BI-RADS 3, 4, and 5 lesions: Value of US in management - Follow-up and outcome

Radiology

Volumn 248, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 773-781

  Raza, Sughra ^a   Chikarmane, Sona A ^a   Neilsen, Sarah S ^b   Zorn, Lisa M ^a   Birdwell, Robyn L ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b MARSHFIELD CLINIC   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; ARTICLE; ASPIRATION BIOPSY; BENIGN TUMOR; BREAST BIOPSY; BREAST CANCER; BREAST TUMOR; CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DIAGNOSTIC ACCURACY; DIAGNOSTIC IMAGING; DIAGNOSTIC VALUE; DISEASE CLASSIFICATION; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALIGNANT NEOPLASTIC DISEASE; MEDICAL RECORD REVIEW; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; CLASSIFICATION; ECHOGRAPHY; METHODOLOGY; MIDDLE AGED; PATHOLOGY; REPRODUCIBILITY; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; BREAST NEOPLASMS; FEMALE; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SENSITIVITY AND SPECIFICITY; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY;

EID: 51549092594     PISSN: 00338419     EISSN: 15271315     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1148/radiol.2483071786     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179(2):463-468.
2. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184(2):409-414.
3. 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(2):475-483.
4. Varas X, Leborgne JH, Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographic follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2002;179(3):691-695.
5. 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(1):123-134.
6. Soo MS, Rosen EL, Baker JA, Vo TT, Boyd BA. Negative predictive value of sonography with mammography in patients with palpable breast lesions. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2001;177(5):1167-1170.
7. Dennis MA, Parker SH, Klaus AJ, Stavros AT, Kaske TI, Clark SB. Breast biopsy avoidance: the value of normal mammograms and normal sonograms in the setting of a palpable lump. Radiology 2001;219(1):186-191.
8. Shetty MK, Shah YP. Prospective evaluation of the value of negative sonographic and mammographic findings in patients with palpable abnormalities of the breast. J Ultrasound Med 2002;21(11):1211-1216.
9. Graf O, Helbich TM, Fuchsjaeger MH, et al. Follow-up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004;233(3):850-856.
10. 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(2):161-167.
11. Graf O, Helbich TH, Hopf G, Graf C, Sickles EA. Probably benign breast masses at US: is follow-up an acceptable alternative to biopsy? Radiology 2007;244(1):87-93.
12. 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(1):176-181.
13. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Acredolo CR, Liston SE. Short-interval follow-up mammography versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;171(1):55-58.
14. Lindfors KK, Rosenquist CJ. Needle core biopsy guided with mammography: a study of cost-effectiveness. Radiology 1994;190(1):217-222.
15. Brenner RJ, Sickles EA. Surveillance mammography and stereotactic core needle biopsy for probably benign lesions: a cost comparison analysis. Acad Radiol 1997;4(6):419-425.
16. D'Orsi CJ, Bassett LW, Berg WA, et al. Mammography. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
17. Mendelson EB, Baum JK, Berg WA, Merritt CR, Rubin E. Ultrasound. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
18. Ikeda DM, Hylton MN, Kuhl CK, et al. Magnetic resonance imaging. In: Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS). 4th ed. Reston, Va: American College of Radiology, 2003.
19. Rosen EL, Baker JA, Soo MS. Malignant lesions initially subjected to short-term mammographic follow-up. Radiology 2002;223(1):221-228.
20. Berg WA, Blume JD, Cormack JB, Mendelson EB. Operator dependence of physician-performed whole-breast US: lesion detection and characterization. Radiology 2006;241(2):355-365.
21. Lazarus E, Mainiero M, Schepps B, Koeliker S, Livingston L. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239(2):385-391.
22. Goodman KA, Birdwell RL, Ikeda DM. Compliance with recommended follow-up after percutaneous breast core biopsy. AJR Am J Roentgenol 1998;170(1):89-92.