lesion. The presence of lymphocytic infiltration and hyaline fat necrosis in the histopathology, associated with the clinical history, permits the pathologist to diagnose the LM.
Prior knowledge of the condition allows the development of a hypothesis, the correct diagnostic investigation, and, consequently, early treatment, avoiding the worsening of the disease. The treatment of choice should be antimalarials and associated with corticosteroids if refractory or recurrent disease.
Although breasts are more related to women, socially, emotionally, physiologically, and anatomically, men can also suffer from breast disorders. Care is essential, and it is up to the physician to perceive LM in the early stages and provide an appropriate therapeutic approach.
For the future, randomized trials and systematic reviews with meta-analysis are of great value to guide a better approach to the patient with lupus mastitis, aiming at an early and correct diagnosis and adequate disease control with fewer exacerbations, complications, and sequelae.