Gray-scale sonography of solid breast masses: Diagnosis of probably benign and reduction of the number of biopsies

Journal of Clinical Ultrasound

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 9-19

  Chala, Luciano ^a   Endo, Erica ^a   Kim, Su ^a   De Castro, Flávio ^a   Moraes, Paula ^a   Cerri, Giovanni ^a   De Barros, Nestor ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

Author keywords

Breast biopsy; Breast cancer; Breast masses; Mammography; Sonography

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST TUMOR; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; GRAY SCALE ECHOGRAPHY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; PERCUTANEOUS BIOPSY; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

EID: 33846221039     PISSN: 00912751     EISSN: 10970096     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jcu.20298     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. American Cancer Society. Cancer facts & figures. Atlanta (GA): American Cancer Society; 2006.
2. Tabar L, Vitak B, Chen HH, et al. The Swedish two-county trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:625.
3. Duffy SW, Tabar L, Chen HH, et al. The impact of organized mammography service screening on breast carcinoma mortality in seven Swedish counties. Cancer 2002;95:458.
4. Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1123.
5. Elmore JG, Barton MB, Moceri VM, et al. Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations. N Engl J Med 1998;338:1089.
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.
7. Sickles EA. Successful methods to reduce false-positive mammography interpretations. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:693.
8. Jackson VP. Management of solid breast nodules: what is the role of sonography? Radiology 1995;196:14.
9. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3, 184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463.
10. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184:409.
11. Sickles EA. Nonpalpable, circumscribed, noncalcified solid breast masses: likelihood of malignancy based on lesion size and age of patient. Radiology 1994;192:439.
12. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219:475.
13. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, et al. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:691.
14. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213:889.
15. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, et al. Solid breast nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123.
16. Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:109.
17. Kopans DB. More on sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:1159.
18. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US: diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207:191.
19. Teh W, Wilson AR. The role of ultrasound in breast cancer screening. A consensus statement by the European Group for Breast Cancer Screening. Eur J Cancer 1998;34:449.
20. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, et al. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921.
21. American College of Radiology. Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS™). 3rd edition. Reston (VA): American College of Radiology; 1998.
22. Jackson VP. The role of US in breast imaging. Radiology 1990;177:305.
23. Bassett LW, Kimme-Smith C. Breast sonography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1991;156:449.
24. Skaane P. Ultrasonography as adjunct to mammography in the evaluation of breast tumors. Acta Radiol 1999;420(Suppl):1.
25. Chao TC, Lo YF, Chen SC, et al. Prospective sonographic study of 3093 breast tumors. J Ultrasound Med 1999;18:363.
26. Fornage BD, Lorigan JG, Andry E. Fibroadenoma of the breast: sonographic appearance. Radiology 1989;172:671.
27. Adler DD, Hyde DL, Ikeda DM. Quantitative sonographic parameters as a means of distinguishing breast cancers from benign solid breast masses. J Ultrasound Med 1991;10:505.
28. Gufler H, Buitrago-Tellez CH, Madjar H, et al. Ultrasound demonstration of mammographically detected microcalcifications. Acta Radiol 2000;41:217.
29. Moon WK, Im JG, Koh YH, et al. US of mammographically detected clustered microcalcifications. Radiology 2000;217:849.
30. Omori LM, Hisa N, Ohkuma K, et al. Breast masses with mixed cystic-solid sonographic appearance. J Clin Ultrasound 1993;21:489.
31. Orel SG, Schnall MD, LiVolsi VA, et al. Suspicious breast lesions: MR imaging with radiologic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 1994;190:485.
32. Nunes LW, Schnall MD, Siegelman ES, et al. Diagnostic performance characteristics of architectural features revealed by high spatial-resolution MR imaging of the breast. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1997;169:409.
33. Liberman L, Abramson AF, Squires FB, et al. The breast imaging reporting and data system: positive predictive value of mammographic features and final assessment categories. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:35.
34. Orel SG, Kay N, Reynolds C, et al. BI-RADS categorization as a predictor of malignancy. Radiology 1999;211:845.
35. Baker JA, Soo MS. The evolving role of sonography in evaluating solid breast masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:286.