Probably benign breast masses at US: Is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy?

Radiology

Volumn 244, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 87-93

  Graf, Oswald ^a   Helbich, Thomas H ^b   Hopf, Gottfried ^a   Graf, Claudia ^a   Sickles, Edward A ^c  

^a ACC Steyr ^*  (Austria)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^c UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; APPARATUS; ARTICLE; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST FIBROADENOMA; BREAST TUMOR; CAMERA; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DEVICE; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; ECHOGRAPHY; FALSE NEGATIVE RESULT; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; IMAGE ANALYSIS; IMAGE RECONSTRUCTION; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MAMMOGRAPHY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY;

ADULT; AGED; BIOPSY; BREAST NEOPLASMS; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HUMANS; MAMMOGRAPHY; MIDDLE AGED; PALPATION; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 34250879119     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2441060258     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Occult cancer in women with dense breasts: detection with screening US - diagnostic yield and tumor characteristics. Radiology 1998;207:191-199.
2. Kolb TM, Lichy J, Newhouse JH. Comparison of the performance of screening mammography, physical examination, and breast US and evaluation of factors that influence them: an analysis of 27,825 patient evaluations. Radiology 2002;225: 163-175.
3. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of whole-breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-649.
4. Crystal P, Strano SD, Shcharynski S, Koretz MJ. Using sonography to screen women with mammographically dense breasts. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181: 177-182.
5. Leconte I, Feger C, Galant C, et al. Mammography and subsequent whole-breast sonography of nonpalpable breast cancers: the importance of radiologic breast density. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180: 1675-1679.
6. Berg WA, Campassi C, Ioffe O. Cystic lesions of the breast: sonographic-pathologic correlation. Radiology 2003;227:183-191.
7. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin North Am 2004;42:845-851.
8. Buchberger W, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Springer P, Obrist P, Dunser M. Incidental findings on sonography of the breast: clinical significance and diagnostic workup. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1999;173:921-927.
9. Buchberger W, Niehoff A, Obrist P, DeKoekkoek-Doll P, Dunser M. Clinically and mammographically occult breast lesions: detection and classification with high-resolution sonography. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:325-336.
10. American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS): ultrasound. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
11. Kopans DB, Monsees B, Feig SA. Screening for cancer: when is it valid? lessons from the mammography experience. Radiology 2003;229:319-327.
12. Kopans DB. Sonography should not be used for breast cancer screening until its efficacy has been proven scientifically. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;182:489-491.
13. Mendelson EB, Tobin CE. Critical pathways in using breast US. RadioGraphics 1995;15:935-945.
14. American College of Radiology. Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS): mammography. 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
15. Sickles EA. Periodic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-468.
16. Sickles EA. Probably benign lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999;213:11-14.
17. Sickles EA. Management of probably benign breast lesions. Radiol Clin North Am 1995;33:1123-1130.
18. Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:1195-1201.
19. Helvie MA, Pennes DR, Rebner M, Adler DD. Mammographic follow-up of low-suspicion lesions: compliance rate and diagnostic yield. Radiology 1991;178:155-158.
20. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992; 184:409-414.
21. 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; 219:475-483.
22. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BIRADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:691-695.
23. Hall FM. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions [letter]. Radiology 2000; 217:303-305.
24. Gordon PB, Gagnon FA, Lanzkowsky L. Solid breast masses diagnosed as fibroadenoma at fine-needle aspiration biopsy: acceptable rates of growth at long-term follow-up. Radiology 2003;229:233-238.
25. Lee CH, Philpotts LE, Horvath LJ, Tocino I. Follow-up of breast lesions diagnosed as benign with stereotactic core-needle biopsy: frequency of mammographic change and false-negative rate. Radiology 1999;212: 189-194.
26. Dent DM, Cant PJ. Fibroadenoma. World J Surg 1989;13:706-710.
27. Meyer JE, Frenna TH, Polger M, Sonnenfeld MR, Shaffer K. Enlarging occult fibroadenomas. Radiology 1992;183:639-641.
28. Helbich TH, Matzek W, Fuchsjager MH. Stereotactic and ultrasound-guided breast biopsy. Eur Radiol 2004;14:383-393.
29. Stamper PC, D'Souza DJ, DiNitto PA, Arredondo MA. Analysis of parenchymal density on mammograms in 1353 women 25-79 years old. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1261-1265.
30. Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Barclay J, Sickles EA, Ernster V. Effect of age, breast density, and family history on the sensitivity of first screening mammography. JAMA 1996;276:33-38.
31. Gordon PB, Goldenberg SL. Malignant breast masses detected only by ultrasound: a retrospective review. Cancer 1995;76: 626-630.
32. Kopans DB. Effectiveness of US breast cancer screening remains to be demonstrated [letter]. Radiology 2003;227:606; author reply 608-609.
33. Kopans DB. Breast sonographic screening is not ready for prime time [letter]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1426-1427; author reply 1427-1428.
34. Hall FM. Reply [letter]. Radiology 2003; 227:607-609.
35. Hall FM. Screening breast US [letter]. Radiology 2003;227:607-608; author reply 608-609.
36. Strano S, Crystal P. Adjunct sonography and not screening in cancer detection [letter]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:539; author reply 539-540.
37. Kopans DB. Reply [letter]. AJR 2004;183: 539.
38. Kopans DB. Breast imaging and the symptomatic patient: enough with the "diagnostic" mammography [letter]. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;181:1423; author reply 1423-1424.
39. Moy L, Slanetz PJ, Moore R, et al. Specificity of mammography and US in the evaluation of a palpable abnormality: retrospective review. Radiology 2002;225:176-181.
40. Baker JA, Soo MS. The evolving role of sonography in evaluating solid breast masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000; 21:286-296.
41. Stavros AT, Thickman D, Rapp CL, Dennis MA, Parker SH, Sisney GA. Solid breast, nodules: use of sonography to distinguish between benign and malignant lesions. Radiology 1995;196:123-134.
42. Houssami N, Irwig L, Simpson JM, McKessar M, Blome S, Noakes J. Sydney Breast. Imaging Accuracy Study: comparative sensitivity and specificity of mammography and sonography in young women with symptoms. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180:935-940.
43. Hong AS, Rosen EL, Soo MS, Baker JA. BI-RADS for sonography: positive and negative predictive values of sonographic features. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2005;184: 1260-1265.
44. Mainiero MB, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred? J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:161-167.
45. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213: 889-894.
46. Graf O, Helbich TM, Fuchsjeger MH, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed non-calcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004;233:850-856.
47. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjager MH, et al. Ultrasound follow-up of palpable solid, probably benign breast lesions (BI-RADS category III) [in German]. Rofo 2004;176: 1251-1256.
48. Berg WA, Gutierrez L, NessAiver MS, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of mammography, clinical examination, US, and MR imaging in preoperative assessment of breast cancer. Radiology 2004;233:830-849.
49. Mendelson EB, Berg WA, Merritt CR. Toward a standardized breast ultrasound lexicon, BI-RADS: ultrasound. Semin Roentgenol 2001;36:217-225.
50. Berg WA. Rationale for a trial of screening breast ultrasound: American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN) 6666. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003;180:1225-1228.