Characterization of breast masses with sonography: Can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred?

Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine

Volumn 24, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 161-167

  Mainiero, Martha B ^a   Goldkamp, Allison ^a   Lazarus, Elizabeth ^a   Livingston, Linda ^a   Koelliker, Susan L ^a   Schepps, Barbara ^a   Mayo Smith, William W ^a  

^a RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Breast biopsy; Breast cancer; Breast sonography

Indexed keywords

MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL IMAGING; PATHOLOGY; TISSUE CULTURE;

SOLID BREAST MASSES; SONOGRAPHY;

BIOPSY;

ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST TUMOR; CANCER CLASSIFICATION; CANCER CYTODIAGNOSIS; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HISTOPATHOLOGY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; SOLID TUMOR;

EID: 12744278326     PISSN: 02784297     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.7863/jum.2005.24.2.161     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Brown ML, Houn F, Sickles EA, Kessler LG. Screening mammography in community practice: positive predictive value of abnormal findings and yield of follow-up diagnostic procedures. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1995; 165:1373-1377.
2. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991; 179:463-468.
3. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Non-palpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414.
4. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994; 192:439-442.
5. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core breast biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997; 4:419-425.
6. Sickles EA. Probably benign breast lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999; 213:11-14.
7. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver MJ, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999; 213:413-422.
8. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995; 196:123-134.
9. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999; 213:889-894.
10. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A. Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging: comparison of mammography, ultrasonography and both combined in the interpretation of palpable noncalcified breast masses. Acta Radiol 1997; 38:497-502.
11. Taylor KJ, Merritt C, Piccoli C, et al. Ultrasound as a complement to mammography and breast examination to characterize breast masses. Ultrasound Med Biol 2002; 28:19-26.
12. Baker JA, Soo MS. The evolving role of sonography in evaluating solid breast masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000; 21:286-296
13. Skaane P, Endgedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998; 170:109-114.
14. Berg WA. Rationale for a trail of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:1225-1228.
15. Hall FM. Sonography of the breast: controversies and opinions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997; 169:1635-1636.
16. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002; 223:221-228.
17. American College of Radiology. BI-RADS-Ultrasound. 1st ed. Reston, VA, American College of Radiology. Available at: http://www.acr.org/s_acr/bin.asp? CID=882&DID=14558&DOC=FILE.PDF. Accessed October 6, 2004.
18. Rubin E. Six-month follow-up: an alternative view. Radiology 1999; 213:15-18.