Sonographic criteria for differentiation of benign and malignant solid breast lesions: Size is of value;Criteri ecografici nella diagnosi differenziale tra lesioni solide mammarie benigne e maligne: La dimensione è rilevante

Radiologia Medica

Volumn 111, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 783-796

  Del Frate, Chiara ^a   Bestagno, A ^a   Cerniato, R ^a   Soldano, F ^a   Isola, M ^a   Puglisi, F ^a   Bazzocchi, M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL OF UDINE   (Italy)

Author keywords

Breast; Breast carcinoma; Sonographic findings; Sonography

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST ADENOMA; BREAST CARCINOMA; BREAST LESION; CANCER SIZE; CLASSIFICATION; CLINICAL FEATURE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; HISTOPATHOLOGY; IMAGE ANALYSIS; MEDICAL ASSESSMENT; MORPHOLOGICAL TRAIT; OBSERVER VARIATION; PERCEPTION; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; STATISTICAL MODEL; TUMOR VOLUME;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES;

EID: 33749329769     PISSN: 00338362     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11547-006-0072-x     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. Smith DN (2001) Breast ultrasound. Radiol Clin North Am 39:485-497
2. Rizzatto G, Chersevani R (1998) Breast ultrasound and new technologies. Eur J Radiol 27:S242-S249
3. Jackson VP (1995) The current role of ultrasonography in breast imaging. Radiol Clin North Am 33:1161-1170
4. Doratiotto S, Bazzocchi M, De Candia A et al (2002) Ecografia compound digitale (SonoCT). In: Bazzocchi M (ed) Ecografia. Idelson-Gnocchi, Napoli, pp 89-108
5. Huber S, Wagner M, Medl M et al (2002) Real-time compound imaging in breast ultrasound. Ultrasound Med Biol 28(2):155-163
6. Oliva L (1994) Il significato degli artefatti in ecotomografia. In: Bazzocchi M (ed) Ecografia. Idelson-Gnocchi, Napoli, pp 31-45
7. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL et al (1995) Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 196:123-134
8. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen C et al (1999) Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentation. Radiology 213:889-894
9. Baker JA, Kornguth PJ, Soo MS et al (1999) Sonography of solid breast lesions: Observer variability of lesion description and assessment. AJR Am J Roentgenol 172:1621-1625
10. Skaane P, Engedal K, Skjennald A (1997) Interobserver variation in the interpretation of breast imaging. Acta Radiol 38:497-502
11. Landis JR, Koch GG (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33:159-174
12. Blohmer J, Schmalisch G, Kurten A (1997) Relevance of sonographic criteria for differential diagnosis of mammary tumours. Eur J Ultrasound 6:35-41
13. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH (1998) Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: Detection with screening US - Diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 207:191-199
14. Jackson VP (1990) The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology 177:305-311
15. Cole-Beuglet C, Soriano RZ, Kurtz AB, Goldberg BB (1983) Ultrasound analysis of 104 primary breast carcinomas classified according to histopathologic type. Radiology 147:191-196
16. Jackson VP, Rothschild PA, Kreipke DL et al (1986) The spectrum of sonographic findings of fibroadenoma of the breast. Invest Radiol 21:34-40
17. Fornage BD (2000) Recent advances in breast sonography. JBR-BTR 83:75-80
18. Rizzatto G (2001) Towards a more sophisticated use of breast ultrasound. Eur Radiol 11:2425-2435
19. Skaane P, Engedal K (1998) Analysis of sonographic features in the differentation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 170:109-114
20. Zonderland HM, Hermans J, Coerkamp EG (2000) Ultrasound variables and their prognostic value in a population of 1103 patients with 272 breast cancers. Eur Radiol 10:1562-1568