Palpable breast masses with probably benign morphology at sonography: Can biopsy be deferred?

Acta Radiologica

Volumn 49, Issue 10, 2008, Pages 1104-1111

  Park, Y M ^a   Kim, E K ^b   Lee, J H ^b   Ryu, J H ^b   Han, S S ^b   Choi, S J ^b   Lee, S J ^b   Yoon, H K ^b  

^a Inje University   (South Korea)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Biopsy; Breast; Ultrasound

Indexed keywords

ACOUSTIC WAVES; MORPHOLOGY; NEEDLES; ULTRASONIC APPLICATIONS; ULTRASONIC IMAGING; ULTRASONICS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY;

BENIGN LESIONS; BI-RADS; BREAST; BREAST MASSES; CONFIDENCE INTERVALS; DATA REPORTING; MEAN AGES; NEEDLE BIOPSIES; NEGATIVE PREDICTIVE VALUES; NEGATIVE RATES; P VALUES; SONOGRAPHIC; STATISTICAL SOFTWARE PACKAGES; ULTRASOUND;

BIOPSY;

ADENOMYOEPITHELIOMA; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ARTICLE; BIOPSY; BREAST; BREAST DISEASE; BREAST PAPILLOMA; BREAST TUMOR; CHILD; DIFFERENTIAL DIAGNOSIS; ECHOMAMMOGRAPHY; FEMALE; FIBROADENOMA; FOLLOW UP; HAMARTOMA; HUMAN; MIDDLE AGED; NEEDLE BIOPSY; PATHOLOGY; PREDICTION AND FORECASTING;

ADENOMYOEPITHELIOMA; ADOLESCENT; ADULT; BIOPSY; BIOPSY, FINE-NEEDLE; BIOPSY, NEEDLE; BREAST; BREAST DISEASES; BREAST NEOPLASMS; CHILD; DIAGNOSIS, DIFFERENTIAL; FEMALE; FIBROADENOMA; FOLLOW-UP STUDIES; HAMARTOMA; HUMANS; MIDDLE AGED; PAPILLOMA, INTRADUCTAL; PREDICTIVE VALUE OF TESTS; ULTRASONOGRAPHY, MAMMARY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 56749104278     PISSN: 02841851     EISSN: 16000455     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02841850802438504     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. American College of Radiology. Breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS). 4th edition. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
2. Sickles EA. Periodic mammographic follow-up of probably benign lesions: results in 3,184 consecutive cases. Radiology 1991;179:463-8.
3. Varas X, Leborgne F, Leborgne JH. Nonpalpable, probably benign lesions: role of follow-up mammography. Radiology 1992;184:409-14.
4. Sickles EA, Parker SH. Appropriate role of core breast biopsy in the management of probably benign lesions. Radiology 1993; 188:315.
5. Sickles EA. Probably benign lesions: when should follow-up be recommended and what is the optimal follow-up protocol? Radiology 1999;213:11-4.
6. Hall FA. Follow-up of probably benign breast lesions. Radiology 2000;217:303-5.
7. Adler DD, Helvie MA, Ikeda DM. Nonpalpable, probably benign breast lesions: follow-up strategies after initial detection on mammography. Am J Roentgenol 1990;155:1195-201.
8. Vizcaino I, Gadea L, Andreo L, Salas D, Ruiz-Perales F, Cuevas D, et al. Short-term follow-up results in 795 nonpalpable probably benign lesions detected at screening mammography. Radiology 2001;219:475-83.
9. Varas X, Leborgne JH. Leborgne F, Mezzera J, Jaumandreu S, Leborgne F. Revisiting the mammographie follow-up of BI-RADS category 3 lesions. Am J Roentgenol 2002;179:691-5.
10. 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;196:123-34.
11. Graf O, Helbich TH, Fuchsjaeger MH, Hopf G, Morgun M, Graf C, et al. Follow -up of palpable circumscribed noncalcified solid breast masses at mammography and US: can biopsy be averted? Radiology 2004;233:850-6.
12. Yang WT, Mok CO, King W, Tang A, Metreweli C. Role of high frequency ultrasonography in the evaluation of palpable breast masses in Chinese women: alternative to mammography? J Ultrasound Med 1996; 15:637-44.
13. Madjar H, Ladner HA, Sauerbrei W, Oberstein A, Prompeler H, Pfleiderer A. Preoperative staging of breast cancer by palpation, mammography and high-resolution ultrasound. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1993;3:185-90.
14. Skaane P, Engedal K. Analysis of sonographic features in the differentiation of fibroadenoma and invasive ductal carcinoma. Am J Roentgenol 1998;170:109-14.
15. Mendelson EB. Problem-solving ultrasound. Radiol Clin N Am 2004;42:909-18.
16. 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: 87-93.
17. 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.
18. Baker JA, Soo MS. The evolving role of sonography in evaluating solid breast masses. Semin Ultrasound CT MR 2000;21:286-96.
19. Burnside ES, Hall TJ, Sommer AM, Hesley GK, Sisney GA, Svensson WF, et al. Differentiating benign from malignant solid breast masses with US strain imaging. Radiology 2007;245:401-10.
20. American College of Radiology: Illustrated breast imaging reporting and data system (BI-RADS): ultrasound. 1st edition. Reston, VA: American College of Radiology; 2003.
21. Rahbar G, Sie AC, Hansen GC, Prince JS, Melany ML, Reynolds HE, et al. Benign versus malignant solid breast masses: US differentiation. Radiology 1999;213: 889-94.
22. Morris KT, Pommier RF, Morris A, Schmidt WA, Beagle G, Alexander PW, et al. Usefulness of the triple test score for palpable breast masses. Arch Surg 2001; 136:1008-12.
23. Leung JW, Sickles EA. Multiple bilateral masses detected on screening mammography: assessment of need for recall imaging. Am J Roentgenol 2000;175:23-9.
24. Berg WA. Supplemental screening sonography in dense breasts. Radiol Clin N Am 2004;42:845-51.
25. Lindfors KK, O'Connor J, Acredolo CR, Liston SE. Short-interval follow-up versus immediate core biopsy of benign breast lesions: assessment of patient stress. Am J Roentgenol 1998;171:55-8.
26. Christiansen CL, Wang F. Barton MB, Kreuter W, Elmore JG, Gelfand AE, et al. Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms. J Natl Cancer Inst 2000;92:1657-66.
27. Brenner RJ, Pfaff JM. Mammographic changes after excisional breast biopsy for benign disease. Am J Roentgenol 1996;167:1047-52.
28. Moskowitz M. Positive predictive values for mammographically detected carcinomas (letter). Am J Roentgenol 1992;158:688-9.
29. Zonderland HM, Coerkamp EG, Hermans J, van de Vijver, van Voorthuisen AE. Diagnosis of breast cancer: contribution of US as an adjunct to mammography. Radiology 1999;213:413-22.
30. Coveney EC, Geraghty JG, O'Laoide R, Hourihane JB, O'Higgins NJ. Reasons underlying negative mammography in patients with palpable breast cancer. Clin Radiol 1994;49:123-5.
31. Kaplan SS. Clinical utility of bilateral whole breast US in the evaluation of women with dense breast tissue. Radiology 2001;221:641-9.
32. Alagaratnam TT, Wong J. Limitations of mammography in Chinese females. Clin Radiol 1985;36:175-7.
33. Rotten D, Levaillant JM. The value of ultrasonic examination to detect and diagnose breast carcinomas. Analysis of the results obtained in 125 tumors using radiographic and ultrasound mammography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1992;2:203-14.
34. Mainiero M, Goldkamp A, Lazarus E, Livingston L, Koelliker SL, Schepps B, et al. Characterization of breast masses with sonography: can biopsy of some solid masses be deferred? J Ultrasound Med 2005;24:161-7.
35. Lazarus E, Mainiero MB, Schepps B, Koelliker SL, Livingston LS. BI-RADS lexicon for US and mammography: interobserver variability and positive predictive value. Radiology 2006;239:385-91.
36. Stavros AT. Ultrasound of solid breast nodules: distinguishing benign from malignant. In: Stavros AT, editor. Breast ultrasound. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 445-525.
37. 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;212:189-94.
38. Comstock CE. US-guided interventional procedures. In: Feig SA, editor. 2005 syllabus: categorical course in diagnostic radiology-breast imaging. Oak Brook, IL: Radiological Society of North America; 2005. p. 155-68.
39. Liberman L. Dershaw DD, Glassman JR, Abramson AF, Morris EA, LaTrenta LR, et al. Analysis of cancers not diagnosed at stereotactic core breast biopsy. Radiology 1997;203:151-7.